Domestic spying

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Bosh

The problem isn't what he did, it's HOW he did it. It's blatantly illegal to wiretap the phones of American citizens without a warrant. And if it's someone like Zarquawi calling it's completely unncessary. It's very easy and fast to get a warrant for national security-related phone taps and if you're in a real hurry you can legally engage in an emergency wiretap for 72 hours as long as you submit the proper paper work at the end of that period.

It's not clear exactly what was done, ie was a foreign phone tapped which happened to call a phone in the U.S.? It's not illegal to record that call, though if there is no warrant anything said by an American in that call must be redacted. It seems as though your analysis is correct in that I can't imagine that a lot of warrants would have been denied. The only other explanations are laziness or an attempt to expand the power of the executive.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
Bush got the NSA and NASA mixed up in his little speech this morning.

Well you conflated the NSA situation with the surveillance of protest groups issue in the post previous to the one quoted above, so I wouldn't crow too loudly.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by lightblue
On a more humorous note, can you imagine being the NSA agent that had to write up the Quaker meeting as a terrorist threat? I wonder if he/she could keep a straight face...

NSA didn't have anything to do with monitoring protest groups in the U.S., despite efforts to mix up the two controversies.

I don't have a problem with the military or the police developing information about expected protests. Firstly the military should be well-informed in order to be able to work around any protests or attempts to disrupt their mission, and forewarned is forearmed. Secondly, civil disobedience is by its very definition criminal behavior and planning civil disobedience activities is conspiracy. The constitution protects your right to free speech, but it does not allow you to trespass, vandalize or keep others from excersizing any of their rights or keep others from engaging in any other legal activity (like going to work at a military base etc.) A group which is clearly bent on civil disobedience should have an eye kept on it so that the impact of its attempts to disrupt the government or the legal actions of other private citizens are minimized.

[DRoseDARs]

Because, God forbid, the negroes be allowed to use the same restroom facilities as us...

[DRoseDARs]

And those sit-ins. Damned if I can find a seat at the corner diner during one of those things...

[DRoseDARs]

...to say nothing of riding a bus.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Sikander


NSA didn't have anything to do with monitoring protest groups in the U.S., despite efforts to mix up the two controversies.

Ok, it's being reported here that the main issue is that the NSA is being used for internal surveillance which is out of the scope of its mandate.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lightblue
Ok, it's being reported here that the main issue is that the NSA is being used for internal surveillance which is out of the scope of its mandate.

The NSA has conducted domestic spying since the 90's under Clinton.

[Az]

I DON't KNOT WHJAT YOU WANT BUJT CLITNOT DID TI 2!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The NSA has conducted domestic spying since the 90's under Clinton.

Well if you think it's a good thing, that I am sure you are delighted to see Bush continue the practice. In case you are against that idea, than perhaps something ought to be done now when it is out in the open.

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The NSA has conducted domestic spying since the 90's under Clinton.

I bet Clinton bothered to get FISA warrents, unlike Bush.

[ajbera]

From National Review, re: Clinton

Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Because, God forbid, the negroes be allowed to use the same restroom facilities as us...

If somebodys gonna stage a sit in at a lunch counter, and the guy who runs the restaurant sneaks somebody in to see when the sit in is planned, so he can like, make sure his ketchup gets delivered early, and his extra help goes home, is that really going to stop the sit in from achieving its purpose of calling attention to segregation?

Similarly if DoD monitors the Quakers, so that their protest at the gates of a military base doesnt disrupt the activities at the base, does that prevent their protest from gathering publicity to their critique of govt policies?

Is civil disobedience about calling attention to injustice, or about causing actual disruption? If the latter, is not reasonable for the institutions affected to try to minimize the disruption? Does trying to minimize the disruption to a military base make you a segregationist and a racist?

The Israeli army tried to minimize the impact of settlers using civil disobedience techniques to disrupt the withdrawl from Gaza. Does that make the IDF a defender of lunch counter segregation?

[lord of the mark]

"In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "

I thought the right didnt think much of Gorelick.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Spy court judge quits in protest
Jurist worried that Bush order tainted work of secret panel

By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post
Updated: 11:21 p.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005


A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Robertson, who was appointed to the federal bench in Washington by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and was later selected by then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to serve on the FISA court, declined to comment when reached at his office late yesterday.

Word of Robertson's resignation came as two Senate Republicans yesterday joined the call for congressional investigations into the National Security Agency's warrantless interception of telephone calls and e-mails to overseas locations by U.S. citizens suspected of links to terrorist groups. They questioned the legality of the operation and the extent to which the White House kept Congress informed.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) echoed concerns raised by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has promised hearings in the new year.

‘A great national debate’
"There's going to be a great national debate on this subject," Specter told reporters yesterday, while emphasizing concerns over the White House's legal arguments in support of the program.

The hearings, possibly in several committees, would take place at the beginning of a midterm election year during which the prosecution of the Iraq war is also likely to figure prominently in key House and Senate races.

Hagel and Snowe joined three Democratic colleagues -- Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) -- in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate's Judiciary and Intelligence panels into the classified program.

Not all Republicans agreed with the need for hearings and backed White House assertions that the program is a vital tool in the war against al Qaeda.

"I am personally comfortable with everything I know about it, and I'll be watching it as this debate goes on over the next few weeks," Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a phone interview.

The White House continued to insist yesterday that the classified surveillance program is legal and that key congressional leaders have been informed of the NSA activities since they began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan suggested that the secrecy around the program may prohibit White House cooperation with any congressional investigation. "This is still a highly classified program, and there are details that it's important not be disclosed," McClellan said.

"We've already briefed the leadership and the leaders of the relevant committees," McClellan said, "and the attorney general's going back talking to additional members about this so that they do have a better understanding of this authorization and what it's designed to do and how it is narrowly tailored and limited in how it's used."


Since the program was made public last week by the New York Times, the White House has sparred publicly with key Democrats over whether Congress was fully informed and allowed to conduct oversight of the operation.

The news also spurred considerable debate among federal judges, including some who serve on the secret FISA court. For more than a quarter-century, that court had been seen as the only body that could legally authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects, and only when the Justice Department could show probable cause that its targets were foreign governments or their agents.

Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004, and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.

"They just don't know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants -- to kind of cleanse the information," said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Considered a liberal judge
Robertson is considered a liberal judge who has often ruled against the Bush administration's assertions of broad powers in the terrorism fight, most notably in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Robertson held in that case that the Pentagon's military commissions for prosecuting terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were illegal and stacked against the detainees.

Some FISA judges reached yesterday said they were saddened by the news of Robertson's resignation and wanted to hear more about the president's program.

"I love Jim Robertson and think he's a wonderful guy," said Judge George P. Kazen, another FISA judge. "I guess that's a decision he's made and I respect him. But it's just too quick for me to say I've got it all figured out."

Bush said Monday that the White House briefed Congress more than a dozen times. But those briefings were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or seeking outside legal opinions.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) revealed Monday that he had written to Vice President Cheney the day he was first briefed on the program in July 2003, raising serious concerns about the surveillance effort. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she also expressed concerns in a letter to Cheney, which she did not make public.

Yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), issued a public rebuke of Rockefeller for making his letter public. Roberts's statement did not say whether he would support a joint inquiry with Specter's committee.

In response to a question about the letter, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested Rockefeller should have done more if he was seriously concerned. "If I thought someone was breaking the law, I don't care if it was classified or unclassified, I would stand up and say 'the law's being broken here.' "

But Rockefeller said the secrecy surrounding the briefings left him with no other choice and disputed Roberts's claims that he kept his concerns to himself. "I made my concerns known to the vice president and to others who were briefed. The White House never addressed my concerns," Rockefeller said. He also called for bipartisan hearings.

The Democratic leadership wrote separately to Bush asking him to provide Congress with additional information on the program.

Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10538136/