You still haven't show that (in the SINGLE case you cite) it wasn't properly authorized... (nor, now that I think about it, that a *single* example of wiretapping a suspected FOREIGN SPY can be compared to a pattern of listening in on ALL US CITIZEN's foreign telephone calls, and pattern-matching for key words).
Here is the (un-cut) paragraph from the article you so thoughtfully provided:
"But in at least one well-documented case, Clinton authorized domestic electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen without a warrant. FBI agents were allowed to break into the home of 31-year CIA veteran Aldrich Ames in 1993 to install eavesdropping devices."
And, a little further down in the article, a claimed LEGAL justification for the action in this ONE CASE you cite:
"Warrantless searches to gather foreign intelligence information are not new. In fact, there is language justifying them in the FISA law Leahy referenced."
"The subchapter on electronic surveillance begins as follows: "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" and if several other limiting conditions are met. Those conditions include that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." "
"A "United States person" is defined by the law as "a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence," and most associations and corporations, unless they are controlled by a foreign government or terrorist group."
And, another section of the statute:
"[N]o contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under [FISA] is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."
-----------------------
So... "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party", and a fact-finding by the A.G. --- including a signed order authorizing the action, appear to be some of the operative restrictions of FISA. |
