So Which Of You Lurking Freeps Wants To Defend Circumventing FISA?

[DistressedAmerican]

I just wonder how you all justify Bush deliberately circumventing laws that were specifically written to prevent spying inside of the United States and on its citizens. I would like to know how you justify Bushco. unilaterally rolling back decades of checks on ABUSES of Presidential power.

More to my point, would you please explain this notion of "inherent powers" that Cheney claims have now been restored to the executive? It seems to me that strict constructionists cheering the whole "inherent powers" notion is like conservatives cheering massive deficit spending or a huge increase in government size. I do not remember "inherent powers" in the Constitution. I recall "inalienable rights" being mentioned by the founders. But, "inherent powers"?

Can you please fill us all in on your thinking? Would you please explain the constitutional argument?

Because as I see it, it can be boiled down to "9/11 happened. Therefore, as President I can do whatever I (OK and George) decide is needed to kill terrorists. Even things that have specifically been found unconstitutional or illegal in the past. Go fuck yourself, Dick Cheney."

Somehow I doubt that explanation will hold up to legal scrutiny.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Freeps are babies. They want Big Daddy Bush to save them from

those mean people with funny names. They'll justify his pissing on the Constitution because they want more than anything to be safe and not have to give up their SUVs or cable television.

BTW -- is that really the Ambiguously Gay Duo in your pic?

[DistressedAmerican]

2. Actually It Was The Wonder Twins (Well The Guy Anyway)

[madeline_con]

16. Form of an idiot.! Shape of a puppetmaster! eom

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Form Of A Beligerent Prick. Shape Of His Bitch.

I hope they do not have a monkey!

[Lefty48197]

3. Uhhhhhhhhhh... vote freedom first?

.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Get Rid Of Our Freedoms And They Won't Hate Us For Them!

:yoiks:

[yknot]

4. How often do they actually uncloak and respond to these challenges? n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

6. They Frequently Reply Elsewhere. Rarely Here.

[yknot]

7. Figures eom

[smoogatz]

8. There's only one even remotely rational defense

Which is that all your fancy-pants civil liberties won't do you any good if we're all incinerated in a thermo-nuclear armageddon. To which anyone with an ounce of red-blooded American cojones would reply, "if I wanted to live in a police state, I'd move to North Korea." The other, even dumber argument is that if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. The obvious answer to that one is: then I guess it's okay with you if the government searches your house, goes through your bank statements, checks out your medical records, checks out your web-surfing habits, listens in on all your phone calls, and investigates your parents, grandparents, friends, co-workers, employers, and ex-girlfriends--because it's really the same thing, right?

[madeline_con]

18. "... a thermo-nuclear armageddon ..."

Oh, Jesus, it's their RAPTURE argument... O8)

[Raksha]

9. The freeps on another board are playing dumb (again).

Their latest shtick is that it's a matter of "opinion" whether Bush violated the law or not. At least they are willing to admit the POSSIBILITY, which I suppose is "progress." I want to explain to them that the law Bush violated was the same one that established the FISA court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Does anyone have a link to the statute so I can post it? I've seen it quoted on DU several times but now I can't seem to find it.

[DistressedAmerican]

13. This May Help

But, I will keep looking...

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013444.html

Here is a fact sheet I received from Sen. Feingold's office on domestic intelligence wiretaps:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 to provide a statutory framework for eavesdropping on individuals within the United States, including U.S. citizens, who are not suspected of having committed a crime but who are likely to be spies or members of terrorist organizations.

FISA established a secret court that could issue wiretap orders if the government showed probable cause that the individual to be tapped is an “agent of a foreign power,” meaning he or she is affiliated with a foreign government or terrorist organization. This is an easier standard to meet than the criminal wiretap standard, which requires that there be: (1) probable cause that the individual to be tapped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and (2) probable cause that communications concerning that crime will be obtained through the electronic surveillance.
In the 27 years since it was established, the FISA court has turned down only a handful of applications for wiretap orders. The number of approved FISA wiretap orders has jumped since September 11, 2001, with 1,754 FISA orders issued last year, up from 934 such orders in 2001.

FISA already addresses emergency situations where there is not time to get pre-approval from the court. It includes an emergency exception that permits government agents to install a wiretap and start monitoring phone and email conversations immediately, as long as they then go to the FISA court and get a court order within 72 hours.

FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” <50 U.S.C. § 1809>

Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” <18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)>

The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. Here Is The Raw Text...

1809. Criminal sanctions

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

[Raksha]

15. Thanks! I'm not on Sen. Feingold's mailing list

but I'll post that and see if it clarifies things. The freeps are pretty pigheaded (as usual), but it should enocourage my liberal friends if they have an actual statute they can quote.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. See #14. Bring them The Statute.

Let them chew on this part in particular:

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

But make sure they do not miss:
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

[madeline_con]

20. They're not playing. /t

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Right!

So far this post at Liberal underground has been met with little backing for the policy. Of course they do want to point out dem abuses of power as justification. If offering up past abuses as justification for current ones, you know they are very weak on this issue. I expected more of them frankly...

[Raksha]

26. It's kind of a double-whammy: They ARE dumb to begin with...

...and they play even dumber! Of course they don't realize how dumb they are and think they are entitled to their own facts, as well as their own opinions. When confronted with something like DA's fact sheet on FISA, they tend to disappear. I already posted that and bolded the penalty part so they wouldn't miss it.

[kevinbgoode]

10. They love "activist" Presidents. . .and HATE letting the PEOPLE

make decisions in this country.

[EstimatedProphet]

11. A slight correction:

Because as I see it, it can be boiled down to "9/11 happened. Therefore, as President I can do whatever I (OK and George) decide is needed to kill terrorists. Even things that have specifically been found unconstitutional or illegal in the past. Go fuck yourself, Dick Cheney."

Actually, it's more like "9/11 happened. We are now gods. Worship at our feet."

[No Exit]

12. What've you got to hide, liberal French punk?

Huh??

If the Preznit wants to lissen in while I'm havin' phone sex talkin' bidness with that Ann Coulter look-alike on that internet site, well, he can darn well lissen in if he has a mind to.

Why do you hate America?:sarcasm:

[Burning Water]

21. Since I've been here,

I've seen a lot of these, challenges I guess you could call them to "lurking freepers". Seeing as how anyone who admitted to being a freeper would be banned, I'm just wondering if any ever respond?

[Craig3410]

22. Sometimes they register just to respond.

And are banned in about 10 minutes. :)

[0rganism]

23. The real bummer is their posts usually get deleted, too

It's often educational to examine the freeper "logic" in detail, when a specimen deigns to present itself.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. I Am With You.

Not my site but, if it was I would keep the freeps. Discussion often proves them woefully uninformed. It would be nice to be able to lay some truth on them. If that is the kind of action you seek, you may want to try: www.liberalunderground.org