The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission.The power exists, the court is expected to reaffirm, even when the communications of American citizens are involved.
The ruling, which was classified when made back in December, may be disclosed publicly as early as today. As the Times says (or, shall I say, concedes through gritted teeth?): "In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping."
Yeah, it may.
It understates the case to say the Bush administration has been slandered for asserting this power — accused of shredding the Constitution and violating the principle that no one is above the law (even as Congress put itself above the law — the Constitution — by enacting and trying to enforce a statute, FISA, that sought to diminish the president's constitutional authority). It was never true.
Not that it matters. When Obama wants to eavesdrop on foreign terrorists, God simply whispers the transcripts into his ear.
As Jan 21/09 approaches the cup of water makes the miraculous transformation from half empty to half full.
The allegations against GWB are nothing but rhetoric. Remember, "For liberals, history begins every morning" (Anne Coulter)
The outrage towards the POTUS will be forgotten in a few days regardless of policy similarities.
This was always stupid. ANY communications transiting a national border are subject to interception on NatSec grounds, and always have been.
Don't want your semantic trees shaken? Keep the comms US-internal.
I simply think that our generation has forgotten what past generations have done during times of war (i.e. open everyones mail), and the Americans themselves tend to forget that they are in a "war" as well.
Personally I think warrantless wiretaps are wrong and that the national security issues do not trump the individuals rights. Do we also assume that if a foreigner decides to visit your house that the government automatically then has the right to place bugs in your living room?
Regardless though, its all a moot point: FISA has rejected only 9 warrants out of the 15,000 that have been presented since 1979...which would suggest that either federal investigators are incredibly thorough and ensure they have reasonable cause to wiretap, or the FISA court is a joke in the first place.
Government efficiency being what it is, I'm inclined to go with the second.
I question the timing.
"I question the timing."
Hence the title....
Kate --
I think, maybe, you meant for the second link in your post to point here:
http://bestobamafacts.com/Obama_Random_Facts.php
Just wondering!
Well we will see how people like andrew Sullivan react...who got so excited over this particular issue.
It was always clear to me that foreign conversations open it up to the conversation to be eavesdropped on. That didnt mean that the evidence could be used against the domestic actor, they still have rights and should.
Mind you the US, canada, UK, Australia and NZ all get what they want from the others in the echelon consortium anyway. If the US wants a domestic conversation listened to they let the Canadains do it and then pass it on to them through intelligence channels.
But it is always interesting that the clubs used to harm an opponent conveniently become sequestered when your side is in office.
I wonder how the Obamamaniacs will react when Obama is hung and burned in effigy in some protest in some foreign land, europe, SA, or he middle east. It will happen, because he is an AMERICAN PRESIDENT. If it doesnt happen he isnt doing his job, but then you cannot use the evidence that the world hates your president as the sole indicator that you are headed in the wrong direction. I give it 6 months maximum.
Quite so, Lick. Thanks, link is fixed now.
What do you expect: The Alpha and the Obama. Eh!
"I wonder how the Obamamaniacs will react when Obama is hung and burned in effigy in "
Nevermind that, you can be sure they'll be insulting him on racial grounds too.
Next it will be miricles & wonders,
While Clinton was president he had a program called "echelon" which was pretty much the same thing Bush had; a way of spying on suspected terrorists trough their personal phone conversations.
But since most liberals are either un-informed or dishonest ( or both ), this fact is never mentioned.
And Clinton did use it, oh yes he did!
But the Main Stream Media then called it a "necessity"...
Don't believe me?
see for yourself,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/01/under_clinton_ny_times_called.html
I happened to catch Wolf Blitzer on CNN a few days back referring to the detainees at Gitmo as “Terrorist” instead of the usual “insurgents”.
You ignernt conservatives are missing an historic event!
For the first time in US history, a po black drug dealer from Chicago is going to sit as POTUS!
And -oh goody!!!!! - his first trip abroad will be to Canada!!!
I wonder if our proposed Three-Stooges Coalition will be ready to recieve him?
This could be a new era in Canada/US relations. Obama sells hype, cheap drugs and BS...and our libtards live on that stuff.
Echelon was only a satellite communications intercept program, not a land line one. However, I really have no doubt that all information coming to and leave the U.S. is monitored in some manner, but as to what extent its processed, or whether its processed at all is another question.
And "Friend of USA", Echelon was designed and built during the Cold War to intercept Soviet signals and for espionage purposes, and since the 90's has been used to watch for terrorism/drug smuggling/industrial and diplomatic espionage.
Obviously Clinton would have made use of Echelon, and whatever other programs the NSA runs to collect as much information as they can around the world, I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a Clinton initiative.
It's all been BS since the start of the media campaign to make this a Bush bashing issue.
Legal Intercept is built into the license boilerplate of every telecommunications carrier.
It means that the government can legally request (demand) access to networks and the carrier must comply. Local or state agencies require court orders. So do the Feds.
But NOT when the President or the Congress commands them to.
Remember that clown in California who worked for PacBell? How he was "shocked" to learn of the legal intercept facility in the central office where he worked? The clown worked there for over ten years and never knew what the locked room was for! The MSM were all over it for weeks trying to make the story fly.
The Congress Could have enforced the use of the act. As could the Senate. It took the President to actually DO what needed to be done and all these clowns could think of to do was cause a ruckus over it.
Lets not be naive folks. The fact that the U.S. pres has these powers should come as no surprise. The surprise would be if he didn't. One more thing. As Ottawa prepares for a visit fron BHO do you think for a moment that the U.S. is going to rely on Canada for security? My bet is that the streets of Ottawa are right now crawling with CIA types right under the nose of the RCMP and CSIS.
Echelon has been running for many years. All Canadian international communitications are routed through the USA. Most USA international communications are routed through Canada. The system also uses the UK. Between the three countries, almost all international traffic can be monitored.
This whole news item is a no news item. Long ago our securtity services have figured out how to deal with these security threats.
My fave -
"US Mail Service published Obama's resume on a new first class stamp."
Pretty much sums it up.
This is what happens when rhetoric finally runs up against logic. This ruling is self evident.
"Do we also assume that if a foreigner decides to visit your house that the government automatically then has the right to place bugs in your living room?" -- bar-jeebus
This is a ridiculous analogy. First, the foreigner, to get to your living room, would have to pass through imigration and customs and past the border patrol, a technicality you studiously avoid. You are denying that you have transmitted something accross an international border. You can transmit stuff worth millions of dollars accross a phone connection. Digital Movies, Databases, Software, plans for atomic bombs, etc. From your living room even.
Could you sit in Rouses's Point, NY and launch containers accross the border with a catapult into Lacole, Quebec and object if customs, the border patrol, RCMP, or whoever, had a look? Would you seriously have an expectation of privacy? What if you operated the catapult out of your living room? If you did, wouldn't most people assume that you were deluded?
Most European countries have the flimsiest pretexts to intercept your calls anyway, and your call is going to go through Europe. European countries intercept calls in ways that Bush only does in bar_jeebus's nightmares.
Brian M,
And they had room leftover for a comprehensive list of his accomplismhments.
"All Canadian international communitications are routed through the USA. "
Utter nonsense. Canada, for years, was a world leader in telecom, and a huge percentage of international traffic flows over Canadian built equipment, directly to probably every major country and a huge number of minor ones. This is why Nortel is not Enron. Enron never made anything. Canadian telecom travels over the paths of the old British Empire as much as through the US.
*
i dunno kate... you don't start to fly right, we'll have to send you to brampton...
for "re-education"...
"We listen to classical music every day, but this week we're listening to Barack,"
says fast-talking, fast-walking principal Kyra Kristensen-Irvine.
*
Bar jeebus? I have been waiting for an answer from anybody who ever used that tired argument you make. Not one has ever answered. For obvious reasons.
It is not Bush who has no respect for the constitution, it is you. His arguments can be defended from the text, yours can't.
Just like the Geneva Convention, which Bush never violated either.
the FISA court was addressing a totally different and much narrower question: namely, whether the warrantless eavesdropping which Congress authorized in the 2007 Protect America Act was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/index.html
Oh well, try again.