Multiple arrests in foiled Canadian terror plot

[kapkomet]

And that information when it is SPECIFIC TO A PERSON - is granted a warrant. Otherwise, it's a block of data that's simply sorted through.

[Balta1701]

And that information when it is SPECIFIC TO A PERSON - is granted a warrant. Otherwise, it's a block of data that's simply sorted through.

Only problem with maintaining the database of who's calling who? A phone number is in fact very specific to a person, and using information that is publically available, can be used to ID specific people quite easily.

[NorthSideSox72]

Then the data base becomes discriminant and would be illegal. You would have to give service providers a target list of numbers to track. Since it now records all calls, it is legal. Kapeesh? Only the records of foreign hostiles are opened in a specific search criteria and those who they have had contact with become collateral discovery.

 

To give you another example. A municipality can monitor an intersection with a camera as long as the monitoring is done indiscrminatley. They must monitor all traffic and activity at that corner, not just when a certain individual is present.

No, I don't Capiche, and I think you are incorrect (or I misunderstand you again). Perhaps we are not talking about the same database. The discrimination I mentioned was the legal delineation - citizens versus non-citizens. And the database I am referring to is the one the government collected from the phone companies as a pool of data. In any case, it is pretty clearly in need of a warrant to me. If a court looked at this, in my opinion, the action would be stuck down as illegal.

 

Your example of the traffic camera is PLAIN SIGHT criminal law enforcement, which is specifically allowed by court rulings. Knowing who calls who, citizen to citizen, in the U.S., is not plain sight.

[AbeFroman]

This is where a phone database comes in handy.

 

I disagree with this statement.... however, i do like your avatar.

[My Dixie Normus]

No, I don't Capiche, and I think you are incorrect (or I misunderstand you again). Perhaps we are not talking about the same database. The discrimination I mentioned was the legal delineation - citizens versus non-citizens. And the database I am referring to is the one the government collected from the phone companies as a pool of data. In any case, it is pretty clearly in need of a warrant to me. If a court looked at this, in my opinion, the action would be stuck down as illegal.

 

Your example of the traffic camera is PLAIN SIGHT criminal law enforcement, which is specifically allowed by court rulings. Knowing who calls who, citizen to citizen, in the U.S., is not plain sight.

 

The Bush has stated time and time again that the program does not include internal domestic communications. The POTUS has long held the athourity to conduct warrantless searches, despite FISA. Some former Presidents took it even further.

 

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own. "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

 

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

 

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

 

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

 

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

 

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

[kapkomet]

/waiting for the inevitable "Clinton doesn't matter" comments from the lefters

[NorthSideSox72]

The Bush has stated time and time again that the program does not include internal domestic communications. The POTUS has long held the athourity to conduct warrantless searches, despite FISA. Some former Presidents took it even further.

If it doesn't include those, then what about the calls DB that the phone companies turned over? The one with ALL the calls placed? That was what I was referring to in this case. I think maybe you were talking more about the warrantless tapping, which I also happen to disagree with.

[Rex Kickass]

/waiting for the inevitable "Clinton doesn't matter" comments from the lefters

 

Here it is.

 

Although Clinton argued for the inherent authority, when it became clear that the majority opinion of the rest of the government was vociferously opposed, they never actually ACTED on the argument by their own admission. And I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary - I'm sure there are plenty of disaffected former Clinton staffers that would have been happy to counteract the claims of the Clinton administration in this sense. And it would have been all over Drudge, Fox News, and the conservative talk shows on radio.

 

It's kind of a major difference.

 

However, any truth about this program won't be definitively known for years because the NSA has tried to use executive privilege to quash every investigation related to a warrantless surveillance program to begin with. There certainly are a lot of questions to this controversy, and the unwillingness of the government to answer them raises a red flag in my eyes.

 

I even trust my government more than say the average conservative who seems to shout from the rooftops that government is the problem. But I think that something like this deserves an honest investigation. If nothing illegal happened, there should be no problem investigating the program and proving it. Parts of the 9/11 Commission report remains classified, there's no reason why part of an investigation report with this controversy couldn't remain classified as well.

[My Dixie Normus]

If it doesn't include those, then what about the calls DB that the phone companies turned over? The one with ALL the calls placed? That was what I was referring to in this case. I think maybe you were talking more about the warrantless tapping, which I also happen to disagree with.

 

Having (or having access to) the data doesn't mean anything. All it is is a huge unintelligible pile of data. Searching the data so that it becomes useful is being done only when foreign hostiles are identified through one measure or another.

 

Another interesting point is that, although I am not a telecom expert, I think much of this traffic, certainly all of the cell calls, are made using radio waves of some type. The FCC may have some legal right to this information since it is public domain.

[kapkomet]

I even trust my government more than say the average conservative who seems to shout from the rooftops that government is the problem. But I think that something like this deserves an honest investigation. If nothing illegal happened, there should be no problem investigating the program and proving it. Parts of the 9/11 Commission report remains classified, there's no reason why part of an investigation report with this controversy couldn't remain classified as well.

 

All righty then. Bring it on.

[NorthSideSox72]

Having (or having access to) the data doesn't mean anything. All it is is a huge unintelligible pile of data. Searching the data so that it becomes useful is being done only when foreign hostiles are identified through one measure or another.

 

Another interesting point is that, although I am not a telecom expert, I think much of this traffic, certainly all of the cell calls, are made using radio waves of some type. The FCC may have some legal right to this information since it is public domain.

I disagree. I think it matters plenty. I'm sorry but I don't trust the government or those agencies enough to say "Oh, it's OK obtain any data you want, so long as you promise not to look at it." As I've said many times, those agencies are supposed to be bulldogs, getting all the information they can. I don't blame them. But a check against that must be in place as well for the adversarial legal system to work - that check is a warrant. And it that check was not in place here.

 

And the FCC regulates and investigates. That is different than an intelligence of law enforcement agency requesting private call data and getting it without a warrant or even any sort of cause.

[Rex Kickass]

The FCC tried to investigate this program to determine its legality and the NSA flatly refused to provide any information. The FCC has since said it will no longer pursue an investigation.

[My Dixie Normus]

All righty then. Bring it on.

 

If an investigation could be completed without critical elements of the program, such as the fact that Qwest has refused to provide the data, being exposed to the terrorists, then I have no problem with it either but only handful of officials knew this was taking place and yet it still ended up in the NYT. Qwest is now probably the service provider of choice for all terrorists.

 

If you want to shut it down, yeah, investiagte. Then when it comes back that the program is legal then what? It will no doubt be completely useless. Leaders in Congress were briefed about this program every step of the way. The adversarial check and balance was fulfilled.

 

In a time of war, the POTUS is afforded more latitude in war powers and intelligence. This is a very clearly defined and legal operation of war that would fall under that authority. If Hitler was making call into Los Alamos in 1943, you would want to know who he was talking to, I would imagine. The rights of the masses sometimes (albeit rarely) trump those of the individual. In times of war, your right to know every detail of the government activity is trumped by the rights of the individuals who fly on planes and work above the 40th floor of the Sears Tower. Sorry.

[Rex Kickass]

An investigative panel does not have to make all of its findings public. The 9/11 commission certainly didn't. What would make this any different?

[southsider2k5]

The plan was to raid Parliment and behead the Prime Minister

[kapkomet]

Oh, it's ok. They didn't REALLY mean it.