Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

24601

(3,962 posts)

20. Javert - who reconsidered his position and let Valjean go? Awww, you never finished the story, did

Reply to Occulus (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 08:12 PM

Feb 2012

you? Merde!

OK, back to the issue that you pretend to know something about - and you could, if only you bothered to do a tiny bit of research.

Start with basic definitions as used in Signals Intelligence. From NSA's pages:

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml

So, for a 2nd party person (national of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand) on US soil - yep a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approval is required.

But that wasn't what I addressed. The post to which I responded referred to collection of non-US persons (note that the rules apply with respect to US persons, not just US Citizens) who were not located in the United States.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C36.txt

Feel free to read the law - as I said, it does not address the collection on non-US persons who are not on US soil.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ Urges Supreme Court to Halt Warrantless Eavesdropping Challenge - WIRED [View all] grahamhgreen Feb 2012 OP

When that was passed, we were told it would be 'fixed' once Democrats won a majority and sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #1

Why is it the same thing over and over again? Rex Feb 2012 #15

Which is the same thing they said about health care, and what worries me about the new tax plan, grahamhgreen Feb 2012 #16

Yes, there have been attempts. sofa king Feb 2012 #17

Thank you. If anything, that proves what people said at the time, it is far easier not to vote sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #19

Geroge W. Obama and the perpetuation of the police state nt msongs Feb 2012 #2

Since the law is unconstitutional it does not matter what anyone can prove. It is illegal Vincardog Feb 2012 #3

The new standard is: christx30 Feb 2012 #4

+1 truebrit71 Feb 2012 #5

Can you imagine how bad this would be under Bush???? FiveGoodMen Feb 2012 #6

The plaintiffs "don’t have the legal standing to bring the case rocktivity Feb 2012 #7

+100 stockholmer Feb 2012 #8

And a +100 to you too dreamnightwind Feb 2012 #10

Warrants aren't needed for collection on non-US persons not in US Jurisdiction. n/t 24601 Feb 2012 #9

So a second party who IS a citizen and IS on American soil has no standing either? Occulus Feb 2012 #13

"Being a citizen" isn't enough to sue the government over a law. boppers Feb 2012 #14

Javert - who reconsidered his position and let Valjean go? Awww, you never finished the story, did 24601 Feb 2012 #20

I side with the ACLU. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2012 #11

Unfortunately, THEY sided with Citizens United FiveGoodMen Feb 2012 #12

Like any institution the ACLU makes mistakes or errors in judgment but the vast majority of the time Uncle Joe Feb 2012 #18

And the Wall ST. banksters still walk free. Hotler Feb 2012 #21