Happy traillllllsss to youuuuuu………

I for one am looking forward to congressional oversight. I think this is an important question and one that needs to be reviewed. The difference is I think that the bush admin has done their homework and will be found to be on the correct side of that line.

If OBL calls j. aniston, they can listen without a warrant, as they aren t interested in the J. aniston, they are interested in OBL

We’re back to the meaning of “targeted.” I think we’re placing that word in different contexts. You’re using it to refer to the target of an investigation; I’m using it to refer to the target of the surveillance.

Either way, I’d bet that the lawyers would argue about it in front of a judge.

If OBL calls j. aniston, they can listen without a warrant, as they aren’t interested in the J. aniston, they are interested in OBL

Nice try though, and I stand corrected, you can read, you just can’t comprehend .

Sorry Quaker but your just can t read.

Yes, I’m can.

It is  defined to exclude ie it doesn t include in the defination.

It is “defined to exclude…unless…”

The term  electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication  sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person

In plainer English, intercepting a communication outside the U.S. isn’t included in the definition of electronic surveillance unless the comunication of a United States person is intercepted. If that happens, then it is included in the definition.

Again, the POTUS has the entire DOJ looking at this, and he would not announce on national tv that he was doing it unless he was on stable legal ground….if he thought it was illegal he would simply deny it and end up saying some flunky at the NSA did it withou his knowledge.

The term  electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless

The quote you gave us describes when interception outside the U.S. is considered “electronic surveillance.”

Characteristically, you’ve destroyed your own argument.

I suspect that if her phone number showed up on a captured Al Qaida operatives computer in Afghanistan, and they vetted it past the DOJ the answer is probably yes, they could tap ms anistons line.

That’s precisely what’s prohibited by the law you quoted.

MJB read the rest of that sentence above. In essence they don’t even consider it electronic surveillance if it is done outside the US and they aren’t targeting americans. That is why your quote doesn’t matter.

I am not an attorney, but I suspect that if her phone number showed up on a captured Al Qaida operatives computer in Afghanistan, and they vetted it past the DOJ the answer is probably yes, they could tap ms anistons line.

Or yours….

yes, but they aren t  intentionally targeting that United States person , they are targeting the guy on the other end of the line in the Hindu Kush&

If the issue ever goes in front of a judge, that might be one of the points debated. Does the word “targeting” refer to the target of the wiretap or the target of the investigation. The difference matters.

Let’s say the government wants to find out where Osama bin Laden is (don’t laugh, they might.) Can the government put a tap on Jennifer Aniston’s phone because Osama might call her for a date? After all, Osama is the “target,” not young Jen.

(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 …
(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;

there is interception of a communication  sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by  intentionally targeting that United States person

Uh, isn’t this exactly what Mr. Bush has acknowledged he has ordered the NSA to do?

That IS exactly the point Quaker….congratulations….See the “AND” in the paragraph is very important…remember our lesson? Words have meanings….

“Here is the applicable FISA law:

The term  electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication  sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by  intentionally targeting that United States person”

Done

Res Ipsa Loquator

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration’s spying scandal
2: Congress was adequately informed of — and approved — the administration’s actions

Conservatives have sought to defend the secret spying operation by falsely suggesting that the Bush administration adequately informed Congress of its actions and that Congress raised no objections. For example, on the December 19 broadcast of Westwood One’s The Radio Factor, host Bill O’Reilly claimed that the NSA’s domestic surveillance “wasn’t a secret program” because “the Bush administration did keep key congressional people informed they were doing this.” The claim was also featured in a December 21 press release by the Republican National Committee (RNC).

In fact, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and couldn’t be aired because the program’s existence was highly classified.

As The New York Times reported on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stated that they did not receive written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required by the National Security Act:

The demand for written reports was added to the National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision, with the stipulation that he would interpret it “in a manner consistent with the president’s constitutional authority” to withhold information for national-security or foreign-policy reasons.

[...]

[I]n interviews, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid all said they understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice President Dick] Cheney might have been accompanied by charts, they did not constitute written reports. The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity’s significance.

Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns “were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues” because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed “that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens.”

3: Warrantless searches of Americans are legal under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Conservatives such as nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and American Cause president Bay Buchanan have defended the administration by falsely claiming that the administration’s authorization of domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA. In fact, FISA, which was enacted in 1978, contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications “exclusively between foreign powers,” specifically stating that the president may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is “no substantial likelihood” that the communications of “a United States person” — a U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States — will be intercepted. Such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration’s authorization of domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States and parties outside the country.

FISA also allows the president and the attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose of gathering “foreign intelligence information” for “a period” no more than 15 days “following a declaration of war by the Congress.” This provision does not permit Bush’s conduct either, as he acknowledged that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said that the program is “reviewed approximately every 45 days.”

The FISA law also allows for tapping of foreign communications, even those involving US citizens, as long as the citizen is not the subject of the tap. Ergo, legal.

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Dugger makes light of this penchant of the president to skirt the checks and balances of our system of government failing to understand completely that the President has already committed an act as serious and egregious as any of the transgressions he meant as a joke: Bush broke the fucking law to spy on Americans.

I expect that just a month ago a properly goaded Dugger would have written “Hmm. Wonder why Bush goes through the motions of having NSA judges approve his wiretaps. Just go around them and let the NSA start spying on Americans.” Ha ha.