SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Constant Reader who wrote (1710)12/20/2005 1:25:33 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2253
 
I had not yet seen the border search argument before. Thanks.



To: Constant Reader who wrote (1710)12/20/2005 2:23:03 PM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 2253
 
Ha! You beat me to it.

Kerr's analysis does not take into consideration the technology. The term "electronic surveillance" is defined as follows in FISA:

"Electronic surveillance" is defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(f) to mean, in relevant part:

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;"

The technology used in the kind of surveillance I think does not require the targeting a specific United States person but is instead an electronic search for word patterns or for specific words in various languages that might be associated with terrorism, such as nitroglycerin, nuclear, bomb, explosion, etc., If that is the case, then there is no targeting, and the monitoring would be legal, though I don't know if this would be the case once the person receiving the communication is identified.

The surveillance might be of a type in which a communication between people in country X and country Y simply is routed as a normal business practice through the US. No problem there.

Because a "US person" is defined as a resident alien or a US citizen, it is also clear that if the targeted individual is here on a temporary visa, he can be specifically targeted for electronic surveillance.

Then there are the exceptions to the requirement of a court order. None is required if:

"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; [and]

(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."

What is a substantial likelihood that the surveillance will not acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party? It looks to me that this standard was kept purposefully vague.

In any event, it seems that we know very little yet of the actual facts. The surveillance might be entirely legal for all we know.



To: Constant Reader who wrote (1710)12/20/2005 6:37:41 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2253
 
From the Rutherford Institute: >> Victims of the Darkness: Government Surveillance and Intimidation

December 19, 2005

by John W. Whitehead

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such a twilight that we must be aware of the change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

Not since the notorious McCarthy era of the 1950s, when American freedoms faced extinction, has there been such an attack against the Bill of Rights. The recent media focus on President Bush’s authorizing the National Security Agency to spy on ordinary Americans has brought this issue to the forefront. On secret orders from President Bush, the NSA has been monitoring the international phone calls and emails of Americans without warrants.

Moreover, the Bush Administration has consistently harassed citizens who exercise their First Amendment freedoms and voice concerns about government policies. The main weapon used in this war is intimidation, specifically through governmental surveillance and government agents.

Indeed, the American government has a near paranoia about dissenting citizens. “The Administration and campaign of George W. Bush,” writes former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), “is squelching any possible hint of disagreement or protest at every political rally or gathering.” For example, in March of this year, three citizens were removed from President Bush’s town hall meeting in Aurora, Colo., because the car they arrived in featured the bumper sticker, “No More Blood for Oil.”

This past summer, FBI agents went to Windsor, Conn., with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one—ever—what it said. The letter, which was on FBI stationery, directed Christian to surrender “all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person” who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away.

Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software Christian operates said their databases can reveal the websites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow. Christian refused to hand over the records, and his employer, Library Connection, Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public.

This case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under some of the heinous provisions of the USA Patriot Act. National security letters, such as the one issued to George Christian, were created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations.

They were originally intended as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. However, the Patriot Act and Bush Administration guidelines for its use have transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

“The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year,” writes Barton Gellman in The Washington Post, “a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters—one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people—are extending the bureau’s reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.” Indeed, according to a previously classified document released recently, the FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight.

Thus, the government does not limit its attacks to actual terrorists. Ordinary American citizens are the focus as well. Take the case of Selena Jarvis, a social studies teacher at Currituck County High School in North Carolina. She assigned her senior civics and economics class to use photographs to illustrate their freedoms as found in the Bill of Rights. One student photographed a picture of George W. Bush next to his own hand in a thumbs-down position as a way to express his freedom to dissent.

However, while developing the student’s photographs, a Wal-Mart photo department employee, in obvious need of some education on the Bill of Rights, called the police. They then contacted the Secret Service. But rather than dismissing the case, the Secret Service decided to investigate the matter. The agents interrogated the student and questioned Jarvis. While questioning Jarvis, an agent asked her if she thought the photo was suspicious. Dumbfounded, Jarvis responded, “No, it was a Bill of Rights project!” Jarvis was startled at the claim that the student was a terrorist and called the whole thing “ridiculous.”

Why would the Secret Service, which is not run by incompetent individuals, take the time to investigate a high school student and his class project? It is safe to assume that the Secret Service knew the student was not a terrorist and wanted to make an example of him for others who might be bold enough to use their right to dissent. After the ordeal, Selena Jarvis commented, “I blame Wal-Mart more than anybody. I was really disgusted with them. But everyone was using poor judgment, from Wal-Mart up to the Secret Service.”

Unfortunately, this is not the only “ridiculous” case of individuals tattling on their neighbors. For example, Barry Reingold was questioned by the FBI after he criticized the war in Afghanistan in the locker room of his local health club. In another case, Derek Kjar’s neighbors reported his bumper sticker of George Bush wearing a crown with the heading “KING GEORGE—OFF WITH HIS HEAD.” As a result, Kjar was interrogated by the Secret Service. In both instances, close contacts of the two men reported them to the authorities.

And as if things weren’t bad enough, the military is now spying on us. A secret database obtained by NBC News recently reveals that the Department of Defense and the Pentagon have also increased intelligence collection on American citizens inside the country. This includes monitoring peaceful anti-war groups and protests and involves video taping, monitoring the Internet and collecting the name of anyone critical of the government.

There is even a toll-free number for anyone interested to report on fellow Americans to the military. And the spying even includes religious groups such as those attending the Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Florida. “On a domestic level, this is unprecedented,” says NBC News analyst William Arkin. “I think it’s the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.”

Since 9/11, it has been consistently drummed into our heads by the government, with all its alerts and multi-colored alarms, that terrorists are everywhere and even your next door neighbor could be one. As a result, the government’s promotion of fear and paranoia has moved us closer to an Orwellian state where citizens inform on one another. The result is that the citizens often do the job of the police and no longer use good judgment before reporting their neighbors. In the process, such informing citizens are doing away with their own freedoms.

These tactics are not new to the world. The Nazi and Soviet secret police of former regimes were infamous for such tactics. The police controlled the people through fear, and the subsequent result was a totalitarian state. They turned their respective population into a society of informers.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning author and former Soviet dissident, once spoke of how fear destroys the will of the people. He noted how the Russian people would kneel inside the doors of their apartments, pressing their ears to listen when the KGB came at midnight to arrest a neighbor who had spoken out against the government. Solzhenitsyn said that if all the people would have come out and driven off the secret police, sheer public opinion would have demoralized the effort to subdue a free people. But fear and paranoia kept the people at bay.

We should not be afraid of government agents, whether employed by the FBI, the military or local authorities. Their salaries are paid through our tax dollars. Supposedly, they are our servants. Truly free societies do not function that way. Our fear of government servants is a clear indication of ominous things to come. If citizens are too frightened to use their freedoms, then those freedoms will become extinct. And the darkness will be complete.

----

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

BTW - I do pro bono for the Rutherford Institute. I have a great deal of respect for the organization. They are best known as strong advocates for religious freedoms.



To: Constant Reader who wrote (1710)12/21/2005 12:46:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Respond to of 2253
 
Excellent piece. The best that has appeared on this subject, I would say. My prior comments:
Message 21980608

To my knowledge, NSA has always claimed and continues to claim that it conducts no "domestic" electronic surveillance- -no monitoring of electronic communications originating in and ending in the United States. In spite of all claims to the contrary, I am aware of no credible evidence that NSA has conducted "domestic spying" that fits the above description. On the basis of what is known, this has to be regarded as an incendiary thrown out by the radical left to to create much smoke and no light.

For those who might be interested:

The US Code:
www4.law.cornell.edu

The Code of Federal Regulations:
access.gpo.gov

The US Constitution:
house.gov

The (Old) Patriot Act:
epic.org

Now I'm going to get out of this debate. I am at a severe disadvantage in that I know a lot more of what is going on than most of those throwing their two cents in. And there is a matter of certain papers signed years ago. People such as Kerr may be free to discuss these matters till the cows come home; I'm not. Those papers make no exception for information being published in law journals or your local newspaper; they leave those who signed on the hook for the rest of their lives.