Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - US Code. Worth knowing.

[Solly Mack]

This is where the hair-splitting will come from - Bush's War on Semantics, so to speak. Though we all know Bush abuses any and all power "entrusted" to him. (which is why he should never be trusted with any)

Bush will claim he didn't use any info on Americans - just the info from the "foreign" party to the exchange between any "United States person" (a legal definition) and a "foreign" party. That will be his basis for saying what he did was legal.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 Prev | Next

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


(a)

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, 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—

- (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title



TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html



Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

[Swamp Rat]

1. Let's see if he's willing to testify UNDER OATH that he didn't "use" the

info... like say, information about Valerie Plame, etc.

:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

2. He won't be. We know that

But I like knowing the law - it helps refute the bullshit they throw at us.

[Swamp Rat]

8. Thanks for posting it!

I looked it up early this morning... I hope EVERYONE is looking it up right now!

EVERYONE!

[Sydnie]

3. Except they revealed some of those American's names to

Bolton! So this defense would NOT hold water.

Perhaps, we finally have something we can pin on Condi! She was National Security Advisor wasn't she? She knew what was going on ... and did NOTHING. Buh bye Presidental bid for Condi ... hello scandal instead?

[Solly Mack]

6. True. And knowing the law he will lie about helps to combat the BS

he'll throw out.

[shraby]

4. He should be required to produce the results of

all the surveillance. It can be then decided if he did or did not monitor American citizens. Closed sessions can be held for security concerns.

[Solly Mack]

7. Exactly!

I agree

[G_j]

10. except that every time I hear "closed sessions"

I get a sinking feeling.

[Solly Mack]

11. Excellent point!!! That usually means "we" never get to know

the full story.

[G_j]

13. as in, whatever happened to all those torture photos?

etc...etc

[Solly Mack]

15. "National security", of course! If I've ever been tired of a phrase

it's that one.

[G_j]

16. yea, I don't trust

closed sessions one bit! National security often equals cover-up.
And I'm sorry, I don't really trust the Dems in those committees either.
Some of them know an awful lot that they have not revealed.

[G_j]

5. but aren't they still talking about foreign phones?

as an aside, isn't it also sort of strange that the law allows the US to listen to phone conversations of people everywhere else but here?


I wonder what sort of laws exist in the UK. Could they bug our phones?

:shrug:

[Solly Mack]

9. They are - but once you get into all the reading you see

they also "bug" the American end of the line - simply because they hear it all once it's bugged.

Yeah, I wonder about what other countries can do as well.

[kliljedahl]

12. Guilty until proven innocent

Just like Padilla, all the "detainees" at Gitmo & all over the world.

[Solly Mack]

14. Yep. That's what this results in

Exactly. You do have a way of leaping ahead. :)

[jody]

17. Looks like the Attorney General failed to report as required by law.

TITLE 50 § 1808. "Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; limitation on authority or responsibility of information gathering activities of Congressional committees; report of Congressional committees to Congress"

QUOTE
(a)
(1) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall fully inform the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning all electronic surveillance under this subchapter. Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to limit the authority and responsibility of the appropriate committees of each House of Congress to obtain such information as they may need to carry out their respective functions and duties.
UNQUOTE

[Solly Mack]

18. Thank you!!!! I noticed that too.

It's why I posted the Code - so DU could go through it and list the ways the law was violated.

[G_j]

19. I do we know they didn't?

Ashcroft/Gonzales

[jody]

21. We don't know yet, but that's a question reporters should ask. n/t

[Solly Mack]

23. I can believe that Ashcroft or Gonzales would lie about it

If the AG gave them (both committees) a list but the actuality of how that info was obtained was withheld. I can see Bush doing that - lying about how he obtained the information. Taking a power and then expanding on it without informing anyone.

In one article it's mentioned that Bush implemented a "need to know" rule on (expanded) wire tapping - that limited who could know the "how".

But we'll have to sift through everything to figure out just a small part of the real truth.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

20. This is important - as I think only the AG has standing to appeal

My understanding is that only the Justice Department can have standing to appear on appeal in the FISA court. While the AG would appeal an order denying a surveillance application if one were ever denied, he/she wouldn't appeal an order granting one as being inappropropriate or unconstitutional, especially when it's Bush's Justice Department.

Therefore, Congressional oversight is all the people have to keep this process from entering into the realm of gross abuse. I believe that there are limits on whether the legislative branch can call judges before it to testify as to their actions. But I would think the actual applications themselves and whether they were reasonable should be subject to Congressional oversight. Bush may not have violated the law, as the FISA statutes give him virtual carte blanche and the Judges are there to rubber stamp and insulate the actions of his government. But the Congress should be equipped to determine whether we want this behavior to continue to take place or whether we need to change the law.

[Swamp Rat]

22. kick for reading!

[Solly Mack]

24. kick

[Sgent]

25. Isn't this interesting

So al queda and terrorist networks are "foriegn powers" when it comes to survelliance, but merely armed combatents when it comes to their capture....

Nothing new -- but Bush is trying to have his cake and eat it too (again).