Rebuttal to NYT and Wiretapping article

[helptheSKINS]

This statement defines the majority of the mainstream media as well as many of our ES Posters. Many will deny it, but it is 100% accurate.

.” Had we not passed this law and an attack not been prevented, I’m sure that the New York Times would have been first in line to criticize the failure to “collect the dots”, much less to “connect the dots”.

[Midnight Judges]

What hapens when a bad guy buys software that makes his IP address appear as a US address? Are we (the US) not allowed to monitor him? Or since it appears as if he is in the US, but we (the US) can be reasonably sure he is not, are we (the US) permitted to monitor him?

If he is not in the USA then of course we are allowed to monitor. Just have to hope that our guys have better technology, and I bet we do.

[ACW]

Disagree 100%. Everybody and their dog already knows we conduct wiretaps. This has been wide spread knowledge for 60 years. Nothing about the NYT article is going to change their course of action. They aren't going to come out and say things over international phone lines. If they truely are that stupid we have nothing to worry about anyway.

:applause:

[Popeman38]

1) I have read the law. (At least the part you quoted.)

2) The question is: Why does the law say "reasonably believed to be outside the US", instead of "people outside the US"?

(I'm also scratching my head over the line "(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;", since I thought that the sole purpose of this law was to authorize electronic surveillance.)

Definitions:

(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means—

(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against— (A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

( sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

© clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to— (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

( the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

And

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

[Midnight Judges]

This statement defines the majority of the mainstream media as well as many of our ES Posters. Many will deny it, but it is 100% accurate.

.” Had we not passed this law and an attack not been prevented, I’m sure that the New York Times would have been first in line to criticize the failure to “collect the dots”, much less to “connect the dots”.

yeah yeah yeah. You're voting a straight Republican ticket for the rest of your life. We get it.

[ACW]

Definitions:

(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means—

(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against— (A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

( sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

© clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to— (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

( the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

And

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

Translation please for those of us who don't speak bureaucratese

[Midnight Judges]

Translation please for those of us who don't speak bureaucratese

Here ya go: "We are the United States Government and we will do whatever we damn well please."

[Larry]

This is where things get complex. The FISA does not require that the person be foreign. It requires the person be an agent of a foreign power. I'd be shocked for example if FISA was not used in the Hannsen case (but no, I don't have any proof, but I think there is clearly a reason for that type of language).

As I understand it, Clinton tried to use FISA against Win Ho Lee (name? The guy accused of selling nuclear secrets to China), claiming that this was a national security investigation of a person acting as an agent for a foreign government.

The GOP pitched a fit and specifically modified the law to prohibit it's use within the US (because they didn't want Democratic presidents to have the power to bypass the Constitution for National Security reasons.)

[Popeman38]

Translation please for those of us who don't speak bureaucratese

It simply makes a distinction between "foreign intel information" and "electronic surveillance".

[Popeman38]

And for those worried that this is a permanent thing:

© Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[helptheSKINS]

yeah yeah yeah. You're voting a straight Republican ticket for the rest of your life. We get it.

That is exactly what I would expect to hear back. Believe it or not, democrats support nat'l security as well. I think what really stings is the comment is accurate.

[PeterMP]

As I understand it, Clinton tried to use FISA against Win Ho Lee (name? The guy accused of selling nuclear secrets to China), claiming that this was a national security investigation of a person acting as an agent for a foreign government.

The GOP pitched a fit and specifically modified the law to prohibit it's use within the US (because they didn't want Democratic presidents to have the power to bypass the Constitution for National Security reasons.)

Maybe that happened later, but I am sure that there were issues w/ in the Clinton administration w/ regards to whether he was currently "a foreign agent" vs. had he been a foreign agent, and whether they could get a FISA warrant for somebody that HAD BEEN a foreign agent. I've never heard of the Congress getting involved:

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/080599_china_espionage_statement.htm

"Viewed together, in the "totality of the circumstances," the FBI believed that this information amounted to "probable cause" that Wen-Ho Lee and his wife Sylvia were "agents of a foreign power" such that approval for electronic surveillance was authorized under FISA.

OIPR, however, viewed the evidence against the Lees differently. OIPR argued that the information from the FBI's 1982-84 investigation ofLee and the FBI's more recent,separate investigative lead, in particular, was not "current" enough to satisfy the statutory definition of an agent of a foreign power as someone who "engages in" intelligence activities -- i.e., one who is currently involved in such things. OIPR officials argued that the FBI had "not sufficiently demonstrated a connection" between Lee and the compromise of the W-88 information, and that "all of the most interesting things that would qualify him for coverage were too distant in time."(63)"

OIPR being the branch of the DOJ that was interacting w/ the FISA court and therefore put together the applications.

[helptheSKINS]

The fact is that all the people here have no idea how to protect this country from terrorism (including me). So what many do is complain about what the administration and the gov't in general is doing to make themselves feel important. This will not effect a single one of us (unless you're talking to terrorists) but for some reason so many are outraged. Our privacy is not being stepped on, but some want to make it seem that way. Accusations are made then shot down, but the ****ing continues. I know, it's your right to say whatever you want...... I'll post the statement again because is extremely accurate for far too many people. It's an easy way for many to ensure they can b1tch no matter what happens.

” Had we not passed this law and an attack not been prevented, I’m sure that the New York Times would have been first in line to criticize the failure to “collect the dots”, much less to “connect the dots”.

[Midnight Judges]

The fact is that all the people here have no idea how to protect this country from terrorism (including me).

You don't know everyone here and their profession.

So what many do is complain about what the administration and the gov't in general is doing to make themselves feel important.

If talking on a football message board makes you feel important...youch.

This will not effect a single one of us (unless you're talking to terrorists) but for some reason so many are outraged.

You don't know that. Nixon spied for political reasons, so did JFK and Lyndon Johnson. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Without oversight, nobody knows who they are spying on. Especially not someone like yourself who gets 100% of their information straight from the Republican party.

Our privacy is not being stepped on, but some want to make it seem that way.

You don't believe in the right to privacy anyway. Some of us hold that as a true American principle. You don't, fine, but you have no right to surrender it for the rest of us.

Accusations are made then shot down,

None of my accusations were shot down. Or Larry's, or Predictos. You probably think they were simply because popeman responded and you don't understand the issue or the legality of the matter.

but the ****ing continues.

...and at this point I'm not real sure why I'm bothering to respond to it.

I know, it's your right to say whatever you want

It's also my right to have privacy.

...... I'll post the statement again because is extremely accurate for far too many people.

You wouldn't know accuracy if it hit you precisely between the eyes.

It's an easy way for many to ensure they can b1tch no matter what happens.

...and you will take the Republican position no matter what happens. Sean Hannity says he's proud of you (but really he thinks you're a tool).

” Had we not passed this law and an attack not been prevented, I’m sure that the New York Times would have been first in line to criticize the failure to “collect the dots”, much less to “connect the dots

I don't know about the other guys, but the only people I ever blamed for 9/11 were the terrorists themselves. Please search my posts and try to find anything to the contrary.

[Popeman38]

I am not trying to prove or disprove a thing. I posted the particulars so they could be read. I think some of the concern on this board is from lack of information.

[helptheSKINS]

You don't know everyone here and their profession.

never said I did

If talking on a football message board makes you feel important...youch.

wow you're witty.

You don't know that. Nixon spied for political reasons, so did JFK and Lyndon Johnson. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Without oversight, nobody knows who they are spying on. Especially not someone like yourself who gets 100% of their information straight from the Republican party.

Are you obsessed with the republican party? I never mentioned them. I'm actually critical of both parties.

You don't believe in the right to privacy anyway. Some of us hold that as a true American principle. You don't, fine, but you have no right to surrender it for the rest of us.

You are correct, I don't believe in privacy. In fact, I think all people should have to walk around nude. very good observation.

None of my accusations were shot down. Or Larry's, or Predictos. You probably think they were simply because popeman responded and you don't understand the issue or the legality of the matter.

Here's a few

1. Your comment about the NY Times being indepenent is PRICELESS! Had to add it.

2. Larry's comment about "oustside the US", which you agreed with. You should read more before making comments.

Answer: Sec. 105B.... Some things are written somewhat vaguely so the terrorists don't have an easy loophole rather then assuming the gov't is doing it to so they can do naughty things.

...and at this point I'm not real sure why I'm bothering to respond to it.

Because you can't help it

It's also my right to have privacy.

yes it is

You wouldn't know accuracy if it hit you precisely between the eyes.

I disagree

...and you will take the Republican position no matter what happens. Sean Hannity says he's proud of you (but really he thinks you're a tool).

Keep assuming I'm all Republican, all the time. A little hypocrytical since you are accusing me of assuming things. I've never once watched his show, but good effort. You can come up with something better than that to color me republican can't you? By the way, 16 democrats voted for this bill and 43 republicans. Doesn't that mean I'm 37% democrat by your calculations? Or does it mean that there are 16 democrats that "take the republican position no matter what happens.

I don't know about the other guys, but the only people I ever blamed for 9/11 were the terrorists themselves. Please search my posts and try to find anything to the contrary.

I'm not sure where this one came from. Thanks for your thoughts though. .

Here's your problem Midnight, you are blinded for your hatred of republicans. You blinders don't let you realize that being conservative doesn't mean you always vote or think "republican". You decided to go with the "you're a republican" attacks because you have nothing else. You will continue to whine about this bill but you will never offer something better. You will try to nitpick and that's it. Now go take the democratic position no matter what happens. Al Franken says he's proud of you (but really he thinks you're a tool). :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Larry]

Here's a few

2. Larry's comment about "oustside the US", which you agreed with. You should read more before making comments.

I'm just going to respond to the part that has my name on it.

Larry's comment on "outside the US" consists entirely of:

"Why does the law say "reasonably believed to be outside the US", instead of "outside the US"?

Now, if you want to try to claim that my question (notice that question mark at the end of it? That's a clue.) has been proven false somehow in this thread, then I suggest some remedial reading. My question had neither been proven false (nor can it be, since it's not a statement), it hasn't even been answered.

[PeterMP]

I'm just going to respond to the part that has my name on it.

Larry's comment on "outside the US" consists entirely of:

"Why does the law say "reasonably believed to be outside the US", instead of "outside the US"?

Now, if you want to try to claim that my question (notice that question mark at the end of it? That's a clue.) has been proven false somehow in this thread, then I suggest some remedial reading. My question had neither been proven false (nor can it be, since it's not a statement), it hasn't even been answered.

Several people have suggested reasonable answers.

[Larry]

And for those worried that this is a permanent thing:

© Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

I seem to remember Bush's tax cuts having a sunset clause in them, too.

In fact, I seem to recall that, when the voters agreed that the tax cuts were too big, too soon, Bush changed the sunset date and then claimed that the exact same tax cuts were now half as big as they were (because the sunset date was earlier).

Curiously, every member of Congress who voted in favor of allowing the law to stand exactly as Bush proposed it and as Congress approved it, was accused of raising taxes, changing the law, and destroying the economy. (And of being a Communist and hating America.) (In fact, every Congressman who advocated allowing parts of it to expire exactly as written, but to extend other tax cuts, was accused of the same thing.)

(If that's not a good enough reason for why I distrust the "it's only temporary" claim, let me give you two more examples:

• In one of my previous jobs, I programmed computers for the Navy, in a building, across the street from the Pentagon, which was constructed as a "temporary" building for WW2. It's still there.
  
• Can you tell me the last time any "temporary" government program ever died?
  

)

[Larry]

Several people have suggested reasonable answers.

Actually, I have trouble believing that any of the "reasonable answers" can stand the logic test. (Including the possibility which I, myself, suggested.)

I'm not arguing with them, because

a) I'll admit to massive ignorance as to how the international switched telephone network functions, technically. I think that I can make logical assumptions as to how it has to work, simply based on simple logic and information theory, but that's not the same as certainty.

In order to even explain my reasoning would require such a volume of geek-speak and assumptions that I doubt anybody would even bother to read it.

[ACW]

Larry, I think the late, great Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman (R.I.P.) had it correct when he said:

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

[PeterMP]

In order to even explain my reasoning would require such a volume of geek-speak and assumptions that I doubt anybody would even bother to read it.

I'll read most anything if it seems intelligently written. Understand is a different story.