The fine folks over at
http://intherightplace.blogspot.com like to be apologists for the Bush criminal enterprise. They call liberals moonbats and propose that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration's policies or actions are treasonous commie American haters. It must have been a really hard year for them in '05 what with all of the mis-steps, blunders and failures Bush managed to pull off. Now at the end of the year we Americans find out that he has been spying on us. First he claimed that is was only communications from outside America from "Known Al-Queida agents" but then his staff had to quietly correct him and stated that no it was actually domestic and foreign communications and no there was no oversight.
No oversight...
Senator Rockefeller had to write a letter by hand to Satan er.. Cheney expressing his concerns and displeasure with these actions. He was sworn to secrecy and then cut out of the process. Now that it is news we hear from others...
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, appeared annoyed that the first he had heard of such a program was through a New York Times story published Friday. He said the report was troubling.
How did we get to this place of shadow government and domestic spying?
When it came to wiretapping the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements:
(1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted;
(3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy (the N.Y. law authorized two months of surveillance at a time);
(4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date;
(5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized;
(6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and
(7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations
in the 1970s the political winds changed. The 1975-76 Church Committee hearings documented extraordinary federal government abuse of surveillance powers. Examples included the the NSA's Operation Shamrock and Operation Minaret, CIA's Operation CHAOS, the FBI's COINTELPRO
domestic harassment of dissenters and anti-war protesters that included illegal wiretapping,and the illegal burglaries of the Nixon White House "plumbers."
The Church Committee Report found that covert action had been excessive, had circumvented the democratic process, and had violated the Constitution. It concluded that Congress needed to prescribe rules for intelligence activities.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA.
If the target is a "U.S. person," which includes permanent resident aliens and associations and corporations substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, 50 U.S.C.A. § 1801(i), there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person's activities "may" or "are about to" involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States. § 1801(b)(2)(A),(B); see also § 1801(b)(2)(C) (knowingly engages in activities in preparation for sabotage or "international terrorism" on behalf of a foreign power); § 1801(b)(2)(D) (knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power).
A "United States person" may not be determined to be an agent of a foreign power "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3)(A).
Most important, FISA powers are broad and vague, and the secrecy of FISA proceedings makes FISA powers susceptible to abuse.
FISA power extends well beyond spies and terrorists. It can be used in connection with ordinary criminal investigations involving United States citizens who live in this country and who may be charged with offenses such as narcotics violations or breaches of an employer's confidentiality. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806, 1825.
For instance, electronic surveillance under § 1801(f)(1) only reaches wire or radio communications "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person" and a warrant would ordinarily be required. If the U.S. person is not "known," or more important, not "intentionally" targeted, it simply isn't "electronic surveillance" under § 1801(f)(1).
Note also that FISA expressly contemplates that it will produce "unintentionally acquired information." § 1806(i). But while this section requires the destruction of such information, it only applies to "the contents of any radio communication," only if a warrant would have been required, and only if both the sender and intended recipients are within the United States.
Given these limits, one may presume that "unintentionally acquired information" outside these lines is not destroyed. That would include all "unintentionally acquired"wire or electronic communications.
Does FISA authorize surveillance without a court order?
Yes. In general, the Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).
Such electronic surveillance must be certified by the Attorney General and then noticed to the Senate and House intelligence committees. § 1802(a)(2). A copy of the certification must be filed with the FISC, where it remains sealed unless (a) an application for a warrant with respect to it is filed, or (b) the legality of the surveillance is challenged in another federal district court under § 1806(f). § 1802(a)(3). Common carriers must assist in the surveillance and maintain its secrecy. § 1802(a)(4).
In emergencies, the Attorney General may authorize immediate surveillance but must "as soon as practicable, but not more than twenty-four hours" later, seek judicial review of the emergency application. § 1805(e).
SO, for Bush to claim that working within the "constraints" imposed by the "Law" (or acting lawfully) hindered his ability to gather information critical on the war on terror is a LIE or at best a weak excuse. What really seems to be going on here is a President who thinks he is above the law and that those details are for other less affluent privilidged people than him and his cohorts.
Now we have to decide if America should be ruled by a tyrant. Do we comply with the agenda set forth by Bush and in doing so eliminate any moral authority we once had? Or do we hold him and his staff accountable for breaking the law?
The rest of the world is watching to see just how great America is.
The terrorists are watching too. They like to see how much freedom we have given away for the sake of "security" and "Democracy". We loose when we become what we are fighting against.
