ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:31:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

by TChris

The president gives the impression that the NSA only eavesdrops on Americans who dial Osama bin Laden's cell phone number, but are we to believe him? The American Friends Service Committee fears that the government is spying on peace activists, protestors, and others who exercise their right to disagree with the Bush administration. To find out if those fears are justified, the ACLU yesterday filed a Freedom of Information Act request on behalf of the AFSC and other groups that might be targeted by a domestic surveillance campaign.

The ACLU is seeking the disclosure of all documents maintained by the Department of Defense on the individual groups. Many of the groups involved in today's action, such as the Rhode Island-based Community Coalition for Peace, have already learned that they are listed in the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database.

An AFSC director explains the importance of the request:

"While thousands are dying in Iraq, here at home our government is waging a new war, a 'war on dissent' that threatens to dismantle the constitution and severely challenge our country's basic democratic principles of free speech and peaceful assembly," said Michael McConnell, director of AFSC's Great Lakes region, which recently found itself under Pentagon scrutiny.

"If the government has avowed pacifists under surveillance, then no one is safe," he adds.

Further explanation comes from Joyce Miller, AFSC associate general secretary for justice and human rights:

"We all want to be safe," Miller concludes. "However, trampling upon the Bill of Rights and dismantling our constitution will not make us more safe or secure, nor will it erase the threat of terrorism. Conversely, eroding the safeguards of the Constitution make us less safe and destroy the principles of democracy on which our country was founded."

Founded by Quakers, the AFSC has been the target of governmental surveillance in the past.

The Service Committee secured nearly 1,700 pages of files from the FBI under a Freedom of Information request in 1976. These files show that the FBI kept files on AFSC that dated back to 1921. Ten other federal agencies kept files on AFSC, including the CIA, Air Force, Navy, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and the State Department. The CIA has intercepted overseas mail and cables in the 1950s, and some AFSC offices (and even its staff's homes) have been infiltrated and burglarized in the late 1960s into the 1970s.

TalkLeft discussed the NSA's surveillance of a Quaker-related group in Baltimate here. TalkLeft reported the ACLU's lawsuit regarding NSA surveillance here.

< Justice For All | Libby, Tenet, Cheney, Plame & Wilson : the Niger Docs >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records | 67 comments (67 topical)

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#1)
by Punchy on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:14:24 PM EST

This will be the fastest and surest FOIA request to be "lost"/declined/ignored in the history of gov't. Seriously...Quakers have been targeted? What the he**?

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#2)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:55:48 PM EST

At last, something from the ACLU I can whole-heartedly support. And yes, Punchy, it will be lost, or misplaced, or just take 50 years to produce.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:02:53 PM EST

justpaul-

At last, something from the ACLU I can whole-heartedly support.

I hope you are serious as they can really use the money. I am sending some $$$ too.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#4)
by yudel on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 04:41:33 PM EST

What makes you think that they have any First Amendment rights? The Amendment clearly says Congress shall make no law; if I were Yoo, it would be a no-brainer to write a "legal brief" that the Bill of Rights constrains Congress, not the Unitary Executive.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#5)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:38:37 PM EST

This is just silly. The ACLU is asking for information regarding highly classified documents. There is no way they will be released, the freedom of information act doesn't even apply. It is akin to asking for the schematics of the stealth bomber because you want to know how your tax dollars are being spent. Only if the NSA surveillance plan is found to be illegal will the ACLU have even a modicum of a case, which brings up my next point, as of today it is not illegal. That could change if the courts reverse there previous rulings, however, right now we have plenty of federal rulings that say the NSA surveillance is perfectly legal and actually if the president wasn't doing it he would be violating is oath of office. The following is a summary from Powerline.com United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). The court held that a federal statute could not forbid the President from ordering wiretappeing when gathering foreign intelligence in the national interest. If FISA does this then FISA is unconstitutional because one branch up government can't limit another branch of governments constitutionally granted powers. More on that later. United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974). The court held that no judicial warrant was necessary if the gathering of information was solely for the purpose of foreign intelligence. United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), The court agreed with the government's position that in the area of foreign intelligence the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs. The court further maintained that a warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of exectutive foreing intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations. T United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), held that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Congress cannot strip the President of his Article 2 powers anymore than the President through executive order can strip Congress of its Article 1 powers So please guys keep on arguing about FISA and the NSA surveillance. But keep in mind that you are wrong with regard to the public and with regard to the law. It makes you look very weak on security and the public isn't buying it. Furthermore, it will probably save our butts (Republican butts that is) from backlash due to the Abramoff scandal at the polls in 2006.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#6)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:39:14 PM EST

I'm all for the ACLU making this request, but what does it have to do with allegations of warrantless wiretaps? The only connection you seem to provide is that the NSA's security police were monitoring protestors who were protesting on the NSA campus - from the reading the actual documents Raw Story prints, that's all that they seem to be doing. Are you accusing the NSA campus cops of committing the nefarious act of preparing plans ahead of time for a publicly announced protest, and keeping an eye on the protestors while they were on campus? Is there something else I'm missing?

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#7)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:16:42 PM EST

BSRB,

United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). The court held that a federal statute could not forbid the President from ordering wiretappeing when gathering foreign intelligence in the national interest. United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974). The court held that no judicial warrant was necessary if the gathering of information was solely for the purpose of foreign intelligence. United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), The court agreed with the government's position that in the area of foreign intelligence the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs...... United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984), held that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

In case you haven't noticed, the President is engaging in domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering. The 4th amendment applies.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#8)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:00:00 PM EST

Sorry I should have been more specific. The cases in question dealt with foreign intelligence gathering in the United States. In other words the people being surveilled were in the US. Intercepting calls from the US to a foreign nation or vice versa is foreign intelligence gathering. The FISA courts were established to handle purely domestic surveillance (that which originates and ends in the US) with regard to foreign intelligence gathering. The reason for this is that the President could surveil pretty much anybody and call it foreign intelligence gathering as Nixon did. The FISA courts did not, do not, and never will apply to international phone calls meaning those that originate in or are placed to foreign nations. Even the FISA court admits this. All the courts that have decided the issue held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. This is a quote from the FISA court itself "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." The problem is with the language. Everyone is getting hung up on foreign intelligence gathering. You can collect foreign intelligence within the United States. If Zawahiri were in the US right now contacting Al Zarqawi in Iraq, would that be foreign or domestic surveillance? The Democrats and people in this discussion would have us believe that it is domestic. Sorry it isn't, its foreign intelligence. Zawahiri is a foreign agent, as is Zarqawi. The FISA court would come into play if both Zawahiri and Zarqawi were in the US, a purely domestic situation. In that case the 4th amendment would actually apply.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:03 PM EST

here is how a wrong number (from AQ) can affect you. From HuffPo's Ed Current Warning it may be funny.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#10)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:23:14 PM EST

The problem is with the language. Everyone is getting hung up on foreign intelligence gathering. You can collect foreign intelligence within the United States. If Zawahiri were in the US right now contacting Al Zarqawi in Iraq, would that be foreign or domestic surveillance? The Democrats and people in this discussion would have us believe that it is domestic. Sorry it isn't, its foreign intelligence.

BSRB, The President admitted to authorizing electronic surveillance of US citizens without obtaining a warrant. This is not foreign intelligence gathering, it is domestic.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#11)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:26:53 PM EST

Squeaky, That link was very funny. Macromaniac, I just realized why you have a problem with the NSA intercept program. I think that you are confusing the words surveillance and intelligence. Foreign intelligence can be obtained from domestic surveillance. The reason that FISA was created is past presidents used the NSA to gather vast amounts of domestic communications. They justified this by saying they were gathering foreign intelligence. Mind you that FISA only relates to purely domestic surveillance. There are exclusions written into the legislation such that if the person being surveiled is a foreign agent then a warrant does not have to be obtained. The reason for this is that if these exclusions weren't present the Congress would have limited the President's article 2 powers, something that they can't do.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#12)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:34:36 PM EST

Macromaniac, A US citizen can be a foreign agent, for example the Rosenbergs. Also, the NSA was not targeting US citizens they were targeting Al Qaeda and there affiliates who were making calls to and from the US. Sometimes these calls were being placed to US citizens, and in that case yes a US citizen would have been under surveillance, but only because they were in contact with a foreign agent (ie foreign intelligence gathering, even if you call it domestic surveillance), and only if one end of the call was in another nation, which is why I would call it foreign surveillance. If this was not the case then the Government did seek a warrant.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#13)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:36:43 PM EST

Please forgive me, but I live on the east coast and need to get up early tomorrow, so I am going to call it a night. I would love to continue this discussion tomorrow. Thank you for the outlet

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#14)
by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:46:46 PM EST

I just realized why you have a problem with the NSA intercept program. I think that you are confusing the words surveillance and intelligence.

I am not confused. The issue is the warrantless NSA electronic surveillance program that targets US citizens. It violates the 4th amendment. I have no problem with the NSA wiretapping US Citizens as long as they submit an affidavit of probable cause to a neutral magistrate and obtain a warrant.

There are exclusions written into the legislation such that if the person being surveiled is a foreign agent then a warrant does not have to be obtained.

But in this case, the warrantless electronic surveillance involves US citizens.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#15)
by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:56:41 PM EST

A US citizen can be a foreign agent, for example the Rosenbergs. In that event, the US citizen is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. Also, the NSA was not targeting US citizens they were targeting Al Qaeda and there affiliates who were making calls to and from the US. The word is "their." Are all trolls illiterates who put on airs? Do you have a theory to explain why the FBI lied about having to follow up leads supplied to them by the NSA on warrantless phone intercepts between callers inside the United States? That is a serious charge you are making against the Bureau. The FBI claimed that they had to follow up thousands of useless leads. What evidence do you have that the agents all conspired to tell the same lie?

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#16)
by bad Jim on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 03:08:17 AM EST

How does anyone know what the NSA was listening to? The president tells us that we need to know who al Qaeda was calling, but there's no reason to believe that that was the limit of the surveillance. In fact, since they've admitted going beyond what FISA permits, we can be certain they're doing more, and we don't yet know how much. I don't understand how any citizen not willing to surrender his privacy and his liberty to the government would not insist on knowing exactly what is going on, but would settle instead for bland assurances that whatever's being done is only for our safety.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#17)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:30:38 AM EST

Macromaniac, The president does have the power to engage in warrantless surveillance of US citizens, something the federal courts upheld in three of the cases I presented earlier. Oh, and so that you are aware, non US citizens who are in the US are also protected by the 4th amendment. The constitution does not require you to be a citizen for any of its protections. That is why the Taliban at Guantanamo are able to sue for due process. If you have a problem with this power that is fine, but it does not make what the President is doing illegal. Further even if the FISA legislation were able to constrain Presidential power, something that it is not, there are exclusions in it to prevent that from happening. For example if the surveillance is electronic, something that the President has said it was, and secondly if the intercepts occurred outside of the US, which actually would make it foreign surveillance, something that the NSA has told us was the case. I can not say whether they are lying to us or not, for that I do not know, but with regard to what we have been told so far the President did not violate the law. Also, the word reasonable appears in the 4th amendment for a very good reason. You have no reasonable right, be you a US citizen or not, to expect that if you are in contact with a terrorist organization that you are not under surveillance. You don't have to believe me either, but please read the case law before you call me a troll and accuse me of putting on airs. The cases demonstrate examples of when the 4th amendment does not apply, so by continuing to bring that up you are not furthering your argument. As to your argument that it generated a lot of useless leads to the FBI, that is something that occurs in the signals business. It is also something that the FBI is learning to deal with. I will let the illiterate comment slide for now, as I don't know whether you are prone to silly attacks on people you are having a discussion with.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#18)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:39:03 AM EST

BSRB, Please use paragraphs. Your text is cumbersome and difficult to read.

I can not say whether they are lying to us or not

This is exactly why judicial oversight is necessary and why the 4th amendment exists.

The president does have the power to engage in warrantless surveillance of US citizens, something the federal courts upheld in three of the cases I presented earlier.

You have provided summaries of 3 cases. Nowhere within those summaries does it state that the President has the authority to authorize a warrantless wiretap of a US citizen. This is not settled law... yet

...but please read the case law before you call me a troll and accuse me of putting on airs.

How about providing a link to the entire text instead of just summaries. Also, I didn't call you a troll.

Also, the word reasonable appears in the 4th amendment for a very good reason.

The word reasonable appears nowhere in the 4th amendment. The word unreasonable appears, but that is not at the root of my argument. My argument is that the following has been ignored:

and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just how do you suppose the government is establishing probable cause? Where is the oath or affirmation?

As to your argument that it generated a lot of useless leads to the FBI, that is something that occurs in the signals business. It is also something that the FBI is learning to deal with. I will let the illiterate comment slide for now, as I don't know whether you are prone to silly attacks on people you are having a discussion with.

I did not make the above argument, call you illiterate, or attack you.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#19)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:48:31 AM EST

BSRB, Click here and scroll down to the Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance

The question of the scope of the President's constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. 156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ''United States person'' will be overheard.

Emphasis mine.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#20)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:13:57 AM EST

Macromedia, I do apologize. I should have read the name at the top of the comment. I didn't, and that is my mistake. As to your other comments I will respond after work. It will require more time than I have right now.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#21)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:14:46 AM EST

Macromaniac Sorry again for getting your name wrong

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:55:03 AM EST

Repack Rider writes:

The word is "their." Are all trolls illiterates who put on airs?

Oh, I don't know. Some people know better, just goof up. Some people don't. Some people proof all comments, some people proof some. Some people can't type, some can't spell. Some can do both but get snared up in typing and spelling while carrying on other activities and things slip by. As for me, I usually plead for mercy rather than justice, so I ignore the mistakes unless someone starts a snark war, which TL has asked us not to do. Like yesterday when someone from the Left confused "principals" and "principles." I didn't say a word. But then I was able to refute their argument, so my frustration didn't drive me to make a personal attack. macromanic - The problem is that you ignore the first part of the sentence.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The first sentence describes what is prohibited. And what is prohibited is "unreasonable" search and seizures. Now, we can argue over what is unreasonable, but to me, the word was put in for a reason. If all searches and seizures were to be deemed unreasonable, the sentence would read: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no.....etc. Now (I think) you will note that it is the duty of the court to determine what is "unreasonable," and I would agree as long as the search is totally within this country. But, taking the President and the NSA at their word, part of the activities is international in nature. And, given that the laws are different outside the US, I see no reason for anyone to claim to have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they make a call or receive a call from an international location. BTW - At least BSRB has provided some actual court cases in support of his claims. Something the Left, at least here, has not done. BTW - Since everyone likes to refer to the FISA, here is the definition of who is covered: "

United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence...."

So an illegal alien is not covered. A person on a visa is not covered. A person with a green card who has lied on the application is not covered since their actions are unlawful. And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;-) And I hope this is not too "airy" for Repack...

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#23)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:31:26 AM EST

All, In case anyone cares, here is where it appears BSRB is getting the caselaw info. The author of the blog is quoting caselaw that conveniently does not address the warantless wiretapping of US citizens. This has not yet been judicially decided.

BTW - At least BSRB has provided some actual court cases in support of his claims. Something the Left, at least here, has not done.

Did you read my findlaw link? There are relevant court cases referenced all through the document. I stand by my conviction that warrantless wiretaps of US citizens authorized by the President of the US has not been judicially decided, in the context of national security, as BSRB has put forth.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#24)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:20:39 AM EST

Macromaniac, Yes I did summarize the analysis of the court cases provided by Powerlineblog.com. This is not something that I hid; in fact it is in my original comment. I did however write Powerline.com, which was a mistake that I didn't pick up until just now when I went back and looked at the comment. Now the fact that I read a number of Blogs ranging from HughHewitt, through BullMoose and NewDonkey as well as this one does not refute my argument. As to the more substantive issues raised I again will have to put that off until lunch when I have more time.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#25)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:03:31 AM EST

Now the fact that I read a number of Blogs ranging from HughHewitt, through BullMoose and NewDonkey as well as this one does not refute my argument.

That was not my intent. My intent was to find the source of your argument and provide a link. And I still stand by my original statement that this issue has not been decided judicially since the warrantless wiretapping in question involves a domestic component. The author of the article you are using as your source of information is not, "painting the whole picture."

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#26)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:16:36 AM EST

Here is the problem. The president can order warrantless surveillance of a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. It is in the FISA law as well as federal rulings. The US code defines foreign power and foreign agent as the following:

(a) "Foreign power" means-- (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. ( b) "Agent of a foreign power" means-- ( 1) any person other than a United States person, who-- (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section; (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or (2) any person who-- (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (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; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html So Al Qaeda is definitely a Foreign Power. The ambiguity is whether the government can engage in surveillance of a US citizen, which requires that citizen to knowingly be talking to Al Qaeda or a similar organization. So if you know you are calling Al Qaeda then I would say a warrant isn't required. But what if you are calling your Uncle Abbas, and don't know he is affiliated with a terrorist organization. Under that circumstance the Government could certainly engage in surveillance of your uncle, but could they then start listening to all of your phone calls that you make over seas. I have a major problem with that. So based on the information we have I take back what I said earlier, I really don't know if what the President authorized was legal or not. I can' t say one way or another. It is a case that I will leave up to the courts to decide.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#27)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 10:35:02 AM EST

It is a case that I will leave up to the courts to decide. That is exactly why the FISA Court was established by Congress. The problem here is that bush avoids even the appearance of legitimacy and legality by avoiding the FISA Court. He does not want it decided by the courts. He's made that quite obvious. It smells fishy and makes him look shifty and like he's hiding something. If it walks like a duck...etc. If what he is doing is something that is legal then what, tell me, would he have to hide? It certainly does not make him appear to be someone worthy of trust.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#28)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:02:39 AM EST

Edger, I disagree. If the NSA was conducting surveillance of Mr. Abbas a known Al Qaeda affiliate then it falls out side of FISA as long as the communications are from or to the US and from or to a foreign nation. It doesn't matter whether Mr. Abbas is a US citizen or not, he is classified as a foreign agent under US code. In this case the president doesn't have to tell FISA what he is doing or ask for permission. My problem arises when Mr. Abbas's cousin Joe gives him a call from say Albany NY. Can the NSA then conduct surveillance of all of Joe's phone calls from this point forward if he is just calling to talk about the scores from the game last night. If they are talking about a plot then yes the NSA could conduct surveillance without a warrant. But if it is something benign, such as the scores of a hockey game, then I don' t think they are covered. So it really depends on what exactly the program entailed. You are accusing the president of hiding the NSA activities. In fact he did not. He briefed members of Congress about it, and they saw nothing wrong with the activity. That is not to say it is not illegal, but at this point I will trust the President and the members of congress's judgment at the time. Now is political and other things have come into play. I can understand why the President would not want to inform the general public about this plan. It gives away the particulars of what he is doing. This is not something you want to do when you are engaging in intelligence gathering operations. In fact some of the rulings from the court cases I listed above gave potential leaks as a reason why the President might choose not to seek a warrant. As we have discovered, the more people who know, the more likely classified information is to find its way into the hands of News Papers. This is not something that any American should be OK with.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#29)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:06:32 AM EST

But, taking the President and the NSA at their word, part of the activities is international in nature. And some of us should do that unquestioningly because? edger, don't forget that PPJ said that the FISA judges who commented on the warrantless wiretapping should be impeached for their remarks that were published a few weeks ago. No review, no oversight, that's really worked well to produce a strong and free society in the past, yes siree bob!

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#30)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:14:34 AM EST

DA, Yes I remember that. Maybe we should just impeach "everybody" from the mailman all the way up to the president, and be done with it? BSRB, Please use paragraphs. I don't know about anyone else here but I won't even bother to try to read that. My eyes are not as young as they once were... though the rest of me is younger than I used to be.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#31)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:20:36 AM EST

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#32)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:21:56 AM EST

I really need to proof read my comments

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 11:46:14 AM EST

The FISA Court can consider warrant applications behind closed doors wothout revealing any classified or sensitive information publicly. They can also issue warrants after the fact of a surveillance, if it is one that can be justified under current law. You say: You are accusing the president of hiding the NSA activities. In fact he did not. He briefed members of Congress about it, and they saw nothing wrong with the activity. I have not accused him of hiding the activity. If you are going do as other trolls have done here and start attributing to me or others things not said, or try to put words in my or others mouths, well... I am not going to play that game, and I know that others here probably will not as well. I have said:

[he] avoids even the appearance of legitimacy and legality by avoiding the FISA Court. He does not want it decided by the courts. He's made that quite obvious. It smells fishy and makes him look shifty and like he's hiding something. If it walks like a duck...etc. If what he is doing is something that is legal then what, tell me, would he have to hide?

You have said:

It is a case that I will leave up to the courts to decide.

Others have said that as here well. There is a court established exactly for what you state you want. But when that is pointed out, others, and now you, simply try to evade that point and dissemble. If it smells fishy and... If it walks like a duck...etc. then I assume it is a troll. Thanks...

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#34)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:17:57 PM EST

Trying to get me booted because you don't agreee with me is not a good debating tactic. Try to prove me wrong. I am not a Troll, but you are entitled to your opinion. You still have not addressed my point that if the person was a foreign agent then the president did not need to go through FISA to conduct the surveillance. You said:

The FISA Court can consider warrant applications behind closed doors wothout revealing any classified or sensitive information publicly.

Yes and the whole operation to this point was conducted behind closed doors but it was still leaked. You have not refuted my argument. The 72 hour time window is not as generous as it may sound. The FISA court was not a rubber stamp and requires a lot of work to file an application. Sometimes this cannot be done in 72 hours and then the surveillance needs to stop and any information gathered needs to be discarded.

It smells fishy and makes him look shifty and like he's hiding something.

Sorry you didn't say lying. I was wrong and made an assumption. You accused him of hiding something.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:34:02 PM EST

Trying to get me booted because you don't agreee with me is not a good debating tactic. Neither is attributing things not said (or done) by others. You still have not addressed my point that if the person was a foreign agent then the president did not need to go through FISA to conduct the surveillance. I have no need to. I did not raise that issue, you did. I also did not dispute it. My personal opinion? You're trolling.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#36)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:44:36 PM EST

Edger, So let me get this straight. Do you agree that if the NSA surveillance was of a foreign agent then the President could avoid the FISA courts? Again I did not intend to attribute things not said to you. I believed that you implied that by hiding something the president was being dishonest, and I inserted lying. My mistake. As I understand it a Troll makes invalid arguments, and is generally not contributing to the discussion. I am still not clear what portion of my argument is invalid. If you agree that the President did not need to go through FISA that is.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#37)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:50:06 PM EST

Wait I never said lying. Man I need to stop multi tasking. You said

The problem here is that bush avoids even the appearance of legitimacy and legality by avoiding the FISA Court. He does not want it decided by the courts. He's made that quite obvious. It smells fishy and makes him look shifty and like he's hiding something. If it walks like a duck...etc.
If what he is doing is something that is legal then what, tell me, would he have to hide?

I said

You are accusing the president of hiding the NSA activities. In fact he did not. He briefed members of Congress about it, and they saw nothing wrong with the activity.

By asking what would he have to hide, you implied he was hiding something, not coming clean.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:06:54 PM EST

Ok, last round on this one for me BRSB. By asking what would he have to hide, you implied he was hiding something, not coming clean. I asked a very straightforward question:

If what he is doing is something that is legal then what, tell me, would he have to hide?

Meaning if it's legal then go to the FISA Court. If he's not willing to, then he has a reason for not doing so. What is it? Is it legitimate surveillance that the FISA Court would approve? If so, then he has no reason to avoid them. I think he is avoiding them probably because he has legal opinions that FISA would refuse him the warrants. Otherwise he would ask for warrants. That is opinion on my part. His claim that the laws of the U.S. do not apply is in dispute, though not yet in a court. It would not be if he went to the FISA court for warrants. It smells fishy. I think he has something to hide. You have danced around my question 4 times without answering it. I think you are trolling. Thanks for your time.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#39)
by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:16:46 PM EST

To get back to the Original Point: The ACLU wants the Government to hand over information in regards to surveilling KNOWN Peace Groups and dissidents. NOT "How are you doing this?" (methods and operations) but "ARE you doing this?" (Wasting resources on domestic spying of peace groups, while actual terrorists are ignored), granted the Quakers are a lot easier to find than the Al-Qaeda, but I'm not scared of Quakers blowing up a dirty bomb in downtown. They are pacifists, so they are only a threat to the Military-Industrial Complex, and not any real people.

Re: ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 01:17:16 PM EST

Let me put it to you in simple english, BSRB: The words, "Just trust us," do not appear in the United States Constitution. And as Macromaniac noted above:

The issue is the warrantless NSA electronic surveillance program that targets US citizens. It violates the 4th amendment.

If you wish to continue going in endless circles on your merry-go-round, enjoy your ride... alone.

ACLU & AFSC Seek Surveillance Records

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal