Why do Libs still argue that FISA warrants were required to tap foreign terror suspects' calls into the US?

Question

They weren't, and anyone who is capable of reading a statute and who has read the FISA statute knows it.

I don't claim that Bush knows or doesn't know anything - the statute is available on line. Its definitions section clearly eliminates the monitoring in question from application of the statute.

Steve the statute expressly says that it does not apply to cross-border calls if the target of the investigation is not a US citizens or legal resident and the device used is not in the US (e.g., satellite).

Also, you cite a 1972 case, it's a 1978 law.....

Aviator it's not domestic when you monitor the phone calls of a foreigner and he dials a number in the US.

Well sky no, because I'm a US citizen.

If I call Moqtar Al-Sadr, and the NSA is tapping his phone, that doesn't create a warrant requirement.

Phillip apparently they do not, nor can they read a statute.

Folks, the statute by its own terms doesn't apply. It SAYS it applies only to 4 fact patterns none of which is the one in question.

Sky you're comparing something that's legal versus something that's not.

Answer 1

Do you really think the bush haters know the difference between an International call and a Domestic call?

Answer 2

Most libs only know what they hear from TV. They have never read FISA or even seen the act. They don't know the purpose of FISA is to obtain foreign intelligence information. They also don't know that the Supreme Court has ruled the act is constitutional.

In March 2006 a hearing was held that was called "Wartime Executive Powers and the FISA Court"

The most famous FISA Judge Allan Kornblum (also a constitutional expert) said: " The Supreme Court said that the Fourth Amendment was highly flexible, and that the standard for criminal, what they call ordinary crimes, what I would call traditional law enforcement, need not be the same as that for foreign intelligence collection, and that different standards for different Government purposes are compatible with the Fourth Amendment."

"As you know, in Article I, section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans."

Also, "Title III explicitly recognized presidential authority to take measures to protect national security, and in a 1972 case, United States v. United States District Court (often called the Keith case)"

Answer 3

Law enforcement officials must have a warrant any time they are planning on conducting surveillance on American citizens.

4th Amendment to the Constitution overrides anything you think FISA has to say, sorry.

Answer 4

I don't know why anyone would object to any kind of security measures being taken, that is for our own benefit, speaking as someone who makes a multitude of international calls weekly, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone listening in on my calls, in fact quite the contrary, I enjoy having the opportunity to VENT.

Answer 5

Would you kindly post a link to the statute you have apparently read so we can see? To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, it is illegal to initiate surveillance of a U.S.citizen's phone call, regardless of point of origin, without a warrant issued by due process. But I'll freely admit that I'm wrong if you can point out where the law says otherwise (You can, can't you?).

Answer 6

Even Ashcroft, a very conservative man, disagreed with ignoring FISA. The Justice Department fiercely debated over this.

You know, not everyone who disagrees with you or this president is a liberal. This is actually not a lib/con issue; this is a constitutional issue. Someone who reads this as a lib/con issue probably can't unerstand the FISA statute even if he reads it.

Answer 7

You are simply incorrect.

"It is illegal. Critics often point to a 1972 Supreme Court case, United States v. United States District Court (referred to as the “Keith” case) involving a plot to blow up a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) office. The court ruled the executive branch, even when issues of national security are at stake, has no authority to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without a warrant (The White House says this decision does not involve communications with foreign entities so its decision is therefore irrelevant). Critics’ primary argument is that the White House is violating FISA, which established a secret court in 1978 expressly for the purpose of this kind of covert surveillance; in its history, FISA has rarely denied the executive branch a wiretapping warrant and even allows federal agencies to request “after-the-fact” warrants for up to seventy-two hours. “Congress was very clear about procedures to use for domestic surveillance,” says Carl W. Tobias, a professor of law at University of Richmond. Further, critics in Congress argue that AUMF, passed in the days after 9/11, does not explicitly authorize “warrantless” wiretapping on U.S. citizens."


Clearly, there are plenty of people who have read the statute and disagree with you -- John Ashcroft, for example.

Answer 8

Then why did they make changes to it in 2006 and 2007?

And liberals don't have a problem with foreign wiretapping. They have a problem with domestic warrant less wiretapping. You are becoming the king of straw-man arguments.

Answer 9

Based on that assumption, shouldn't the police be now breaking and entering into people's places without a warrant too?

After all, fair is fair, right?

No need for silly laws to get in the way of things?

Answer 10

Because those that argue that point have obviously read and understood the wording.
Unlike yourself, and apparently a few others who are also ignorant of US law.