how-to block ads
|
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
1 edit | reply to Name Game
Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!
said by Name Game  :I am not currently nor have I ever been a foreign terrorist target. Nor would I "trade" with any politician details on Surveillance of those targets. Can you prove that or do we just have to accept your word for it?  Would you be willing to testify under oath to that effect? 
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to point out that this story was initially written by two Washington Post reporters and is actually to be found on the front page of Sunday's edition of the Post. See »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···349.html .
"Detrimental rulings
But in a secret ruling in March, a judge on a special court empowered to review the electronic snooping challenged for the first time the government's ability to collect data from such wires even when they came from foreign terrorist targets. In May, a judge on the same court went further, telling the administration the law's wording required the government to get a warrant whenever a fixed wire was involved.
The decisions had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber on U.S. soil, a task so time-consuming that a backlog developed." . . . In time, I suspect we will be told that's not exactly what the Court ruled. But rather that the Court ruled that the methods being used by the Government to do such collection were illegal without a warrant. And, rather than change their methods, the Government decided to misrepresent the nature of the Court's decision and, in effect, 'go over the head' of the Court -- to the Congress.
Now, why do I maintain the Court's actual decision is being misrepresented? Well, if it really was as portrayed, it's nonsensical -- there's no such restriction (grounds) even remotely justifiable under the terms of the FISA Act and the FISA Court has never taken it upon itself to make 'new' law. As such, the Administration only needed to appeal to the Court of Review which would have promptly overturned such a hare-brained ruling. To date, I've seen no indication that the Administration even bothered to appeal the decision to the Court of Review. Consequently, I deduce that the grounds for the decision were very well founded and the Administration recognized that the Court of Review would likely uphold the decision of the FISA Court; i.e., the original ruling was apparently far from hare-brained, regardless of how it's since been portrayed.
Apparently, persons on the relevant Congressional Committees had similar questions; they asked for a description of the program and for a copy of the Court's ruling in order to better address the problem while revising the FISA Act. (And the FISA Act has already been at least twice amended since 9/11.)
"You give us the documents we want, and we'll give you the legislation," the senators said, according to an administration official present, who said the response was "no." With me so far? (Believe it or not, the point of the above exposition is to lay some background as to why the discussion of this program is appropriate in this forum. )
The focus of our discussion therefore needs to address the methods being used to implement this program. The legality of the program (especially under the FISA Act as was in effect at that time) is no longer at issue and the Court's decision has not been challenged.
I suspect the details we would like to address have both privacy and security aspects. It's very difficult (with no authoritative information) however to address these issues, but I believe it's reasonable to be very concerned about both aspects, just as was true with the earlier Echelon and Carnivore programs.
More information will start to leak out on this program shortly, so it's basically just a matter of waiting for it.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris | |
Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
| said by jvmorris :More information will start to leak out on this program shortly, so it's basically just a matter of waiting for it. I just wanted to leak out I am not a target so others do not have to increase the natural email enhancement to their congressmen on my behalf.
****************************
"A White House official said the push was driven by genuine concerns by Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, for the government's ability to conduct terrorist surveillance.
“There was no real argument on the need for a fix” between Democrats and Republicans, the White House official said. “He’s a straight shooter.”
The prelude to approval of the plan occurred in January, when the administration agreed to put the wiretapping program under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The court is charged with guarding against governmental spying abuses. Officials say one judge issued a ruling in January that allowed the administration to continue the program under the court’s supervision.
A ruling a month or two later — the judge who made it and its exact timing are not clear — restricted the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches” on American soil.
The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the ability to intercept foreign-based communications “kept getting ratcheted down,” said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because the account involved classified material. “ We were to a point where we were not effectively operating.”
Mr. McConnell, lead negotiator for the administration in lobbying for the bill, said in an interview that the court’s restrictions had made his job much more difficult.
“It was crazy, because I’m sitting here signing out warrants on known Al Qaeda operatives that are killing Americans, doing foreign communications,” he said. “And the only reason I’m signing that warrant is because it touches the U.S. communications infrastructure. That’s what we fixed.”
In April, Mr. McConnell began talking with lawmakers in classified meetings about that “intelligence gap” and alluded to it publicly, too. At the time, the administration proposed sweeping measures to “modernize” the foreign surveillance law, a much broader proposal in some respects than what Congress approved.
»www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washi···.html?hp
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/ | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| "That's what we fixed."
Of course, they also "fixed" the ability of any other court in the land from being able to deal with this issue (from the bill itself on Thomas):
" `(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section."
They also "fixed" people or organizations that don't want to comply:
"`(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found."
They also managed to "fix" the six month sunset:
"(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act , and the amendments made by this Act , shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act .
(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act , and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f))."
(Expect a landslide of "requests" right before it sunsets).
How long could that be, you ask?
"Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act ;
`(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;
`(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;
`(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
`(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h)."
I bolded no. 2 there because it sticks in my craw, being the absurdity that it is and the pivotal point of the absurdity of the whole damned bill - If this isn't "electronic surveillance" - then what the hell IS it? Are they reading smoke signals? Snatching up messages at dead drops? Of course not. It's simply the latest way the administration bends reality and truth to get what they want.
It's electronic surveillance (unless they don't want it to be) - or conversely, it's not electronic surveillance (unless they do want it to be). Nothing like having your cake and eating it too, is there?
I won't even get into the jokes residing in the "appeal" process - try reading the actual bill itself for those chuckles.
The bill is a POS from a privacy/rights viewpoint - to claim otherwise is a reflection of not being able to read the plain English of the bill itself.
Just carefully read the damned thing and think about what you're reading and how it can be mis-used and the mis-use thereof covered up.
I'm quite sure I'll be back before and during the re-authorization proceedings beginning.
But as for this thread - I'm not seeing any way I could explain this any better than I and others already have.
Y'all have fun. Pete | |
jvmorris
I Am The Man Who Was Not There.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA
| Ummm, just for reference purposes, I have the passed version of the bill as S.1927, which can be found at »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···927.ENR: . (There's a PL number somewhere, but I don't have it handy.)
However, this is a markup of 50 USC 1801 et seq. so you also need to take a look at that to understand what this markup does. For this, I referenced the Findlaw version at »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···801.html , which is dated 19 Jan 2004. Is this the latest revision? I thought other changes were made after that date?
There's an unfortunate disconnect between S. 1927 and 50 USC 1801 et seq. (as referenced above) which makes it a bit difficult to understand exactly what changes were made. (I think this is because S.1927 actually references the previous PL sections, not the relevant USC sections.) So, I believe that references to, e.g., Sect 105 in S.1927 would be applicable to 50 USC 1805, and so forth.
Just thought I'd throw that in for anyone intersted in doing their own research.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris | |
|
