Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9343)	1/20/2006 11:31:32 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541625

Regarding Ames, anyone who holds a top secret security clearance has already waived their usual protections against the government snooping up their backside as far as they like. Holding the clearance is equivalent to saying "Come on in, fellas" when it comes to counterintelligence investigations. You can't compare that to an ordinary civilian that they want to monitor on the off chance he might be linked to something or someone else.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9343)	1/20/2006 3:39:34 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541625

Well per this Executive Order, issued in 1995, it appears that warrantless physical searches were STILL authorized. This is interesting Hawk, but I would think that the best legal minds in the country will have trouble settling the issue.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (9343)	1/22/2006 2:43:32 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541625

Hawk: You are repeating the Drudge “misinformation.” Simply reading that text one thinks – as you wrote – …it appears that warrantless physical searches were STILL authorized….” Let's do your quote again – highlighting the key items: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. Now ask yourself. What does Section 302(a)(1) say and what certification is the AG required to make? (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if— (A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title); (ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and (iii) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) [1] of section 1821 (4) of this title; .... www4.law.cornell.edu The FISA Court comes into play when a “US person” is involved. The purpose of FISA was to strike a balance between the legitimate requirement of the Executive to conduct foreign intelligence gathering – that may involve either domestic activities – OR US persons - while at the same time complying with the provisions of the 4th Amendment, which by definition limits and proscribes the explicit and implicit Article 1 powers of Congress and the Article II powers of the President. The 42 page white paper that DOJ published this week, distilled to its essence, claims that the President is within his authority to authorize the NSA program under the AUMF - but if not there – it is irrelevant because FISA is unconstitutional. From the DOJ white paper: …Because the President has determined that the NSA activities are necessary to the defense of the United States from a subsequent terrorist attack in the armed conflict with al Qaeda, FISA would impermissibly interfere with the President’s most solemn constitutional obligation – to defend the United States against foreign attack."… I would strongly urge you to read the following. glenngreenwald.blogspot.com As the author writes: …The truly radical nature of the Administration’s position is illustrated by the fact that it is forced to argue that FISA itself – to the extent it "impedes" the President’s power to eavesdrop on American citizens – is unconstitutional. For 30 years, FISA has existed as the framework for regulating eavesdropping by the Government. It was enacted by Congress as a response to serious abuses of this power, signed into law by the President, and nobody serious ever argued that it was unconstitutional. Indeed, the working assumption of both the Congress and the Bush Administration in the wake of 9/11 was that FISA would continue to regulate the Administration’s eavesdropping, which is why The Patriot Act amended FISA in the aftermath of 9/11 (p. 27, fn. 13). Regardless of one point of view – democrat or republican, liberal or conservative – we have a big problem here. See: lawculture.blogs.com A small quote from James Madison: “…The whole field of political sciences rich as it is in momentous truths, contains none that are better established or that ought to be more deeply engraven on the American mind, than the two following: First. That the fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad. Secondly, That there never was a people whose liberties long survived a standing army. Political Reflections Aurora General Advertiser, February 23, 1799 constitution.org While Madison's second point may (emphasize may) not hold true in this day and age, the first is as true as ever. ww