Skip to main content

View Diary: Spying: How's it playing in Peoria? (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well done (4.00)
    Someone should send the Peoria Journal Star to the willfully obtuse Judd Gregg, who's behaving like an ass now in the Senate.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:04:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Russ Feingold is the leader on this (4.00)
      Just as John Murtha led the fight against Bush's Iraq quagmire, Russ Feingold has been consistently fighting for our civil rights.

      He voted against the original Patriot Act, and has stood strong against the Bush's assumption of dictatorial powers.  Judd Gregg, Cat-Killer Frist, and the torture nine in the senate are traitors to this country.

      Bush clearly violated the 1978 FISA law.  

      Time to Impeach!

      •  Key issues needed to be known in regard to secret (4.00)
        1    The provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act subject to sunset generally modified two existing laws. Title III governs law enforcement interception of and access to communications in ordinary criminal investigations. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates the FBI's collection of "foreign intelligence" information for intelligence purposes. Under the Fourth Amendment, a Title III warrant to intercept a communication must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA: surveillance under FISA is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, irrespective of whether the target is suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded law enforcement authority to conduct searches and obtain communications under Title III, and also rolled back the already lax restrictions on the FBI's ability to gather information about individuals under FISA.

        2    Through out the law it clearly delineates actions for US and NON US citizens? If all were treated equally there would be no need for such extensive delineation. It is being done specifically to protect the civil liberties of US citizens.

        3    Agent of a foreign power
        FISA §1801(b) defines this phrase in two ways, depending on whether the target is a U.S. person. §1801(b)(1) covers non-U.S. persons, while § 1801(b)(2) covers "any person."

        Non-U.S. persons are "agents" under FISA if they

        act in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a terrorist organization, § 1801(b)(1)(A)
        act for or on behalf of a foreign power that engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to U.S. interests when (1) the circumstances of such persons' presence in the United States "indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or (2) when such person knowingly aids or abets any person, or conspires with any person to engage in such activities." 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(B).
        So, for instance, a British national who works for the British embassy in the United States is an agent of a foreign power.

        4    The Justice Department may engage in electronic surveillance to collect FII without a court order for periods up to one year. 50 U.S.C. § 1802. There must be no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S person is a party. § 1802(a)(1)(B).


        The court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis],

        Truong was not a US citizen. He was a citizen of Vietnam. The appeal was rejected because Truong was NOT a US citizen so a warrant-less wire tap COULD be conducted.

         6   Part of speech bush gave in April of 2004:    

        "there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you  
        hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a  
        wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're  talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing  what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

        Time will Tell all the Truth VT, Virtual Truth

        by VirtualTruth on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:43:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site