Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
From: mrx <mrx () propergander org uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:21:15 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 16:36:12 -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:08:59 CST, Paul Schmehl said:Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count.It's kind of hard to cite a "proven instance", because all the people who tried were told to stuff it under the "state secrets" strategy: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99D0C2963ED15AB288257394007C1 F36/$file/0636083.pdf?openelement I suppose a signed letter from the Attorney General saying "We won't do this anymore because we now have a valid FISA warrant" isn't an admission that the program *had* been doing it before. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf And apparently, it *was* done, because: "Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court? GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available. Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it? GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/200512 19-1.html So there you have it - the Attorney General and the Deputy Director of National Intelligence saying flat out "We did this surveillance without a FISA warrant". But I suppose they were both lying through their teeth, and it never happened, and all this stuff on official White House letterhead is forged, and none of them said it.No, they weren't lying through their teeth. But you and millions of other people fail to grasp what they're saying. The NSA is a *military* agency. It's charter allows it to do *military* surveillance. The courts have always and routinely exempted that type of surveillance from the requirement of obtaining a warrant because it does not involve criminal justice actions against US citizens. It involves surveillance of "foreign agents" (the legal term of art for spies) - persons working on behalf of the enemies of the US. You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with warrantless surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation and then scream bloody murder about warrantless surveillance and intrusions of our rights. The latter is prohibited by law. The former is permitted by law. The purpose of the FISA law was to curtail the type of activity that the Nixon administration engaged in, namely the warrantless surveillance of US citizens for the purposes of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation under the color of "national security", a perversion of the intent of the Constitution. The courts have ruled that the primary purpose of the surveillance must be to "spy" on foreign enemies *and* their contacts within our borders. So long as it complies with those strictures it is legal without a warrant, according to every court ruling that has ever been obtained on the matter. When it involves a party within the US, a FISA warrant is required. When it does not involve a party within the borders of the US, **even if it involves a US citizen (see Hamadi), no warrant is required (FISA or otherwise) nor has one ever been required. And if you gave more than a second to the topic, you would readily see the stupidity of requiring the military to obtain a warrant to surveil the enemy in a time of war. The NSA is not a law enforcement agency and cannot pursue legal action against US citizens. That's the FBI's role. There are laws that address what, if any, information that the NSA obtains may be turned over to the FBI. You do realize that General Hayden was the director of the NSA when he made those statements, right? And he was referring to a surveillance program that involved enemies of the US, even some of whom are US citizens? That's a far cry from oh gee, they can snoop on my conversations any time they want to without going to the court first.
This snooping on US citizens via illegal wire taps could be tested. Appear to plan a terrorist outrage, engage in telephone conversations regarding the planting of bombs in shopping malls or the detonation of a fuel tanker at a large sports event. Then sit back an wait for the FBI, CIA or other law enforcement agency to kick in your door. Of course it could be that monitoring systems currently in place are searching/listening for certain keywords and once flagged a warrant is then applied for. But whatever the case, if an armed response team kick down your door at 4:00am, you can be sure your telephone conversations were monitored. I am personally of the opinion that the law only applies to those that are caught if they are a criminal, and cannot be covered up if they are a law enforcement officer. regards mrx. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBSvIoi7Ivn8UFHWSmAQKX/ggAoW5NYV57qJ7rdaKiWtYdwCBd2+sf2K8k 7F2UeAnxOifA1J6fxcXGp+AuE6GemMXrj9ysMltVzbJUI/9DBz3/+m925vNNdW/2 GWEoBfO/EB6Am/YSKHcbn39PhYemOiG7auEVOZHmkw89OWO8QIWdsHY2csHpENX7 kOtf2U33G+tbyGibwDUOZ23hs4o/77mX32eF12qmYznEdRb19Tl8JZKt8KXsw84x ijV3SwIWpmw8WxPvFz2H+8aUrB+jtBtaFDXuK9Hbg39temJOm2mJjBt1oDGdjGXw Ma1OtXleeTyBxsL0GnQ15BIBgnYosWvj2EyvToVpaCD1SO3mN/dJsg== =8ox0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Current thread:
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street, (continued)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Byron Sonne (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street frank^2 (Nov 03)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Kurt Buff (Nov 03)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Byron Sonne (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street mrx (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Ivan . (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Gary E. Miller (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 04)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Paul Schmehl (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Ivan . (Nov 05)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 06)
- Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street Gary E. Miller (Nov 06)