Is domestic spying a black or white issue or are there exceptions?

Like the ones claimed by Bush and the Republicans? There are ambiguities as expressed in the media? It's a law but the President can go around it to protect our citizens in his role as Commander in Chief? In wartime, he is not only Commander in Chief of the armed forces but he is Commander in Chief of all the citizens of the United States?

Only Jack Bauer is allowed to circumvent the law to fight terrorism!

House is allowed to circumvent the law to cure patients.

and if you're as lucky as I am, you'll see that almost everything is gray. I believe that black-and-white is reserved for the young, while they're gathering experience and putting together a frame of reference.

That said, we do have something called the Constitution. And, while there is much left to interpretation in that document to which I dedicated my professional life, it in no way allows what Fuckface has done with the NSA.

With access to the FISA courts, and with the right to conduct the spying without a warrant, with the right to go to the FISA court and request a warrant retroactively, there was NO reason - NONE - for Fuckface to do this.

And that, my friend, is black and white.

Did major violence to our Constitutional protections for American Citizens.

I guess it isn't the FIRST major breach of our Constitution perpetrated by lawmakers, and even though there were serious concerns expressed at the time (and I believe strict statutes intended to safeguard citizen's rights, were placed into that Act) none the less, it is the only time which I'm aware of when we actually "institutionalized" within our governance structure, something that itself was unconstitutional! It has done such damage to our own democracy, not to mention the atrocities committed to the international community.

There was a time during the Church Committee hearings, i had hoped we could abolish the 1947 NSA act. But instead they created the FISA Act.

So now it's been so thoroughly legitimized vis a vis a four decades long "cold war" with the USSR (which was something of cottage industry in itself, 'Spooks R Us')- and then these manufactured phony wars on terra-ism with manufactured enemies lists that are forever morphing into other generic bad guys with Muslim sounding names and ethnic features... and those attacks on American interests!

And then pearl harbor, oh i mean 9/11 - that sure changed everything.

There had been other dark times in this country where the CIA engaged in Domestic Spying activities that went well beyond wire tapping.

But in those days it was the first time that spying was done on American Citizens and for that reason, (at least since the Civil War)it was seen as absolutely imperative to keep this secret, even within the agency itself. the domestic spying shop was in the basement at headquaters and very very few were even aware of the shop itself, and those few that were aware, didn't know who else in the agency knew.


But there were some courts (before FISA ever existed)that did convene secretly and adjudicated certain cases dealing with published works (as today, the agency didn't want certain books published involving information they wanted to keep "classified") and the agency had certain judges in their pockets ruling in their favor, authorizing the use of censorship, and prevention of publications that they did not want to have published. Those judges essentially rubber stamped authority for the agency.

So really, they didn't even need FISA, since the CIA was already doing this stuff - but i guess Phillip Agee and so many others exposed these activities, and Law makers on the Church Committee investigations came up with a system to give cover to both CIA and protect civil liberties of citizens, so FISA was created.

I'm anxious to read the new book that forced NYT to publish the story, but in the meantime, i highly recommend reading "Secrets - The CIA's War at Home" by Angus Mackenzie (published in 1997 California University Press- available in paper back and on line) there are a few others really good publications, but this one really goes into the history of domestic spying done under more than one president of both parties.

The 2000 elections must have been like homecoming week for Dick Cheney, Rummy, and Poppy Bush's prodigy - got their other pals around, Negroponte, Porter Goss, Kissinger and others.

Same ole gang.

These guys should have been locked up and thrown in the clanger around the time of the Bay of Pigs, assassination attempts on Castro, and then JFK's assassination, afaic. Maybe these guys were why Nixon was so freaking paranoid, didn't know which one of these clowns he could really trust, who knows?

Just my little coincidence theory.. seems kind of spooky to me that these guys are still around, ruling the world and they just can't seem to get enough of it.

but I digress... sorry for that.

but Angus was a friend of mine.

He died more than ten years ago, I think. Just last weekend, a group of us (we were undergrads together back in the sixties) were talking about him, wondering what he'd make of this current situation.

My god, it's a small world...............

...that domestic spying is just fine if you first acquire a warrant.

have a warrant before searching. If this requirement isn't observed, the whole constitution is negated.
The Commander in Chief is only for the armed forces. He's president to the civilian population, subject to removal for reasons outlined in the constitution.

The President can spy on anyone in the media, any reporter at MSNBC, FOX-TV, or any of the networks, and there is nothing they can do about it. If that is what they want, let them continue to report it as some gray areas where the President can spy on anyone he damn well pleases. We just have to trust him to do the right thing. Is that what they want?

and as oldleftylawyer put it so eloquently above in # 2

"With access to the FISA courts, and with the right to conduct the spying without a warrant, with the right to go to the FISA court and request a warrant retroactively, there was NO reason - NONE - for Fuckface to do this"

and nothing is resolved no matter if it is an obvious breaking of the law. We'll be right back after this commercial...They could be discussing murder, and if a Republican was involved, it would not be black or white.

authorization as provided for by the law - that is black and white.

If need be, he could go to the FISA court afterwards in an emergency.

The courts exist to balance the power of a president with delusions of monarchy. Even a rubber stamp court needs to be consulted. Anything else is tyrrany!

Its really that simple. U need to have reasonable suspicion to establish probable cause that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

It's not liek FISa is going to say no to Bush anyway. But at least this way, you go through the motions and not by-pass something called the 4 Ammendment! :mad:

Period. End of story. End of publication.

It is wrong.

No. That's the beauty of the system.

Spying is just another word for investigation and detection. You want a government that's able to do that. But you NEED a government that uses its powers to that only when properly constrained by laws. I look at an administration that says they don't need legal oversight for law enforcement the same as I'd look at an electrician who says his wiring skills are so good, you won't even need any insulation.

..I'm not so sure, and I'm pissed about it. I'd like some of our DU legal eagles to take a look at what I've bumped into and lead me out of the legal thicket.

As a civil libertarian and devotee of the Bill of Rights I thought warrantless searches were not permissible. Not being a lawyer, I had missed that there are some circumstances where these are allowed, in what are called Special Needs cases such as in certain roadblocks, for example.

But having read a good deal about FISA that seemed open and shut - get the warrant or expose yourself to prosecution for breaking the law.

In studying this I read the one and only appeal from a FISA court ruling up to its court of review. It's a case in which warrantless searches are not the central issue but they are addressed and I'm frankly astonished at what the court said. Here is the URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

The not good parts are:
"Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance..."

And:
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."

So that stinks. A logical if piss-off argument that lays this all out is here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php

Don't dismiss it until you have read it. It isn't as easy to refute as I first thought.

Now if this argument is as good as it seems to be for giving the pres a blank check I find it interesting that this is not being touted by the White House and that so many legal commentators state that a warrant is required period.

As mentioned I'd love to have somebody with legal smarts refute this stuff. As it is I'm struggling, and it makes me mad.

911 you know.