View Story | 29 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"US persons abroad" never had the same protection as "US persons" within the US under USSID 18. Warrants were not required for them, even in the "good old days" when we had the rule of law.
Also - the word "wiretap" is very outdated. There's absolutely no need to "wiretap" most communications these days, especially in Iraq, where everything is cellular (which is why we replaced the landline comms we bombed the hell out of with cell towers in the first place!) Electronic intercept works like a big vacuum cleaner.
by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:59:56 AM PDT
are protected by the Bill of Rights, whether at home or abroad.
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:01:52 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I used to work for NSA.
by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:03:12 AM PDT
and take note of the Foreign Power agency and consent clauses, 4.1 b and c.
you are misinforming.
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:08:46 AM PDT
4.1 (S-CCO) Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx not be intentionally intercepted. [1 line redacted.] b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if: (1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following: (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
4.1 (S-CCO) Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx not be intentionally intercepted. [1 line redacted.]
b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:
(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following: (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
This was the law, as passed in 1978...as amended in 1993...and as it currently exists.
There's plenty to "get" the Bush Administration on without having to be hyperbolic or make stuff up. For instance, look at the briefs and other things written by military lawyers who have refused to participate in Bush's kangaroo courts.
by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:16:39 AM PDT
redact a law. Doesn't it negate the point of having it, if you don't know what's in it?
It seems to me that the existence of a redacted law is itself worthy of investigation and highly suspect.
Or is this something other than a law? If so, why does it have the force of law?
"Big boss man..you ain't so big, just tall, that's all." And McCain is the boss!
by TheFatLadySings on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:22:05 AM PDT
"They're telling us something we don't understand"General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68
by subtropolis on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:43:50 AM PDT
and Bush decides what is constitutional.
He has declared the ability to override laws and regulations "in a time of war" as the Commander in Chief.
it doesn't really matter what the letter of the law says. He'll do what he wants, and will let things to to his Supreme Court if necessary. He's declared power to be limitless.
I remember a time when the American President was the leader of the free world. ****** Repeat after me: "Neoconservatism has failed America."
by land of the free on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:04:49 AM PDT
Please quote entire section:
b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if: (1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following: (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or (b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.] (c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located). (2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and (3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.
(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
(a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
(b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]
(c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).
(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and
(3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.
Subsections 1, 2, AND 3 apply. The AG must make a determination of foreign agency.
US citizen reporters in Iraq are entitled to 4th amendment protection.
You are not honest, or correct.
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:29:26 AM PDT
is for title space and broad colloquial recognition. It does not reflect a naive understanding of technology. Please refer to my diaries over the past 6 months.
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:04:03 AM PDT
intelligence directive? Does it actually supercede the Constitution or is it an artifice, sort of like a signing statement, that Congress has yet to stand up to?
by TheFatLadySings on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:11:20 AM PDT
Passed in conjunction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, during the Carter Administration. Amended in 1993 (approved by Clinton - and it actually gave MORE power to intelligence operatives, by the way). Here's a link to information on USSIDs.
USSID 18 was originally a response to Nixonian shenanigans involving monitoring of political opponents and dissidents INSIDE the US. Everyone involved in collection, analysis, and reporting of SIGINT was required to read and acknowledge USSID 18 procedures annually - including immediate destruction of inadvertent intercept of improper data. The Posse Commitatus clause of the Constitution was also invoked as a basis for USSID 18, to prevent the US Military (NSA is part of DOD) from spying WITHIN the US - but outside of the US, the restrictions were far more loose.
by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:25:40 AM PDT
see above
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:30:16 AM PDT
in the U.S. communicating with an employee like Bilal Hussein in Iraq? Wouldn't a warrant be required to intercept such communications?
The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
by lysias on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:17:17 AM PDT
Outside of the US, you can intercept "US Persons" with just the permission of the Attorney General's office. As noted, USSID 18 was initially implemented during the Carter Administration, and was amended (giving more power to intel agencies) during the Clinton Administration. What Bush did was turn the spy agency on "US persons" WITHIN the boundaries of the US.
Here's the deal - NSA's computers suck up all kinds of stuff. Humans rarely even see it, unless certain patterns or characteristics are present. Data is stored and can be retrieved after the fact if "something" happens (cf. all of the stuff they had stored on the 9/11 hijackers that they were able to go back and retrieve after the fact.)
All in all, SIGINT is a very valuable intelligence tool, but it can be abused, like any other. The case the diarist is using is not a good one to use to show abuse of SIGINT collection, however.
by Sharon Jumper on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:31:26 AM PDT
the Executive Order 12333 from 1981 that supposedly fills the gap for Americans abroad if our government follows this EO. I think this is the point that many have been making on the blogs is that Whitehouse recently pointed out that Bush has been ignoring EO 12333 and will continue to do so. You can see Executive Order 12333 here. Thanks for your input to the diary.
Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
by NC Dem on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:03:39 AM PDT
here is not merely the collection of intelligence, but the use of intelligence to support incarceration.
by Smallbottle on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 09:31:01 AM PDT
US persons can be surveilled, only if they are agents of foreign states. Please read the law you cite.
by drational on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 10:31:30 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 29 comments