Jul 15 2006

Specter’s Surrender On FISA-NSA

Published by at 11:46 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

When the liberals can clearly explain the victory Bush just had with Arlen Specter on the issue of FISA, the NSA and surveillance of terrorists overseas and their contacts here in the US there is no reason to do anything more than step aside and give them the stage. Take the time and visit here and here.
The funniest line is from the Washington Post article:

But the cost of this judicial review would be ever so high. The bill’s most dangerous language would effectively repeal FISA’s current requirement that all domestic national security surveillance take place under its terms.

The simple truth is there is a grey area between the NSA who monitors TARGETS overseas and the FIS Court which authorizes the FBI to monitor TARGETS here in the US. And that is when someone in the US becomes a CONTACT to an NSA Target overseas. The fact is warrants for surveillance are on a TARGET, which allows the government to listen in all the CONTACTS with that TARGET. So if a person in the US is swept up in an NSA TARGET by coming into CONTACT with a terroris – it is all legal. The US needs a FIS Court warrant to monitor all other communications that CONTACT in the US may have, but the NSA is monitoring the overseas TARGET and as long as their is communication with someone here in the US it is legal to listen in. Same as warrants for crime lords and drug dealers here. You don’t need a unique warrant for each CONTACT the TARGET makes. The left only demonstrates the depth of their ignorance when they argue otherwise. The FIS Court NEVER had jurisdiction in monitoring overseas terrorists and the people they contact – here or anywhere else in the world. Duh!

Addendum: I have been reading some blogs and comments and some people still miss the most basic points. The NSA is a military organization which is chartered in times of war and peace to monitor our enemies to detect any potential or gathering threats. In a time of war against a specified enemy (i.e., terrorism) then they are part of ‘the battle’. In battle the military has authority to do things that are unheard of inside our society, even in times of war. They can shoot on site and detain someone indefinitely as long as hostilities are ongoing. There are no Miranda rights or rights to an attorney. That is why the military is not the FBI or the Judicial system – they have distinct and separate roles.

A US civilian can expect all the due process rights due them when they are here in the US (and there is no martial law in effect), but if that same person decided on their own to go onto the battlefield and on the side of the enemy, there will be no Miranda rights when encountered. There the military has control of the battlefield and if they killed someone who was with the enemy they would not be held responsible. The person, under their own will and volition, placed themselves within the domain of military operations.

The same example applies to people who wander into contact with terrorists overseas who are in a battle of intelligence with the NSA and other government agencies. The good news here is that there is no death involved. Only those communications with the terrorist are being exploited. But the NSA does provide due process while they listen in on these conversations. They pass these leads to the FBI who investigate and must get a FIS Court warrant to monitor that person in the US beyond what NSA is picking up while listening to the terrorists. That is why the FIS Court can never have any say in conversations the NSA picks up in monitoring terrorists. They will be picked up. Prior to 9-11 they were picked up and withheld from the FBI. That is why, once they reached our shores, the 9-11 terrorists had free reign. The NSA could not alert the FBI of what they were hearing. Gen Hayden, current head of the CIA and previous head of the NSA, admitted as much. There is no legal question to the NSA’s role here. If a person puts themselves into a warzone on the enemy’s side they lose their civil rights when dealing with our military. Our military runs the battlefield. The easiest way to stay out of this situation is to not deal with terrorists!

3 responses so far

3 Responses to “Specter’s Surrender On FISA-NSA”

  1. Retired Spook says:

    Prior to 9-11 they were picked up and withheld from the FBI. That is why, once they reached our shores, the 9-11 terrorists had free reign. The NSA could not alert the FBI of what they were hearing. (emphasis – mine)

    That is just a brilliant point, AJ, and one that I don’t believe I heard made so succinctly anywhere else. This whole post is going into my NSA archive file.

  2. kathie says:

    When will these poor congressman learn that President Bush is neither a liar, nor a power grabber. He is a man who is trying to protect this country with all tools within his power. To tell the world and Specter what they are is just too stupid to contemplate. If you listen to Specter it takes seconds to realise he has a major ego problem.

  3. MerryJ1 says:

    How do you teach 535 morons to change a lightbulb? Jeez!

    The best, quickest remedy for this cluster____, as well as for most of the convoluted, idiotic examples of their collective mush-for-gray-matter work-product, is to simply repeal all the senseless “fixes” they passed during and after the Jimmy Carter saga of Wretched Is Americanism.

    Wouldn’t you think some small handful of these legislative geniuses could figure out that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? Or at least remember that adage from when they were about 7 years old and learning to play soft-ball?

    It’s gotten to a point that I’d be grateful if we could replace most of them with 7-year-olds. It would have to be an improvement.