Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NSA Spying Myths

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 10:49 AM
Original message
NSA Spying Myths

NSA Spying Myths


David Cole
Thu Feb 2, 1:53 PM ET

The Nation -- "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." So Richard Nixon infamously defended his approval of a plan to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans involved in the antiwar movement in the 1970s. For thirty years Nixon's defense has stood as the apogee of presidential arrogance. But of course Nixon was proved wrong. The wiretapping plan was shelved when J. Edgar Hoover, of all people, objected to it. Nixon's approval of it was listed in the articles of impeachment. Nixon learned the hard way that Presidents are not above the law.


Snip...

Myth 1: Following existing law would require the NSA to turn off a wiretap of an Al Qaeda member calling in to the United States.

Variations on this theme appear every time the Administration defends the NSA spying program. The suggestion is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would interfere with the President's ability to monitor Al Qaeda members' calls when it's most important to do so. There's only one problem: FISA would not require the tap to be turned off. First, FISA does not apply at all to wiretaps targeted at foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions are triggered only when the surveillance is targeted at a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, or when the surveillance is obtained from a wiretap physically located within the United States. If the NSA is listening in on an Al Qaeda member's phone in Pakistan, nothing in FISA requires it to stop listening if that person calls someone in the United States. Second, even when FISA is triggered, it does not require the wiretap to be turned off but merely to be approved by a judge, based on a showing of probable cause that the target is a member of a terrorist organization. Such judicial approval may be obtained after the wiretap is put in place, so long as it is approved within seventy-two hours.

Myth 2: Congress approved the NSA spying program when it authorized military force against Al Qaeda.

This argument cannot be squared with existing law, which provides that even when Congress declares war--a much more formal and grave step than an authorization to use force--the President has only fifteen days to conduct warrantless surveillance. The Al Qaeda authorization says not one word about wiretapping Americans. In addition, when asked why the Administration did not seek to amend FISA to permit this program, the Attorney General explained that he consulted with several members of Congress but that they told him it would be "difficult, if not impossible," to obtain permission. You can't argue that you didn't ask because Congress would have said no, but that without asking, and without Congress saying so, it actually said yes.

Myth 3: Bush informed Congress of the NSA program.

"If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush asked in a speech on the spying issue. His Administration claims that it informed isolated members of Congress twelve times, but there is no evidence that it told those members either that it believed its actions were authorized by the use-of-force resolution or that it was asserting executive power to violate criminal law. In addition, the briefings were classified, and members were prohibited from repeating to other members anything that was said there. So the answer to Bush's question is that he may have "informed Congress" precisely to provide cover in case his secret lawbreaking ever became public, but he did so in a manner that insured Congress could not take action against him.

more...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060202/cm_thenation/20060220cole_1

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Gonzales expected to stonewall hearings

Will Senate Wiretap Hearings Hit a Wall in the Form of the Attorney General?


T.R. Goldman
Legal Times
02-06-2006

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proved to be one of the Bush administration's most reliable witnesses: polite, soft-spoken -- and opaque.

So in the run-up to his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today to talk about the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretap program, few were expecting any revelations.

"I expect Gonzales will stonewall," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"Exceptionally evasive" is how Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Russell Feingold characterized Gonzales' previous appearances before the panel.

But Feinstein and Feingold, the only two Democrats to sit on both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees, aren't really complaining. At least the Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing. And Gonzales is showing up.


more...


http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1138961116371&rss=newswire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neil Lisst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-04-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Since NSA is reading DU and reading my cartoon ...
Edited on Sat Feb-04-06 11:33 AM by Neil Lisst
That sort of blows the theory that they're just monitoring Al Qaeda, doesn't it?

They came to my site through a link on this board, so we know for a fact they were reading DU and harvesting info.

The FBI has already said the NSA sent them tons of crap that was a complete waste of time.

The administration is engaged in wholesale spying and monitoring of Americans in America whose only "crime" is disagreeing with this suck ass administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. They will lie and spin, but it was illegal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC