writing a paper on the NSA program

[WickedLou9]

So we have to do this shitty "group paper". As if that were something reasonable. a group paper. Poop. Anyway, I agreed to try and write the "pro" side of the arguement, essentially taking the administrations side. I thought that it would be an interesting exercise. It has to be ab 8-10 page paper in total. We are thinking a page or two of introduction. a couple of pages pro, a couple of pages con, and then we have to write a conclusion in which we take a side.

It's turning out to be alot harder than I thought. When I look into anything that they say, I find flaws or faults.
So I am finding white house press briefings and what not. THey cite things like "executive order 12333", given by Reagan in 1981. They claim gives them some sort of authority to wire tap .. but it's fuzzy on the topic and was clearly written with foreign intelligence in mind. It says over and over again that the order does not authorize anything for US persons, or any violation of the constitution,etc. In fact it spends more time talking about what the order does not allow than what it does.

They also talk about Congresses authorization to use mlitary Force ( AUMF ) and that it was congresses intent to allow bush to use whatever means necesary to prevent another attack, when clearly that was not congresses intent.
In short.. I'm having alot of trouble

How the hell can I write an arguement for somthing that can't be legitamately defended

If any of you are interested..

Executive Order 12333
Executive Order 12333 -- United States Intelligence Activities

Here is a good document where the US DOJ says that it's OK. I think I am going to rely on this heavily. I am assuming that the admin had thier best lawyers come up with this. I probably won't be able to do any better. It's 42 friggin pages long.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw....nsa11906wp.pdf

Isn't the DOJ basicaly Alberto Gonzalez?

[WickedLou9]

God I feel like I am writing a white house press brief.

[thomez]

Hi Tony

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

God I feel like I am writing a white house press brief.

Deny...deny..answer a question with a question...deny..deny..question patriotism of a doubter...deny..end with thank you.

[Donkey®]

ibpresentationhappensfromguantanamo

[Ardentfrost]

You have the really easy part. The mistake you're making is actually looking at the stuff they're using and criticizing it. What you should be doing is just putting the information they feed us into your part of the paper with no checks for validity. If you're going to present their side of it, then you should do it as they do.

Additionally, you should have the following list of words and phrases in your part of the paper at least 10+ times each:
9/11
islamo-fascists
threaten our way of life
only international calls
terrorists
9/11 (I put it on there twice so you have to mention it at least 20 times)

[thomez]

al queda, osama, 9/11, osama, 9/11, al queda, iraq, osama, al queda, 9/11

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You have the really easy part. The mistake you're making is actually looking at the stuff they're using and criticizing it. What you should be doing is just putting the information they feed us into your part of the paper with no checks for validity. If you're going to present their side of it, then you should do it as they do.

Additionally, you should have the following list of words and phrases in your part of the paper at least 10+ times each:
9/11
islamo-fascists
threaten our way of life
only international calls
terrorists
9/11 (I put it on there twice so you have to mention it at least 20 times)

Oh I do. I even used the phrase " Those that would do us harm"

[WickedLou9]

My god this is maddening. THis 42 page DOJ document laying out the case to justify the NSA wiretaps is simply rehashing over and over again that congress authorized the president to take any action he sees fit to combat terrorism. They talk at length about the case law that establishes the presidents ability to conduct "FOREIGN" intelligence, and they discuss numerous cases that establish this authority. Thats nice, too bad the president is spying on US citizens. Hell half the cases they cite as giving them merit actually contradict what they are saying. They cite a case called Hamdi vs Rumsfled probably 15 times and in that case the court ruled AGAINST the government.

They cite United States v. Truong Dinh Hung probably 10 times and in that case the court ruled that warrantless spying was only OK if there was no possibility that any US person would be involved. again a ruling against the NSA program that they somehow want to contort to giving them authority.

They go on and on about the importance of intelligance gathering in a time of war and about gathering intelligence on your enemy. That;s nice. No one is saying that we don't need to gather intelligence. We are just saying you can't spy on US citizens without a warrant. They even have the gall to talk about how general washington used spies to gather inteligence as if that had anything to do with .. anything.

There really is no arguement to be made. If this DOJ document were to be handed in for a law paper in law school, I have no doubt that the professor would fail them for misinterpriting virtually every case that they cite.

[RMNIXON]

It Began with Truman and his NSC staff!

[WickedLou9]

What do you guys think... this is just my section of the paper.

Given that the world is a fundamentally different place than it was prior to the terrorist attacks of September the 11th, 2001, the next question that must be asked is what we are going to do in the face of this new and serious danger. A threat of this nature requires vigilance and a multi-pronged approach if we are to combat it effectively. Along with the use of military force in Afghanistan and Iraq, and an increased vigilance here at home by our various law-enforcement agencies, we must also attempt to gain as much information about the communications and operations of those who would do us harm.
The attackers who perpetrated September 11th had been operating within US borders for some time. They were using our infrastructure, taking flight lessons, getting drivers licenses, etc. We can also assume that they were in constant contact with their leaders over seas. For this reason, the administration feels that it is necessary for US intelligence agencies to be able to respond at a moments notice when an opportunity arises to gather information about one of these terror groups. The authorization of a program which allows the National Security Administration (NSA) to immediately obtain wiretaps, in some specific cases, can directly help achieve this goal. Given the controversial nature of such a program, and the constitutional and legal issues involved, it is critical that there be clear legal support for a program such as this, and when Congress passes the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) they gave such a mandate.

The AUMF states the following:
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This authorization implicitly gives the president authority to carry out what are, in his opinion, necessary actions to prevent future terrorist attacks on the country.
A major concern surrounding this policy is that some feel it may be a violation of the 4th amendment which requires a search warrant before any such surveillance is conducted on U.S. persons. This is a valid concern; however the administration feels that the concern is adequately addressed by the FISA courts. The FISA (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) Court system was set up specifically to handle intelligence gathering matters similar to this which concern our national security. The courts set up by FISA are dedicated to overseeing government surveillance programs and granting warrants. When congress enacted FISA, it recognized that the future need for additional executive powers may become necessary and so left the door open to additional powers. It is prohibited by FISA to “engage . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1) . Because the law lists an exemption for a possible future statute enacted by congress the AUMF can properly satisfy this exemption and authorize the warrantless intelligence gathering activities which are currently being conducted by the NSA.
There are additional concerns surrounding the 4th amendment beyond what is allowed by FISA. The 4th amendment generally requires that a search warrant be obtained and that there be probable cause before such a warrant be issued. However, when it comes to matters of national security and the President’s ability to conduct activities pertaining to foreign intelligence, the courts have consistently held that the President does not need a warrant to engage in foreign intelligence gathering. Furthermore, the 4th amendment is not absolute. The administration argues the following:
[T]he Fourth Amendment’s “central requirement is one of reasonableness,” and the rules the Court has developed to implement that requirement “[s]ometimes . . . require warrants.” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001); see also, e.g., Earls, 536 U.S. at 828 (noting that the probable cause standard “is peculiarly related to criminal investigations and may be unsuited to determining the reasonableness of administrative searches where the Government seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions”) [1]
The main idea is that the 4th amendment requirement of warrants does not apply to the gathering of foreign intelligence because the President has the sole power over matters regarding foreign relations, and as such, the presidential authorization for the gathering of intelligence to prevent further attacks is certainly a reasonable proposition and falls outside of the 4th Amendment’s focus on matters of domestic criminal investigation.
The key part to the Administrations 4th Amendment argument is that the warrantless wiretaps are in fact reasonable. They state that:
As the Supreme Court has emphasized repeatedly, “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Knights, 534 U.S. at 118-19 (quotation marks omitted); see also Earls, 536 U.S. at 829. The Supreme Court has found a search reasonable when, under the totality of the circumstances, the importance of the governmental interests outweighs the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 118-22. [2]

In essence, by employing the balancing test whereas the rights of the individual are weighed against a legitimate and significant government interest, it would not be unreasonable under these circumstances for the government to intercept telephone communications between US Persons and foreign contacts. Given the limited nature of these intercepts, as they pertain only to communications between US persons and foreign contacts believed to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda or other terrorist group, the intrusive nature of the wiretaps are minimal and the government interest in securing the country against another attack is significant. It would therefore seem to be a justified use of executive power to conduct such wiretaps.
In summation, the surveillance activity authorized by the president is a reasonable and lawful exercise of executive branch power. When one takes into consideration the previous case history which establishes the president as the sole executor of foreign policy, the AUMF issued by congress, the FISA court regulations, and the touchstone of the 4th amendment ( reasonableness), it is clear that these wiretapping activities are both lawful and constitutional. Furthermore, they provide the necessary tools for the executive branch to guard the country against future terrorist attacks.

[1]http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonnsalegalauthorities.pdf Page 37

[2]http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonnsalegalauthorities.pdf Page 39

[RMNIXON]

I think you did a good job.

But we need to consider more than just post 9/11 reality. We live in such an instant communication age that court procedures can cost lives. I don't mean throw privacy protections to the wind. But we also need to understand that dead people get their speech rights and life rights violated!

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I think you did a good job.

But we need to consider more than just post 9/11 reality. We live in such an instant communication age that court procedures can cost lives. I don't mean throw privacy protections to the wind. But we also need to understand that dead people get their speech rights and life rights violated!

We just used 9/11 as a wake-up call if you will that we live in a different time. Terrorists were people who set off car bombs in isreal or who hijacked planes and use them as leverage to free prisoners... then landed the planes somewhere and let everyone go. After 9/11 it was totally different.