Jan 11 2006

Courts Rejected NSA Intel?

Published by at 2:58 pm under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

Our reader SBD does some excellent research using Lexus-Nexus. He has found a case where the FBI alerted all the agencies they had a terrorist lead and wanted intel on the person gathered in the normal routine of the intel agency! Nothing special, just watch for this name and give us what crosses your desks.

The US District Court in 1979 held this was unwarranted surveillance:

If, in fact, the object of the surveillance in question was an agent or collaborator of a foreign power, [**53] it is arguable that a warrant would not have been required for interception. See Part V, Supra. Despite this, the defendants’ argument overlooks the fact that the FBI requested NSA to supply the Bureau with any information about Jabara which came into NSA’s possession in the course of its foreign intelligence activities. Thus, while the impetus for intercepting [*579] the communications in question may not have been Jabara’s activities, Jabara clearly was the target of this intelligence activity insofar as it was the FBI’s request which caused Jabara’s communications to be targeted for transmission to and examination by the Bureau.

Got that? If the NSA performs its normal surveillance activities, but is alerted by the FBI to watch for anything regarding a person THEY HAVE UNDER SURVEILLANCE, then NSA is barred from providing anything they have on hand on the person in question.

Folks, this is why the liberals are insane ideologues. They are mindless robots. They are suicidal obsessives. No one in their right mind would call it illegal to check records of other agencies on someone of interest who is a threat.

OK, this is mindless liberal world of 1979. But this is the same mindset we see in the FISA-NSA debate.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Courts Rejected NSA Intel?”

  1. How the Thinking of the Political Left Is Dangerous for America

    A commenter at The Strata-Sphere has done excellent research and found this example of dangerous liberal 1979 think (which is exactly the same as dangerous liberal 2006 think):Our reader SBD does some excellent research using Lexus-Nexus. He has found a

  2. Larwyn says:

    I am going to put this into the comments section at JustOneMinute
    where a “lively” discussion is going on.

  3. Larwyn says:

    I posted the information at !:39PM (Pacific time on site)
    Burkethead has posted sections from the case and apparent
    appeal at 1:40, 2:23, & 2:28.
    A non lawyer needs help to understand.

    Click here: JustOneMinute: Why Not Just Get FISA Warrants?

  4. sbd says:

    First, let me try to clear something up. My post was not to establish the law in all matters of the NSA or FISA.

    “Here is an example where the court has said the warrantless NSA information given to the FBI at their request, was an invasion of privacy. You can read the entire case here.”

    The Appeal quoted by Burkethead, is the final say in this case, but the reason it was overturned was because the FBI and NSA revealed further evidence as to the main contention of this portion of the case which had to establish that there was reason to believe Jabara was acting as a foreign agent.

    Jabara v. Webster

    n6 These affidavits were executed by Special Agent French of the FBI, who is in the Records Management Division in Washington. Defendants contend that these affidavits, particularly the in camera one, demonstrate that on the day the FBI requested the summaries of Jabara’s overseas communications from NSA, November 1, 1971, it had received solid information from the Central Intelligence Agency that Jabara was, indeed, a cadre member of a Middle East terrorist organization. [**12]

    n7 We agree that, as the record stood at the time the district court granted summary judgment to Jabara, it did not support reasonable cause to believe that Jabara was a foreign agent when the FBI requested the summaries from the NSA.

    This is what lead to FISA!!


  5. Media Lies says:

    More on warrantless surveillance

    A commenter at Strata-Sphere found a case on Lexis-Nexis that bears on the warrantless surveillance discussion.

    In 1979 the US District Court for the Easte…

  6. antimedia says:

    I disagree with your conclusion, AJ. The only problem the court had with the case was that warrantless surveillance was done on an American citizen and the government could provide no evidence that he was the agent of a foreign power.

    What do you suppose the court would find if they showed telephone calls from his phone to a known Al Qaeda member?

  7. antimedia says:

    SBD, this case did not lead to FISA. FISA became law in 1978. This ruling was issued in 1979, after FISA was already law.