AlexRS Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Starting up a thread to discuss LEGAL aspects of the Wiretapping scandal. Please try to avoid Political discussion here if possible. The goal is to determine what is legal under law, not what actually happened. I found US Code here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html Hopefully this site is up to date: the President' date=' through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order ...if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that ... communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers ... or from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power [/quote'] Indeed warrantless wiretaps are legal! The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. No warrant' date=' but there must be something in writting to attest to (a)(1) of the law. Must have that document in writting though, and cannot wiretap US Citizens. There is, however, a potential loophole to overcome this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance However, wiretaps on US Citizens fall under this: notwithstanding paragraphs (1)' date=' (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. [/quote'] After doing all this research, my opinion is this. The law has been broken if one of the following occured: Attorney General did not provide the reason to wiretap in writting and under oath Information about US Citizens has been kept for longer than 72 hours without court order Wiretaps of US Citizens were not made to "understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 FWIW, IMO, (and BLT and RSVP), One thing I'd really like to know is who's phone was tapped. If the NSA is monitoring Abduhl ben Bombin's satelite phone, and he gets a call from Ted Kennedy, then tough noogies. If the order is "I want to mnitor all of Louis Farrakahn's international phone calls", then that's another matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 One thing I'd really like to know is who's phone was tapped. Exactly. They are not allowed to tap phones of US Citizens, end of story. Specifically, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html [quote name='TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 (a)(1)(] the President' date=' through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that .... (B)there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; [/quote'] Wiretapping a phone of US Citizen under FISA without court order is ILLEGAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Exactly. They are not allowed to tap phones of US Citizens, end of story. Specifically, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html Wiretapping a phone of US Citizen under FISA without court order is ILLEGAL. A couple of points of clarification. What's the definition of a "wiretap"? What under the law(s) constitutes a "phone" ? It may seem obvious but since we're discussing legal definitons what are the legal definitions per controlling legal authority. And the controlling legal authority is the crutch of the argument. Is FISA the controlling legal authority or is the authority granted the President by congress etc. in control here. It's a gray area that IMO, as I understand it, and given what has been made public thus far the Pres gets a pass on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Cornell's website is pretty good and accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 A couple of points of clarification. What's the definition of a "wiretap"?What under the law(s) constitutes a "phone" ? It may seem obvious but since we're discussing legal definitons what are the legal definitions per controlling legal authority. And the controlling legal authority is the crutch of the argument. Is FISA the controlling legal authority or is the authority granted the President by congress etc. in control here. It's a gray area that IMO, as I understand it, and given what has been made public thus far the Pres gets a pass on. before I say bs, please eloborate what else a "phone" or "wiretap" could be/mean under a different deffniition, or what else could be construed as a "phone" or "wiretap"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Guys, we are just playing here. You can't analyze an issue by citing a few passages from a statute. You have to have it ALL. ALL the pertinent statutes - many times you have to cross reference back and forth between different sections of the U.S. Code. And I, for one, haven't a clue what all the pertinent statutes are. The statutes themselves have definitions for things like "wiretaps," etc. You also have to have caselaw to know how the terms and circumstances have been interpreted or defined by the courts in the past. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that most posters didn't already know and I certainly appreciate the effort posters have made to research and analyze aspects of the issue. It's been very edifying for me. But in the end it's an incredibly complicated and intertwined process. Which is why it's tempting to simply take one's favorite "expert's" brief on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Guys, we are just playing here. You can't analyze an issue by citing a few passages from a statute. You have to have it ALL. ALL the pertinent statutes - many times you have to cross reference back and forth between different sections of the U.S. Code. And I, for one, haven't a clue what all the pertinent statutes are. The statutes themselves have definitions for things like "wiretaps," etc. You also have to have caselaw to know how the terms and circumstances have been interpreted or defined by the courts in the past. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that most posters didn't already know and I certainly appreciate the effort posters have made to research and analyze aspects of the issue. It's been very edifying for me. But in the end it's an incredibly complicated and intertwined process. Which is why it's tempting to simply take one's favorite "expert's" brief on it. Yes, but the spirit of the Constitution is pretty straight forward. You can easily trace everything back to it. You can see what they tried to do, how they tried to get 4th amendment working with national security needs and intel gathering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 You should also check out the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yes, but the spirit of the Constitution is pretty straight forward. You can easily trace everything back to it. You can see what they tried to do, how they tried to get 4th amendment working with national security needs and intel gathering. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.