Jump to content

Build Theme!
  •  
  • Infected?

WE'RE SURE THAT YOU'LL LOVE US!

Hey there! :wub: Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account. When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. You can like posts to share the love. :D Join 93122 other members! Anybody can ask, anybody can answer. Consistently helpful members may be invited to become staff. Here's how it works. Virus cleanup? Start here -> Malware Removal Forum.

Try What the Tech -- It's free!


Photo

Legal Criticism Grows of Warrantless N.S.A Snooping


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:51 PM

Fourteen of the nation's leading experts on constitutional law today issued an analysis concluding that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law." The letter, signed by law professors and former senior government officials, comes to the same conclusion, but in stronger terms, as an analysis issued last week by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. Signers of today's letter include former federal judge and FBI Director William S. Sessions, former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann, lawyers who worked in the executive branch under President George W. Bush, and Richard Epstein, a prominent conservative scholar and fellow at the Hoover Institution. January 09, 2006

Legal experts analysis [PDF] January 09, 2006:
http://cdt.org/secur...rtsanalysis.pdf

CRS memo [PDF] January 05, 2006 [off-site]:
http://www.fas.org/s...tel/m010506.pdf

DOJ letter [PDF] December 22, 2005:
http://cdt.org/secur...sticeletter.pdf

(This is the lead article on the C.D.T site: http://cdt.org/ ) Pete

    Advertisements

Register to Remove


#2 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 11 January 2006 - 01:20 PM

Found a couple of good articles on FindLaw if anyone's interested:

http://writ.news.fin...b/20051228.html That article is good because apparently, a lot of people have totally forgotten why warrants are necessary to begin with.

The other: http://writ.news.fin...n/20051230.html points out quite well the parallels between Nixon and Bushs' abuse of Presidential powers. Pete

#3 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 19 January 2006 - 01:04 PM

http://www.nytimes.c...tics/19nsa.html

" Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: January 19, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 - A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration's limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping without warrants are "inconsistent with the law."

The analysis was requested by Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who said in a Jan. 4 letter to President Bush that she believed the briefings should be open to all the members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

Instead, the briefings have been limited to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees, the so-called Gang of Eight.

Since 2002, the security agency has intercepted the international phone calls and e-mail messages of some Americans and others in the United States who the agency believes are linked to Al Qaeda. The eavesdropping was authorized by an executive order signed by President Bush but without the court warrants usually required.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday scheduled an open hearing on the eavesdropping program for Feb. 6. The hearing, titled "Wartime executive power and the N.S.A.'s surveillance authority," is expected to include testimony from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

In an interview on Wednesday, Ms. Harman, of California, said she had been invited to another briefing on the program at the White House on Friday and had urged senior administration officials to open the session to the full committees.

She declined to name the officials, but a Congressional staff member said they were Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Mr. Cheney's office oversees the briefings on the surveillance program.

Of the Congressional Research Service analysis, Ms. Harman said, "It's a solid piece of work, and it confirms a view I've held for a long time."

A White House spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program was classified, said, "We continue to brief the appropriate members of Congress as we have been for the last several years."

A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Mr. Hoekstra was traveling and had not seen the report.

The spokesman, Jamal D. Ware, said that Mr. Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, believed the briefings had been adequate for Congressional oversight but that he was open to expanding them.

"The chairman is taking it under consideration and does support some expansion of the number of Intelligence Committee members who are briefed," Mr. Ware said.

The Congressional Research Service memorandum, sent to the Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, explores the requirement in the National Security Act of 1947 that the committees be kept "fully and currently informed" of intelligence activities. It notes that the law specifically allows notification of "covert actions" to the Gang of Eight, but says the security agency's program does not appear to be a covert action program.

As a result, the memorandum says, limiting the briefings to just eight members of Congress "would appear to be inconsistent with the law."

The memorandum, written by Alfred Cumming, a national security specialist at the research service, does lay out several possible defenses for the administration's position. "The executive branch may assert that the mere discussion of the N.S.A. program generally could expose certain intelligence sources and methods to disclosure," it says.

In a related action, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in Washington, said it would file suit against the Justice Department for failing to release documents on the eavesdropping program that it had requested under the Freedom of Information Act. A department spokesman said the department gave an initial response to the center's request within three days of its receipt on Dec. 16, saying it had approved expedited handling for the request. "
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

#4 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 09:48 AM

Thousands scrutinized by secret NSA eavesdropping later cleared

http://www.msnbc.msn...9129/from/RS.1/

"Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.

Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." <B>But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.</B>

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause."

(This is just the first few paragraph's of an article that printed out to six pages - I take this kind of stuff to work with me and leave it in the lounges and offices for people to read).

The rest of the article is well worth reading. Pete
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

#5 spy1

spy1

    Silver Member

  • Authentic Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 05 February 2006 - 11:51 AM

"Specter Believes Spy Program Violates Law"

http://news.yahoo.co...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' explanations so far for the Bush administration's failure to obtain warrants for its domestic surveillance program are "strained" and "unrealistic," the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Sunday.

Sen. Arlen Specter, whose committee has scheduled hearings Monday on the National Security Agency program, said he believes the administration violated a 1978 law specifically calling for a secretive court to consider and approve such monitoring.

Specter, R-Pa., said he might consider subpoenas for administration documents that would detail its legal justification for the program.

"The president could've taken this there and lay it on the line," Specter said, citing the special court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

"That court has an outstanding record of not leaking. They would be pre-eminently well-qualified to evaluate this program and say it's OK or not OK," Specter told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Under the NSA program put in place after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government has eavesdropped, without seeking warrants, on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States who are deemed to be a terrorism risk.

The administration has defended Bush's decision to bypass the FISA law, saying it is too cumbersome to deal with in a post-Sept. 11 world of heightened security threats. It also said Bush had authority as commander in chief and under a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing force in the fight against terrorism.

"The president's authority to take military action — including the use of communications intelligence targeted at the enemy — does not come merely from his constitutional powers. It comes directly from Congress as well," in that post-Sept. 11 resolution, according to Gonzales' prepared testimony for the hearing. The Associated Press on Saturday obtained a copy of his scheduled remarks.

Specter was skeptical.

"I think that contention is very strained and unrealistic. The authorization for use of force never mentions electronic surveillance," Specter said.

In response to written questions submitted to him by Specter before the hearing, Gonzales gives an explanation why the administration bypassed the FISA court: "The delay inherent in the FISA process is incompatible with the narrow purpose of this early warning system."

Specter, however, said that response "was not entirely responsive. ... His answer wasn't really clear." The senator said there is no reason why the administration could not have consulted with the spy court or Congress, who could have changed the law if it was too cumbersome.

But Gen. Michael Hayden, the No. 2 intelligence official in the government, said the FISA process "doesn't give us the speed and agility to do what this program is designed to do."

The program's intent is to "detect and prevent attacks. This is not about long-term surveillance to gather reams of intelligence against a stable and a fixed target," Hayden said on "Fox News Sunday."

Specter's committee has asked the administration to Justice Department documents detailing the legal justification for the NSA program.

Asked about the possibility the committee might subpoena the administration for the material, Specter said he first wanted to hear from Gonzales.

"If we come to it and need it, I'll be open about it," Specter said. He added, "If the necessity arises, I won't be timid."
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

Related Topics



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users