NCAAbbs

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/...d-for.html

As always, go to the site to get the links. In this case please hit the link, the dreaded bug is preventing importing the text. Wonderful piece by Glenn.


No need for Congress, no need for courts

"Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled."


"Amazingly, again and again, they don't even want their own Justice Department to know what they are doing because they are afraid that DoJ lawyers will tell them that it is against the law. They don't want to hear that it is against the law. As USA Today reported: "For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events." They know very well that their conduct might be, and in some cases that it is definitely is, illegal, but they are purposely avoiding having the DoJ be able to opine on the legality of their behavior."

I love it, bash Bush, even though the law regarding the collection of phone data was passed in '94 by a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and Clinton. Still, its all Bush's fault!

________________________________________


Dialing and the Democrats

New York Sun Editorial
May 12, 2006

No sooner had the man who ran the National Security Agency for years been nominated to head the CIA than USA Today rushed out details of our efforts to use technical means to find terrorists using the phones. And no sooner had USA Today disclosed details of an apparent attempt by the National Security Agency to defend Americans from terrorists than the Democratic Party and its leading politicians and interest groups went on the attack. Not against the terrorists but against President Bush. "This is another example of the Bush Administration misleading the American people," said a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, Stacie Paxton.

Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts called the program "abusive" and said "Today's shocking disclosures make it more important than ever for the Republican Congress to end its complicity in the White House cover up of its massive domestic surveillance program. When three major telephone companies are supplying the administration with records of all Americans regardless of any hint of wrongdoing, Congress can't look the other way." Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a Democrat of Tennessee, went on Fox News Channel to call the news "disturbing." Senator Clinton pronounced herself "deeply disturbed."


Mrs. Clinton might want to have a talk with her husband. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible.

President Bush struck exactly the right notes yesterday. "So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil," Mr. Bush said. "As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country." If he seemed calm about the latest disclosures, we can't help wondering whether it's because he recognizes that when Americans go to sleep at night, they're less worried about the "danger" that the government is looking for terrorists than they are about the danger that terrorists are looking for them.

This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.

dont pull out these bogus "facts" smutiger. dont u know that bush & co. were running the country in 1994?

dfarr Wrote:dont pull out these bogus "facts" smutiger. dont u know that bush & co. were running the country in 1994?

Damn, sorry, sorry...shouldn't be waiving around facts when there are Republicans to pillory. Throw me in a straight-jacket and send me off for re-education.

"Sen. Leahy: "Are You Telling Me That Tens Of Millions Of Americans Are Involved With Al Qaeda?"


Link and transcript from thinkprogress - http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/gingrich-on-nsa/

Gingrich on NSA Phone Records Program: Administration's Conduct Can't Be Defended By Reasonable People

The disclosure of the NSA's domestic call-tracking program has drawn criticism from some of Bush's key allies:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): I am concerned about what I read with regard to NSA databases of phone calls.

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH): While I support aggressively tracking al-Qaida, the administration needs to answer some tough questions about the protection of our civil liberties.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?

Last night on Fox, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich added his name to the growing list of bipartisan critics of the program. Watch it:

GINGRICH: I don't think the way they've handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations.

Full transcript below:

GINGRICH: Good to be with you, Alan.

COLMES: Here's what the president said in April of 2004 about the whole issue of wiretapping and warrants. Here's what he said then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLMES: Then he said when it came out a little while ago that there was some wiretapping he said it only applies to international communications. And now we're finding something else. So it just seems we're not getting a consistent story here, are we?

GINGRICH: No. You're not.

COLMES: Why not?

GINGRICH: Look, I'm not... Alan, I'm not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people.

And I'm prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I'm prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who's making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it's underway.

But I don't think the way they've handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations.

nt

nt

nt

"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with Al Quaeda?" ~ Senator Leahy

Yikes. I got the debug error but it was going through when I thought it wasn't. Sorry.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:"Sen. Leahy: "Are You Telling Me That Tens Of Millions Of Americans Are Involved With Al Qaeda?"


Link and transcript from thinkprogress - http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/gingrich-on-nsa/

Gingrich on NSA Phone Records Program: Administration?s Conduct Can?t ?Be Defended By Reasonable People?

The disclosure of the NSA?s domestic call-tracking program has drawn criticism from some of Bush?s key allies:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH): ?I am concerned about what I read with regard to NSA databases of phone calls.?

Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH): ?While I support aggressively tracking al-Qaida, the administration needs to answer some tough questions about the protection of our civil liberties.?

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): ?The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy??

Last night on Fox, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich added his name to the growing list of bipartisan critics of the program. Watch it:

ging

I don?t think the way they?ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations.

Full transcript below:

GINGRICH: Good to be with you, Alan.

COLMES: Here?s what the president said in April of 2004 about the whole issue of wiretapping and warrants. Here?s what he said then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ? a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we?re talking about chasing down terrorists, we?re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLMES: Then he said when it came out a little while ago that there was some wiretapping he said it only applies to international communications. And now we?re finding something else. So it just seems we?re not getting a consistent story here, are we?

GINGRICH: No. You?re not.

COLMES: Why not?

GINGRICH: Look, I?m not ? Alan, I?m not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people.

And I?m prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I?m prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who?s making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it?s underway.

But I don?t think the way they?ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations.

I think the question to be asked is why Congress is IGNORANT of the law it PASSED over ten years ago.

I think the question to be asked is why a rubber stamp Republican majority and a supine Democrat minority have completely abdicated their duty to oversight.

Although, frankly, most attempts have been blocked by the administration.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:I think the question to be asked is why a rubber stamp Republican majority and a supine Democrat minority have completely abdicated their duty to oversight.

Although, frankly, most attempts have been blocked by the administration.

i still dont get how you can pin this on republicans.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:I think the question to be asked is why a rubber stamp Republican majority and a supine Democrat minority have completely abdicated their duty to oversight.

Although, frankly, most attempts have been blocked by the administration.

Oh for crying out loud, the law has been on the books for TWELVE YEARS. It was passed by a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and executed by a Democratic President. It was passed by a voice vote so we would not have a record of how our representatives and senators voted. Yet, it is the fault of this Congress? Please. I seem to recall Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy, Feinstain, etc. were in Congress in '94. They probably voted for the damn law. So, either they are being hypocrits now or they didn't understand what they were voting for. Seriously, man, quit trying to blame everything on this administation, because you know what, past administrations screwed up, too.

dfarr Wrote:

UAB Band Dad Wrote:I think the question to be asked is why a rubber stamp Republican majority and a supine Democrat minority have completely abdicated their duty to oversight.

Although, frankly, most attempts have been blocked by the administration.

i still dont get how you can pin this on republicans.

Because, he, like most of the rapid left, has a masturbatory fascination with pinning blame on Republicans. Republicans can never be right simply because they are Republicans. Anything that goes wrong is a Republicans fault. Even in the face of cold hard facts, they deny reality because reality does not fit what they wish to be true.

No, it's because silly me, I think that the government has three separate but equal branches which are supposed to check and balance each other.

The FISA law was passed, and the FISA court put into place, to monitor government eavesdropping. The laws were passed by Congress in response to previous abuses of intelligence gathering by the US Government.

The Bush administration has end run a very plainly drawn legal structure intended to give oversight of such exactly warrants as these actions demand. Of course, the executive currently says they don't need warrants. Constitution be damned, and Congress and the Court system too.

When the Justice Department has to drop its inquiry into the NSA because the NSA says the investigators won't be granted clearance to investigate, something is very wrong.

To come back to Clinton signing the communication act, I can't believe that his intention was to turn the NSA loose to monitor every phone in the nation. It took Bush and Cheney to come up with that, and the most spineless AG I've ever seen to mealymouth a fig leaf for it.

From the House Report http://www.askcalea.net/docs/hr103827.pdf

"The purpose of H.R. 4922 is to preserve the government's ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications involving advanced technologies such as digital or wireless transmission modes, or features and services such as call forwarding, speed dialing and conference calling, while protecting the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new technologies, features, and services.

From the law itself http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html:

"SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subsections (b), ©, and (d) of this section and sections 108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of--

(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government;

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier--

(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number);

(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and

(4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--

(A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information."

Technically the law was passed by in 1994 by a Democrat majority. However, as you can see above, it was never meant to allow the government to obtain a database of all calls or use data mining techniques, especially without a warrant. The purpose of the law was to require communications carriers to keep up with technology, and maintain the ability to provide specific information to law enforcement personnel when it is legally requested by the government. IMO, this law does not allow the actions that have been taken by the NSA, as it is not applicable to the specific actions taken by the NSA. Maybe this shouldn't be blamed on Republicans in general, but this administration has stretched the limits of the constitution, IMO. SMUTiger, I know you're an attorney, maybe you can prove me wrong.

UAB Band Dad Wrote:No, it's because silly me, I think that the government has three separate but equal branches which are supposed to check and balance each other.

The FISA law was passed, and the FISA court put into place, to monitor government eavesdropping. The laws were passed by Congress in response to previous abuses of intelligence gathering by the US Government.

The Bush administration has end run a very plainly drawn legal structure intended to give oversight of such exactly warrants as these actions demand. Of course, the executive currently says they don't need warrants. Constitution be damned, and Congress and the Court system too.

When the Justice Department has to drop its inquiry into the NSA because the NSA says the investigators won't be granted clearance to investigate, something is very wrong.

First, the news reported yesterday deals with a separate Act which does not relate to FISA. Secondly, have you actually read the FISA Act? Seriously, have you read it? It specifically states that the President, without a court order, may order electronic surveillance in certain situations. Let me repeat, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. What part of that do you not understand? FISA was passed in 1978, by a Democratic Congress and executed by a Democratic President. How can the President be doing an endrun around the FISA court when the law that establishes that court allows him to bypass it? Seriously, explain that one to me.

nm

UAB Band Dad Wrote:To come back to Clinton signing the communication act, I can't believe that his intention was to turn the NSA loose to monitor every phone in the nation. It took Bush and Cheney to come up with that, and the most spineless AG I've ever seen to mealymouth a fig leaf for it.

Oh, come off it. Clinton authorized the collection of the same damn information. Your argument is pure BS. Further, they are not monitoring every phone. That is physically impossible. The program solely asks phone companies to provide data as to what numbers are being called by certain accounts. All reports were very clear on that. So, in addition to a BS argument, you are resorting to hyperbole.

wpblazer Wrote:From the House Report http://www.askcalea.net/docs/hr103827.pdf

"The purpose of H.R. 4922 is to preserve the government's ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications involving advanced technologies such as digital or wireless transmission modes, or features and services such as call forwarding, speed dialing and conference calling, while protecting the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new technologies, features, and services.

From the law itself http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html:

"SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subsections (b), ©, and (d) of this section and sections 108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of--

(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government;

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier--

(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number);

(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and

(4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--

(A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information."

Technically the law was passed by in 1994 by a Democrat majority. However, as you can see above, it was never meant to allow the government to obtain a database of all calls or use data mining techniques, especially without a warrant. The purpose of the law was to require communications carriers to keep up with technology, and maintain the ability to provide specific information to law enforcement personnel when it is legally requested by the government. IMO, this law does not allow the actions that have been taken by the NSA, as it is not applicable to the specific actions taken by the NSA. Maybe this shouldn't be blamed on Republicans in general, but this administration has stretched the limits of the constitution, IMO. SMUTiger, I know you're an attorney, maybe you can prove me wrong.

You prove yourself wrong. You state "The purpose of the law was to require communications carriers to keep up with technology, and maintain the ability to provide specific information to law enforcement personnel when it is legally requested by the government." Further, the legislative purpose of the Act, as defined by Congress was: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." How can this be any clearer? The Act helps make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to coorperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes. Yes, you cite one part of the Act, but it goes on for several other statutes and you neglect the enforcement regulations completely. If I had the time, I could find, chapter and verse, the provisions which EXPLICITLY allow the collection of the information provided. But it is not worth my time, especially when it is only provided to people that have already made up their mind and refuse to accept the reality of the law.


[edit]

Now that I have calmed down a bit, I appreciate that you actually went to look at the law. I truly do. But one statue does not the whole Act make. Further, it is not my job to explain the law to you. My firm gets paid for me to do that for our clients. When I have free time, I try to offer insight where I can, but I do not have the time to be a full time explainer of law and a lawyer. ANd unforutnately, you do not pay my paycheck. Finally, there is no point for me to do so when certain readers on here refuse to accept the facts.

I am more than happy to have a discussion on these topics, but a discussion implies give and take and an open mind. To the extent I lost my temper above, my apologies, but when someone repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the facts...well, it pisses me off. We live in reality, not fantasy, and you know what, reality often sucks.

Right now, I am going to pick up my kids, as my wife has to work late tonight.

SMUTiger Wrote:

wpblazer Wrote:From the House Report http://www.askcalea.net/docs/hr103827.pdf

"The purpose of H.R. 4922 is to preserve the government's ability, pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept communications involving advanced technologies such as digital or wireless transmission modes, or features and services such as call forwarding, speed dialing and conference calling, while protecting the privacy of communications and without impeding the introduction of new technologies, features, and services.

From the law itself http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html:

"SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS- Except as provided in subsections (b), ©, and (d) of this section and sections 108(a) and 109(b) and (d), a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of--

(1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to intercept, to the exclusion of any other communications, all wire and electronic communications carried by the carrier within a service area to or from equipment, facilities, or services of a subscriber of such carrier concurrently with their transmission to or from the subscriber's equipment, facility, or service, or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government;

(2) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier--

(A) before, during, or immediately after the transmission of a wire or electronic communication (or at such later time as may be acceptable to the government); and
(B) in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains, except that, with regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call-identifying information shall not include any information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the telephone number);

(3) delivering intercepted communications and call-identifying information to the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, in a format such that they may be transmitted by means of equipment, facilities, or services procured by the government to a location other than the premises of the carrier; and

(4) facilitating authorized communications interceptions and access to call-identifying information unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with any subscriber's telecommunications service and in a manner that protects--

(A) the privacy and security of communications and call-identifying information not authorized to be intercepted; and
(B) information regarding the government's interception of communications and access to call-identifying information."

Technically the law was passed by in 1994 by a Democrat majority. However, as you can see above, it was never meant to allow the government to obtain a database of all calls or use data mining techniques, especially without a warrant. The purpose of the law was to require communications carriers to keep up with technology, and maintain the ability to provide specific information to law enforcement personnel when it is legally requested by the government. IMO, this law does not allow the actions that have been taken by the NSA, as it is not applicable to the specific actions taken by the NSA. Maybe this shouldn't be blamed on Republicans in general, but this administration has stretched the limits of the constitution, IMO. SMUTiger, I know you're an attorney, maybe you can prove me wrong.

You prove yourself wrong. You state "The purpose of the law was to require communications carriers to keep up with technology, and maintain the ability to provide specific information to law enforcement personnel when it is legally requested by the government." Further, the legislative purpose of the Act, as defined by Congress was: "To amend title 18, United States Code, to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." How can this be any clearer? The Act helps make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to coorperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes. Yes, you cite one part of the Act, but it goes on for several other statutes and you neglect the enforcement regulations completely. If I had the time, I could find, chapter and verse, the provisions which EXPLICITLY allow the collection of the information provided. But it is not worth my time, especially when it is only provided to people that have already made up their mind and refuse to accept the reality of the law.

I didn't prove myself wrong, I included the capabilities the companies are required to provide. Here they are one by one:

103(a)(1) - requires the carrier to be able to isolate and enable the government to intercept a single subscriber, notice it says "to the exclusion of any other communications"

103(a)(2) - requires the carrier to provide call-identifying information before, during, or immediately after the transmission...in a manner that allows it to be associated with the communication to which it pertains - this sounds like tracing a call to me

103(a)(3) - requires the carrier to deliver the information in a usable format

103(a)(4) - requires the carrier to facilitate authorized interceptions and access in a manner that protects the privacy and security of communications not authorized to be intercepted, and protect the information regarding the interception

I'm not a lawyer yet, but I see nothing in those requirements that says carriers must turn over databases of all calls so that they can be data mined for the purposes of finding trends in the calls. In fact, 103(a)(4)(A) seems to implicitly deny the carriers the right to just turn over all call information to the government, since it requires them to protect the privacy and security of communications that were not authorized to be intercepted.

Like I said, I read the entire statute, and I did not see anything that either expressly or implicitly allows the government to request (or requires the carriers to provide) the wholesale interception of call information. Maybe it is just me, but I'm not seeing it. Apparently, the general counsel for Qwest has also expressed doubt that the government has this ability, when they denied the government's request.

I am not asking for a qualified opinion or a legal brief, I just told you what I thought. I enjoy a good debate, and I know that you are more qualified than I, when it comes to dissecting a statute. Frankly, I can live without the crap about paying your salary and it not being your job to explain the law to me. I read the statute, and offered my opinion on what I read. I assumed based on your previous posts that you would disagree, and I asked you to provide some basis for that disagreement. If you don't want to, that is fine, but don't expect me to change my mind just because SMUtiger says that he is right.

I don't know if you are referring to me with your comments about a lack of an open mind, but it is clear that my mind is open on the subject, or I wouldn't have bothered looking up and reading the statute and committee report.

Stay safe while going to get your kids, and enjoy your weekend.

SMUTiger Wrote:

UAB Band Dad Wrote:No, it's because silly me, I think that the government has three separate but equal branches which are supposed to check and balance each other.

The FISA law was passed, and the FISA court put into place, to monitor government eavesdropping. The laws were passed by Congress in response to previous abuses of intelligence gathering by the US Government.

The Bush administration has end run a very plainly drawn legal structure intended to give oversight of such exactly warrants as these actions demand. Of course, the executive currently says they don't need warrants. Constitution be damned, and Congress and the Court system too.

When the Justice Department has to drop its inquiry into the NSA because the NSA says the investigators won't be granted clearance to investigate, something is very wrong.

First, the news reported yesterday deals with a separate Act which does not relate to FISA. Secondly, have you actually read the FISA Act? Seriously, have you read it? It specifically states that the President, without a court order, may order electronic surveillance in certain situations. Let me repeat, WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. What part of that do you not understand? FISA was passed in 1978, by a Democratic Congress and executed by a Democratic President. How can the President be doing an endrun around the FISA court when the law that establishes that court allows him to bypass it? Seriously, explain that one to me.

The FISA act says that the government can act without a warrant, but that the court must be consulted to review and issue a warrant within 72 hours. This is so that in a case that requires swiftness of action, action can be taken. What it's not is a get out of jail free card to do what you want to and take the attitude that the courts have no need to know, no role in review of the actions taken by the intelligence or enforcement arm involved.

Last time I checked, neither party was packing the bench with Al-Quaeda sympathizers who want to mess things up.

You know, it's funny. I google up fisa court, looking for the stats on how few requests the court has ever turned down... (I think it was ten since the law was passed, with six of those approved once changes were made). Anyhow, I google FISA and almost every article I see that was published pre-911 expresses doubt about the legality of FISA, that it was so broadly couched that it was, or nearly was, unconstitutional. That's the same law that now is such a hinderance that it must be ignored.