But I thought the Patriot Act allowed wiretapping without court approval??

So I am surprised at the shock everyone is displaying over the chimp actually authorizing the NSA to do it.

Also, even if the Patriot Act expires, there is a clause in it that says the administration can continue all Patriot Act activities in investigations already under way at time of expiration, provided they are directed at "terrorists." Hell, I'm sure the chimp considers every American to be a possible terrorist who deserves wiretapping without court order.

"Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.

But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to determine whether it is acting within the law.

The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in the United States.

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations. The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities."
---Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html

Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe to wiretap under the PA, the government had to get approval from the court. Generally, the government would get an OK to tap any suspect terrorist. The scary thing being the government got to define "terrorist" and what behavior made you a suspect. It could basically tell the court that X was a terrorist, by definition of the government labeling them a terrorist. The whole circular logic thing. Also, the PA allowed the government to wiretap and do searches without ever notifying the subject after the fact.

THe NSA thing is scary because Bush allowed wiretapping without even going to the token court. This is in direct violation of wiretapping statutes from the 1970s. Under the PA there was at least lip service to getting the OK from a court, and keeping official records of who is tapped.

That's my understanding of the situation - I'm sure someone else has more info.

Under the Patriot Act, the government still needed to show a "reasonable necesity" in order to obtain a warrant to wiretap. Wiretapping is a search, like any other, so the government used to need to show "probable cause" to get a wiretap search warrant. The Patriot Act lowered the standard to "reas. necesity," which made it easier to get such a warrant. But they still needed to have a warrant to wiretap phones. It sounds like the Bush Administration has been secretly wiretapping phones without getting any warrant at all. This violates not only the 4th Am. (against searches w/o warrant) but the terms of the Patriot Act itself. This is a Big Deal. If this is true, Bush himself is violating the law & the Constitution - and it was all done in secret to prevent the courts or Congress from finding out.

what was a reasonable necessity, in essence? They could show it was a reasonable necessity because they could define anyone as a terrorist. It was a reasonable necessity to wiretap terrorists. They got to do all the defining. And then the court would hand them their warrant. I was referring to warrants when I said things like "approval of the court" - though I realize I was sloppy with language.

"Reasonable necesity" is such a relaxed standard, and courts (especially FISC) were so favorable to the government, that it was probably not much more than a formality. If the gov. said there was "reas. nec." for a wiretap, that might've been good enough in most cases. But at least the formality was there - the gov. couldn't go secretly wiretapping phones or emails w/o getting prior ct. approval. The Bush Administration has completely cut out the courts and allowed the gov. to wiretap at random anyone they judge suspicious, w/o ever asking for a search warrant from the courts. This seems to directly violate the 4th Amendment & is almost certainly unconstitutional. The thing is, since Bush's order was done in secret, there's no way the courts would know. There's no way anyone would know.

so I guess we must be right! :) You are just saying it better. My brain is fried right now.

And I forgot to say - Welcome to DU!