If these guys get let go because of this. A damn, STUPID shame.


Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?ex=1293426000&en=6e1b17c091759c81&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

That is true, and I hope it doesn't happen to anyone who did anything in good faith that it was legal. At the same time, it may teach some low-level guy that he can and should say "no" when asked to do something he believes is illegal. I can't imagine it would cripple the NSA if they asked for an easily obtained warrant to ensure that things were above board.

Why not skip "illegal" wire taps altogether and just shoot terror suspects dead?



I really doubt there is much difficulty obtaining "legal" wire taps, given this political climate.


People can piss and moan about the damn liberal lawyers, but this borders on the absurd.

Just another liberal wet dream publicity stunt, it isn't going to amount to anything but noise. The wiretaps weren't illegal.

That's the funny thing about defense attorneys, they tend to challenge the police or government on their use of power. I see this all the time with regard to local police matters. The police arrest someone, the defense attorney then challenges the search. The judge throws out the evidense because the search was illegal. Police then moan about the crook getting off on a technicality. Sorry, but it is not a technicality, it's the law. If the police had just done it the right way from the start there would be no problem. It's the same in this case. The Bush administration would have been informed that one of the likely outcomes of warrentless searches would be chanllenges in court to the evidence thus obtained. If the evidence gets tossed it's their own fault. The system is really pretty simple, all they had to do was ask for a warrent up to 72 hours after the fact. They could not be bothered. Don't you think if this adminsitration really wanted to catch these people and make the charges stick that they would do their utmost to dot every I and cross every T? Of course why bother to do that when you think you can lock up anyone, without charges, for as long as you want with no interference from the Court.

Am I understanding this right? My understanding is that, under the current rules, they can wiretap anybody and get a retro-active warrant up to 72 hours later. Furthermore, almost none of such warrant requests have been declined.

If that's the case, what's the big deal? It looks to me like the only reason for not requesting a warrant would be if you are doing something so outrageous that you're pretty sure the judge would disapprove.

If they were illegally tapped, I'd like to see the cases thrown out as a message to the Bush administration that they're not above the Constitution and the law. I'm about sick of those bastards doing what they want and using my security and safety as an excuse.
The FISA court that's supposed to OK the taps has approved more than 20,000 cases and rejected just five since it was formed. Bush could easily have done this legally, but he chose not to. Time to bring him up short.

I'll tell you what I think, I think this administration could find a cure for cancer, aids and the bird flue plus give everyone in this country a Cadilac Escallade and a house with a two car garage to keep it in and they would still get the same BS from the left they get today. To date, this is a
STORY, an accusation if you will, filled with the thunderous indignation from a handful of politicians, not proven fact. The one thing I agree with you on 100% is that the facts will come out. If you are right, more press coverage than the JFK assasination and if I am right............................nothing, not from the press or from you guys here on this forum!

I would like to welcome our friends at the Wall Street Journal and Barron's to the newly formed "left." (A welcome spot for Hagel, Specter and other republicans as well I suppose) We truely are becoming a BIG TENT!!!

Wall Street Journal
"President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party. The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress."

Barron's
"There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ. Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense."

I think the chasm you are looking for is the divide between ruling by executive fiat and what conservatives used to stand for.

Not many articles from either publiction included in this forum. The horrendous screech over this latest example of Bsh conquering America is coming from the left, fed by politicians on stumps. There is real cause for concern here but to this date, nothing has come of it. I particularly loved Cory's desire to see these people who have been brought to justice for their terrorist activities get off, just to teach Bush a lesson, ya know. There is no knowledge of exactly what they were up to, doesn't matter, biological substances in metropolitan water sources? Shucks, Bush deserves it, serves 'em right. The only rush to judgement around here that seems acceptable is the condemnation of this administration's every move. In spite of the articles in the learned publications, this issue still has unanswered questions as to it's legality. Until they are answered, maybe even after, I am glad that some activities have been thwarted and that many conspirators have been discovered. They will get NO sympathy from me, not if they have been attacked and burned to death in their beds, or at their desks as some in the WTC were, on the strength of "illegally gathered" intelligence by our agencies charged with our protection. I'll leave that to the academics and ACLU lawyers. I will leave the final determination of this legality to those who are qualified to and charged with making that determination.

Not many articles from either publiction included in this forum. The horrendous screech over this latest example of Bsh conquering America is coming from the left, fed by politicians on stumps. There is real cause for concern here but to this date, nothing has come of it. I particularly loved Cory's desire to see these people who have been brought to justice for their terrorist activities get off, just to teach Bush a lesson, ya know. There is no knowledge of exactly what they were up to, doesn't matter, biological substances in metropolitan water sources? Shucks, Bush deserves it, serves 'em right. The only rush to judgement around here that seems acceptable is the condemnation of this administration's every move. In spite of the articles in the learned publications, this issue still has unanswered questions as to it's legality. Until they are answered, maybe even after, I am glad that some activities have been thwarted and that many conspirators have been discovered. They will get NO sympathy from me, not if they have been attacked and burned to death in their beds, or at their desks as some in the WTC were, on the strength of "illegally gathered" intelligence by our agencies charged with our protection. I'll leave that to the academics and ACLU lawyers. I will leave the final determination of this legality to those who are qualified to and charged with making that determination.

It's really simple. I don't want to see these guys let off anymore than anyone else, if they are guilty of something. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. But it would have been simple of Bush to follow the law that is on the books as been hashed out time and again. Once again, the screech, as you so call it, is not just coming from the left, and it shouldn't be. This isn't a partisan issue. I do believe people will make political hay out of it, no matter what is found out or discovered (were they legal, or illegal and the resulting hailstorm of whatever). The law that is on the books is simple to follow. Why didn't they? And if it is found that what the current administration did was illegal, well, then any information obtained by those wiretaps and eavesdropping are not going to be admissable. Why the end around when the means to get the information was already there? Makes one wonder doesn't it?

I will leave the final determination of this legality to those who are qualified to and charged with making that determination.
Yet all the while you vehemently defend the actions of the administration and claim partisan politics when the outcry in this case is coming from both sides of the aisle. That, IMO, puts you right in the same league as those who scream outrage over the yet to be determined legality of the wiretaps.

Exhibit A:
Just another liberal wet dream publicity stunt, it isn't going to amount to anything but noise. The wiretaps weren't illegal.It will be a very sad day if a terrorist gets off because of a 4th Amendment violation authorized by the President. There needs to be an investigation and I sincerely hope that it turns up nothing.

I'll tell you what I think, I think this administration could find a cure for cancer, aids and the bird flue plus give everyone in this country a Cadilac Escallade and a house with a two car garage to keep it in and they would still get the same BS from the left they get today.

You sound a little bit biased to me.

Well, we can't all be liberals, open minded and all that.

The outcry is not coming from everyone on either side of the aisle. I accept legitamate criticism and understand there is reason for concern. I do not accept the self rightous indignation of those who would exploit this situation for political gain. I believe it will be found that the administration was within the boundaries on their powers. I am totally happy to see arrested whomever was arrested in this situation based on this information. I rejoice at the lives that may have been saved because of it.

The outcry is not coming from everyone on either side of the aisle. I accept legitamate criticism and understand there is reason for concern. I do not accept the self rightous indignation of those who would exploit this situation for political gain. I believe it will be found that the administration was within the boundaries on their powers. I am totally happy to see arrested whomever was arrested in this situation based on this information. I rejoice at the lives that may have been saved because of it.I didn't say everyone I said "...from both sides of the aisle."

"Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called the program "inappropriate" and promised to hold hearings early next year. Republicans joining him include centrist Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Sununu of New Hampshire, along with limited-government types like Larry Craig of Idaho.

The three, along with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, have sided with Democrats in the Patriot Act fight."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113521681931529119-eHpzQmLUyX8mf_4UNw2D11NYP74_20061222.html?mod=blog s


These Republicans and others have expressed serious concern, as they should.

I'm just as happy that lives may have been saved but not if they have been saved at the expense of the Constitution. There needs to be an investigation.

The outcry is not coming from everyone on either side of the aisle. I accept legitamate criticism and understand there is reason for concern. I do not accept the self rightous indignation of those who would exploit this situation for political gain. I believe it will be found that the administration was within the boundaries on their powers. I am totally happy to see arrested whomever was arrested in this situation based on this information. I rejoice at the lives that may have been saved because of it.

Who gets to determine which one of the screechers is doing so for legitimate criticism or out of self rightous indignation? And how exactly does that make any difference with regard to the legal question of whether or not these wire taps were legal? You seem to be falling back on the rights mantra of "kill the messenger." Also how happy will you be with this president when the first suspect has to be freed because of fruit obtained from the poisonous tree?

Maybe I should have posted this here for you to read. Best to know the facts first, dontcha' think? Seems they're all misinformed.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html)
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

Note that a US person must either be a US citizen or someone lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence. If someone resides in the US on a visa and not a green card, they do not qualify, nor do they qualify if they get a green card under false pretenses. FISA authorizes warrantless surveillance in its opening chapter:

(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;

(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; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

Well you are wrong and you are not understanding things correctly. There have been declined requests. And, warrants are not needed in many instances. The President can order the taps according to FISA.

Maybe I should have posted this here for you to read. Best to know the facts first, dontcha' think? Seems they're all misinformed.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html)Steam, before you call misinformed, did you actually READ what you posted? Specifically, did you continue reading below the part that you bolded?

LOL!!! Another journalist that doesn't get his facts straight before putting the story out there. You have all the qualifications of someone that should be working for the NY Times instead of that small town rag.

Yes. What's your question?

Legitamate questions aren't screeched, they are posed, screeching is political opportunism. How are you going to respond if none of those arrested are set free because of the surveilance? Messengers should relay messages, not conclusions. It is the premature conclusions I disagree with, not the message.

There is a great need for secrecy in some of these operations, justifiable secrecy, the operations may well depend on it. All the talk about the FISA system and nobody mentions that aspect or the possibility that the information could be leaked by someone involved in that system. Not saying that it happened that way but the information did actually become public. Where did the numbers quoted in some of these posts come from? Why should the number of approved or denied warrants be public knowledge. There are a lot of questions involved and not all of them should be directed at the President or his administration. It is national security and the public safety that are involved whether our self appointed guardians of freedoms and rights agree or not. We have elected officials that we pay to figure these things out, lets let them do it, hopefully in some semblance of a bipartisan situation with more than political gain in mind. It will get resolved and nobody is has been set free at this point.

Yes. What's your question?What happens if the communications of a US citizen were tapped?

According to the law, US citizens may be tapped in some instances. Not as a prime target, but as part of a web of conspiracy, they may be tapped inadvertantly or otherwise. Read the law. You may not like it, but it is pretty clear.

According to the law, US citizens may be tapped in some instances. Not as a prime target, but as part of a web of conspiracy, they may be tapped inadvertantly or otherwise. Read the law. You may not like it, but it is pretty clear.I actually don't have a problem with the bulk of FISA and have been WELL aware of it LONG before this current issue ever arose.

What provisions are you referring to, specifically?

Well you are wrong and you are not understanding things correctly. There have been declined requests. And, warrants are not needed in many instances. The President can order the taps according to FISA.

My understanding is that less than 0.1% of the wire tap requests have been denied. If you know that your request is that likely to be approved under ordinary circumstances, it sounds to me like it would have to be a pretty "iffy" situation for the feds not to want to seek a warrant.

Well you are wrong and you are not understanding things correctly. There have been declined requests. And, warrants are not needed in many instances. The President can order the taps according to FISA.

Hardly any have been denied. This has been kicked around over and over in here lately. 5 warrants out of 19000 have been denied. The President can order taps according to FISA, but has to get warrants within 72 hours after initiating such taps by going to the FISA court. I listened to a guy on the radio who wrote the law, and that was his reading of it. Since he wrote it, I think he ought to know, and the link you provided said the same thing. The President, or anyone, cannot tap without a warrant after 72 hours.

Legitamate questions aren't screeched, they are posed, screeching is political opportunism. How are you going to respond if none of those arrested are set free because of the surveilance? Messengers should relay messages, not conclusions. It is the premature conclusions I disagree with, not the message.

You are nuts if you think that the republicans, primarily Bush, wouldn't wait one second to make political hay out of this whole thing if, and I do mean if, it turns out that he was within his legal rights. You are crazy if you don't think the republicans wouldn't ride this one, just like they have 9/11 for 4 years now. On the other hand, there are plenty of democrats who will also make political hay about this if it turns out that the things done by this administration were illegal, and well, they both have a right to. It's freakin' politics, that's how it goes. I do think that there are some though that have a vested interest to know what happened, was it legal, and what are the ramifications. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say. Who should have outcry then if our elected representatives are not decrying what's going on? They have possibly the loudest voice, and possibly are heard the most. We can make ourselves heard by writing to our representatives and President to let them know what we're thinking. Maybe the guys yelling and "screeching" as you say, are doing this because that's what their constituency are asking of them. Did you ever think of that?

Don't get all high and mighty either about making hay on issues. It happens plenty on both ends of the spectrum, and this situation will be no different.

Hardly any have been denied. This has been kicked around over and over in here lately. 5 warrants out of 19000 have been denied. The President can order taps according to FISA, but has to get warrants within 72 hours after initiating such taps by going to the FISA court. I listened to a guy on the radio who wrote the law, and that was his reading of it. Since he wrote it, I think he ought to know, and the link you provided said the same thing. The President, or anyone, cannot tap without a warrant after 72 hours.

My question, which hasn't been answered yet, is "Why do they want these warrantless wire taps so badly?" Warrants are obviously easy to get. Information gaines outside of the legal process has limited legal uses. It looks to me like the administration wants to wire tap people who they know no judge in his right mind would allow. Every time that the question is asked the administration and the dupes who believe everything the administration says, beg the question.

I'm not going to change my opinion until I get a convincing answer to that question. I don't understand how any averagely intelligent person would.

Could not have said it better myself. When we piss and moan about defense attorneys earning a dismissal because of a "technicality," we have to remember that what they really are doing is protecting the rights of all of us. The hope is that, by obtaining a dismissal, the cops will be detered from future illegality. Of course, that's not always the case.

My question, which hasn't been answered yet, is "Why do they want these warrantless wire taps so badly?" Warrants are obviously easy to get. Information gaines outside of the legal process has limited legal uses. It looks to me like the administration wants to wire tap people who they know no judge in his right mind would allow. Every time that the question is asked the administration and the dupes who believe everything the administration says, beg the question.

I'm not going to change my opinion until I get a convincing answer to that question. I don't understand how any averagely intelligent person would.

That's what I wonder. And that is why I don't understand the defenders of this practice. By all means, it is easy for someone to get a warrant for these taps and eavesdrops. Why does the President need to circumvent it all? It makes no sense at all, unless they are trying to keep something secret that might be objectionable to the administration (like checking out groups in the US or political rivals called out in terms of national security). There is something rotten there. I think that Bush has screwed himself on this front, but if it comes out there he did nothing wrong after an independent investigation has run its course, I'll say so, but for right now, it seems what I would call very very suspect and shady.