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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11573)	2/11/2006 10:30:46 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 541119

That's a big project, I surely cannot do it off the top of my head. I looked at the legal issues in excruciating detail with respect to the Plame/Wilson affair, but that was a different statute. If I find the time, I'll do it.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11573)	2/12/2006 9:34:29 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541119

Someone has done an exhaustive study of the Pentagon Papers case. Far better than I could do given limited time, and probably better than anything I could produce even if I had unlimited time. Supporting documentation, briefs, even transcripts of the supreme court arguments can be found here: gwu.edu No statute I believe was involved min the PP case, and it may have been that FISA, the statute that has the NYT woried now, was a response to the case. In any event, here's the text of FISA, which is a multi-page document, so keep flipping through the doc until you conclude: law.cornell.edu And this is the part of the statute that allows wiretapping without a court order: (a) (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. I suppose the case will boil down to whether the AG certified under oath that warrantless wiretapping was necessary, that "minimization procedures" were followed, and that there was a "substantial likelihood" that US citizens' would not have their privacy invaded. I don't think any of this took place, but I have not followed the Administration's argument for failing to follow the statute.