So the ACLU case challenging the warrantless wiretapping got throw out

[Kytro]

It seems this administartion feels they should be able to do whatever they please in the name of naitonal security, without intervention, and this should concern everyone.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Are wiretaps involving international affairs illegal, or just domestic?

This is exactly the point. The calls monitored were overseas calls. And just like your 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply when you cross the border, they also don't protect your communications when they leave the country either. And more than that, if a number overseas is being monitored, a warrant isn't required all of a sudden just because somebody from the US calls it.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to talk to your friends in al qaeda, make sure it's a local call.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

Your logical fallacy is believing what the President has told you - with no oversight. We do know that they are tapping the phones of American citizens - but we don't know who or to what extent. Hell, my phone could be tapped for all I know because my wife makes international phone calls weekly to her parents in Seoul.

Intercepting an international transmission isn't a phone tap.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This is exactly the point. The calls monitored were overseas calls. And just like your 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply when you cross the border, they also don't protect your communications when they leave the country either. And more than that, if a number overseas is being monitored, a warrant isn't required all of a sudden just because somebody from the US calls it.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to talk to your friends in al qaeda, make sure it's a local call.

Uh, again, read FISA. The text has been posted. So long as a "US Person" is a party to the call, it doesn't matter that the number being dialed is overseas.

[motivez]

Here, I'll post the key line:

and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[7]

It says it plain and clear.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This is exactly the point. The calls monitored were overseas calls. And just like your 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply when you cross the border, they also don't protect your communications when they leave the country either. And more than that, if a number overseas is being monitored, a warrant isn't required all of a sudden just because somebody from the US calls it.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to talk to your friends in al qaeda, make sure it's a local call.

There is no legal body in the US that agrees with your assertion. Every legal authority, including the American BAR association and the President himself knows that the wiretaps are infact a violation of FISA. The President has not asserted othwerwise. Instead he has asserted that the authorization that congress gave for him to go to war in Iraq granted him special wartime powers which he can use to fight terrorism, and these allow him to circumvent FISA. Oddly enough, the American BAR also says that he Presidents reasoning here is invalid and the wiretaps are indeed a violation of FISA for which there is no authorization. But what do they know.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This is exactly the point. The calls monitored were overseas calls. And just like your 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply when you cross the border, they also don't protect your communications when they leave the country either. And more than that, if a number overseas is being monitored, a warrant isn't required all of a sudden just because somebody from the US calls it.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to talk to your friends in al qaeda, make sure it's a local call.

Where did you hear such reasoning? Really, I'm curious.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

This is exactly the point. The calls monitored were overseas calls. And just like your 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure don't apply when you cross the border, they also don't protect your communications when they leave the country either. And more than that, if a number overseas is being monitored, a warrant isn't required all of a sudden just because somebody from the US calls it.

So the moral of the story is, if you want to talk to your friends in al qaeda, make sure it's a local call.

Where in the constitution does it make that distinction?

FISA specifically mentions that this is protected.



It should be on the administration to prove that they are only tapping people with ties to terror groups. There needs to be oversight on government programs like this to keep it from being abused.

I can't believe this has to be explained to someone who chose to display "Conservative" under their name on this forum.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uh, again, read FISA. The text has been posted. So long as a "US Person" is a party to the call, it doesn't matter that the number being dialed is overseas.

Yeah, I just saw that. It appears I was wrong.

I don't know if I agree that it SHOULD be a law, but it is what it is.

[motivez]

I think it's important that our communications are protected from government intrusion. There are many legitimate reasons a person can have for calling people overseas besides "calling al qaeda" -- business associates, family, friends, journalists wanting to talk to sources, etc..

Allowing the government to monitor those communications when they have no probable cause to suspect the person of illegal activity is wrong, imo.

I have no problems with them wiretapping people who are calling terrorists. However, for them to suspect someone is calling a terrorist, they surely have enough reasonable information to obtain a warrant from the FISA court.

The real issue is that even the Democrats have said that they would amend FISA again if the Administration needed it done in order to help facilitate the use of warrants instead of illegally monitoring the calls without them.. so, the issue isn't that it's even impossible for them to follow the law, it's that they simply don't want to.

They've even admitted as such, in Gonzalas' testimony before the judiciary committee, he admitted the reason they didn't use FISA was because the process of obtaining warrants to monitor those calls took "too much" time.. which in reality means that they couldn't build a case against many of the people they were monitoring, so they decided to simply ignore that requirement.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's important that our communications are protected from government intrusion. There are many legitimate reasons a person can have for calling people overseas besides "calling al qaeda" -- business associates, family, friends, journalists wanting to talk to sources, etc..

Allowing the government to monitor those communications when they have no probable cause to suspect the person of illegal activity is wrong, imo.

I have no problems with them wiretapping people who are calling terrorists. However, for them to suspect someone is calling a terrorist, they surely have enough reasonable information to obtain a warrant from the FISA court.

The real issue is that even the Democrats have said that they would amend FISA again if the Administration needed it done in order to help facilitate the use of warrants instead of illegally monitoring the calls without them.. so, the issue isn't that it's even impossible for them to follow the law, it's that they simply don't want to.

They've even admitted as such, in Gonzalas' testimony before the judiciary committee, he admitted the reason they didn't use FISA was because the process of obtaining warrants to monitor those calls took "too much" time.. which in reality means that they couldn't build a case against many of the people they were monitoring, so they decided to simply ignore that requirement.

There are a couple issues to consider here. First, NSA is not a law enforcement agency. They do not prosecute, and they cannot share information gathered outside normal law enforcement channels (communications intercepted without a warrant, for example) with law enforcement for use in a prosecution. Their mission is solely to safeguard the security of the United States.

As such (ignoring FISA for the moment), they are fully within their rights to monitor overseas communications to known agents of US enemies (al qaeda operatives, for example). And since information gathered in this way can be used to stop a threat (thwarting a terrorist plot, for example), but NOT for use in the legal prosecution of a criminal case, I don't see the problem.

I'm going to read over FISA later today while I wait for my laundry to finish, and I'll see what I think after I'm done.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

There are many legitimate reasons a person can have for calling people overseas besides "calling al qaeda" -- business associates, family, friends, journalists wanting to talk to sources, etc..

Allowing the government to monitor those communications when they have no probable cause to suspect the person of illegal activity is wrong, imo.

I have no problems with them wiretapping people who are calling terrorists. However, for them to suspect someone is calling a terrorist, they surely have enough reasonable information to obtain a warrant from the FISA court.

You're doing it wrong.

It's my understanding that the communications monitored were specifically those bound for known al qaeda operatives. NOT that the NSA was wiretapping everybody who makes international calls, hoping that one of them goes to a known terrorist. They were monitoring calls bound for known terrorists, and some of them happened to be from people in the US.

In other words, it was not, as you say, "wiretapping people who are calling terrorists", but monitoring communications of known terrorists, some of which happened to be from US persons.

Again, I'm going to add the standard "this is what I understand based on what I've read" disclaimer.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

You're doing it wrong.

It's my understanding that the communications monitored were specifically those bound for known al qaeda operatives. NOT that the NSA was wiretapping everybody who makes international calls, hoping that one of them goes to a known terrorist. They were monitoring calls bound for known terrorists, and some of them happened to be from people in the US.

In other words, it was not, as you say, "wiretapping people who are calling terrorists", but monitoring communications of known terrorists, some of which happened to be from US persons.

Again, I'm going to add the standard "this is what I understand based on what I've read" disclaimer.

Even so, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If a US person was involved, they are still entitles to the full protection of the law and they still have all of the rights afforded to them by the constitution. There is nothing in the law that says the government can violate your rights if they aren't going to charge you with a crime. The law simply says that you can't be unreasonably searched.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Even so, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. If a US person was involved, they are still entitles to the full protection of the law and they still have all of the rights afforded to them by the constitution. There is nothing in the law that says the government can violate your rights if they aren't going to charge you with a crime. The law simply says that you can't be unreasonably searched.

Protection from what? NSA isn't law enforcement, and doesn't gather information for use in criminal prosecutions.

And it's perfectly reasonable for your conversations to be overheard if you call foreign terrorists who are being monitored.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

You're doing it wrong.

It's my understanding that the communications monitored were specifically those bound for known al qaeda operatives. NOT that the NSA was wiretapping everybody who makes international calls, hoping that one of them goes to a known terrorist. They were monitoring calls bound for known terrorists, and some of them happened to be from people in the US.

In other words, it was not, as you say, "wiretapping people who are calling terrorists", but monitoring communications of known terrorists, some of which happened to be from US persons.

Again, I'm going to add the standard "this is what I understand based on what I've read" disclaimer.

If they were "known terrorists", then there should be absolutely no problem getting a judge, in a secret court, to issue a warrant so they can monitor the communications legally.

Again, FISA has provisions for retroactive warrants as well, meaning if there is a dire need to listen to the communications right THEN for national security reasons, they may do so provided they obtain a warrant afterward.

They didn't even do that. They just listened. Without the warrants.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Protection from what? NSA isn't law enforcement, and doesn't gather information for use in criminal prosecutions.

And it's perfectly reasonable for your conversations to be overheard if you call foreign terrorists who are being monitored.

There's a problem with this logic.

The NSA's actions don't occur in a bubble. They don't decide what to do without input from the people above them.

In this case, they acted under the direction of the President, who is bound by FISA laws.

Do you think a President should be able to order his subordinates to violate the law?