Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

[Rohit Patnaik <quanticle () gmail com>]

If it is so clear that a US citizen is involved in terrorism and is
communicating with terrorists beyond our borders, then why is it so hard for
the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant?  After all, its not
like they can claim that there wasn't time to get a warrant - the
pre-existing law allowed them to put in expedited requests for warrants
after the actual wiretap started, in addition to allowing continued use of
wiretaps while the warrant is being considered by the FISA court.  Secrecy
isn't a concern either - all proceedings of the FISA court are classified.
By what reasoning do these security agencies wish to further expand their
already considerable powers?

It seems to me that it is already far too easy for our national security
apparatus to spy on us without our permission or knowledge. The last thing I
want is to make such spying even easier for them.

--Rohit Patnaik

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists () tx rr com>wrote:

> --On November 6, 2009 6:07:17 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik <quanticle () gmail com>
> wrote:
> > You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps
> > against US citizens are unsubstantiated.  That is totally and blatantly
> > false (http://is.gd/4PcWV).
>
> Right.  The New York Times prints an article claiming that a
> "whistleblower" has revealed the content of a secret Executive Order.  The
> Washington Post then repeats that claim, without any substantiation other
> than the supposed statement of an anonymous informant and unnamed
> "administration officials" quoting "classified information" without
> quoting anyone who can be questioned.  And you call the claim that it's
> unsubstantiated "totally and blatantly false".
>
> Produce the Executive Order and we can call it substantiated.  Otherwise
> you're doing nothing other than blowing the same smoke that everyone else
> is.  The President (who should know) has stated publicly that he
> "authorized warrantless surveillance within the United States".  Note that
> he did not say "warrantless surveillance ***of US persons*** within the
> United States".
>
> Attorney General Gonzales stated that the intelligence program involves
> “intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the
> communication is outside the United States” and the government has “a
> reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a
> member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an
> organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al
> Qaeda.”  (You really should read what you link to before using it as
> proof of your claims.)
>
> Neither the President nor the Attorney General stated "we are spying on US
> persons without a warrant".  That claim is made by unnamed persons who
> cannot be questioned and reporters who repeat the claim without verifying
> that it's true.  If you want to believe that reporters never stretch the
> truth or make up facts, go ahead.  I know better.  I've been interviewed
> numerous times.  What reporters tell the public is a far cry from what
> their interviewees tell them.
>
> Now it *is* reasonable to believe that terrorists outside the US might be
> talking to persons inside the US who are either involved in terrorism or
> considering being involved in terrorism.  It's also reasonable to believe
> that some of those persons might be US persons (a legal term meaning they
> are citizens or resident aliens), but that is a far cry from "Egads!
> They're spying on US citizens without a warrant!  Our rights are in
> jeopardy!"
>
> If a US citizen is communicating with terrorists, then I have no problem
> with the NSA intercepting those communications.  Nor should you if you
> have a brain in your head.  OTOH, if the *FBI* wants to pursue legal
> action against that same person, then they are required to show probable
> cause and obtain a warrant.  But they can't get their evidence from the
> NSA.  The NSA can only supply the FBI with the information that there is a
> person of interest that they might want to open and investigation on.
> They cannot give them details and they cannot give them the intercepts.
> The FBI must then follow the normal course of law enforcement
> investigations, including probably cause, warrants, full protections of
> the Constitution, etc., etc.
>
> > The linked article clearly states, "Mr.
> > Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those
> > inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal
> > residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal
> > opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such
> > searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional
> > resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist
> > groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A.
> > operation."
>
> Yes, and no one has ever seen the source documents.  If you want to take
> someone's opinion that it's true, feel free to do so.  I do not.  If the
> New York Times want's to publish the Executive Order that they claim they
> know the contents of (as they did the Pentagon Papers years ago), then we
> can read it and see what it really said as opposed to what people opposed
> to the use of any surveillance at all claim to know about it.
>
> > And, in case you don't believe the other article, here
> > (http://is.gd/4Pd1C) is a Congressional Research Service article that
> > goes into more detail about the legal rationale behind the warrantless
> > wiretapping program.
> >
> > As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is
> > real, and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush
> > administration.  Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be
> > debated, but the fact such a program existed and did spy on American
> > citizens is well substantiated.
>
> The first part of your statement is true.  The second part is
> unsubstantiated.  All we know for certain is that people in a position to
> know and willing to be quoted on the record have stated that calls between
> persons affiliated with terrorists and other persons were intercepted.  We
> don't know the status of those other persons.  We can only presume.
>
> > As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who
> > have forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of
> > using reason is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for
> > the opposing point of view.
>
> Yes, and when there is, I will agree with you.  Opinions and un-attributed
> claims are not substantiation.  Reason does not fall prey to opinion, even
> when those opinions are shouted loudly and any opposition to them is
> ridiculed.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/