Can any con explain how Bush did NOT violate FISA and break the law with his warrantless wiretapping?

Question

Here is the relevant statute language:

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping of communications to which US persons were parties.

How is this NOT a crime???

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Bush SPECIFICALLY authorized wiretapping of US citizens without a court order. Ashcroft did NOT certify that no US citizens would be surveilled.

HE COULDN'T.

Sorry Patrick, but FISA states that ANY communications to which a US citizen is a party are protected from warrantless surveillance.

He broke the law, plain and simple.

Darth, you didn't read the rest of the statute, obviously.

The Patriot Act did not invalidate FISA. Sorry, nice try.

LOL, I don't understand the law? I have a law degree! LOL!

Patrick ISN'T correct. Here's why, look at this language:

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

Do you see ANYTHING stating that warrantless surveillance of US citizens is OK if the communications originated outside of the US?

No, you don't. Because it isn't there.

Answer 1

Yes, they can, as you see here, by misreading your comments, misunderstanding the law, ignoring the facts, leaving out essential details, using the "other people did it too" excuse etc.

Answer 2

It depends who did the wiretapping. The military is not subject to the FISA law. So if it was the military that did the wiretapping, then FISA is not applicable.

If it was a civilian agency that did the wire tapping (FBI, CIA, etc.) then it depends on the circumstances of the case. For example, it is technically illegal to drive faster than the speed limit. But if I am injured and bleeding to death, I will break that law. It could be the same thing with the wire tapping. If it was an emergency situation where lives were at stake, then it could be justified to break the law. Depends on the circumstances.

Answer 3

"the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—"

That is the statute that authorizes it.

Answer 4

Sorry, but Patrick is correct.
The statute covers wiretaps done on US soil that involve an American citizen. Wiretaps that originated on foreign soil, that at least one party was not a US citizen and located outside the US are not covered by FISA.

Answer 5

We live in a day where dictatorship and aristorcracy are ok fallback positions when things aren't going well for those elected in office. Since Bush is the President, it's ok to do anything regardless of law. At least he's democratic about it. I mean, if you were President, you could do whatever you wanted to also. Fair is fair.

Answer 6

you answered it yourself:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that

As long as he ends up going to the courts its all legal, people who say otherwise are mainly just grasping to try and find something on Bush

Answer 7

because a court would have to determine that it was a crime, which means it would actually have to go to court. it can't go to court because those that have been subject to such illegal surveillance do not know that they have been subjected to it, therefore, they cannot challenge it. the courts have already determined that a person has to have been a target of these new draconian tactics in order to challenge them and that they must first PROVE in court that they were in fact the subject of such tactics. so even if you suspect or find out that your rights have been violated, you must then build a case to prove it - and the government will not release any subpoenaed documents in these cases under the excuse of "national security", effectively eliminating ANY chance that an individual has to being able to prove even what is known. that's how the ACLU and other organizations have been hamstrung on these and other issues. the courts will not even admit their cases.

and that, my friend, is how justice is aborted, 21st century style.

Answer 8

Bush thinks he's above the law. He claims presidents have the power to ignore any law for national security purposes.

Answer 9

So how do you want to gain information that could possibly stop another 9/11? Are you making a lot of international calls to the Middle East? Perhaps the government really is out to get us!

Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my!

Answer 10

The administration's warrantless wiretapping program looks set to be the subject of renewed and bitter wrangling between Congress and the White House when lawmakers return to Washington in September.

And this upcoming battle promises to be far more complex than a run-of-the-mill dispute over an agriculture bill, say, or tax legislation. The law in this area is unusually dense and difficult. The underlying activity is classified. One of the key administration figures dealing with the issue is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, an official in whom many in Congress have little trust.

"Essentially, it's a difficult situation to have a rational conversation on the merits," says Benjamin Wittes, an expert on national security law at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The expanded snooping powers of the National Security Agency (NSA) have been controversial ever since they became public in 2006. To critics, the program opens the door to the possibility of dangerous infringement on the civil liberties of US citizens. To supporters, they're a necessary tool against terrorism in an era of cellphones and Internet communications.

At issue now is the temporary update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed earlier this month, just before Congress fled Capitol Hill for its summer break. This update was made necessary when the secretive judicial body that oversees the wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, banned eavesdropping on foreigners whose communications were being routed through the United States.

The legal update, which expires in six months, allows the NSA to resume siphoning such communications. In one of its key changes, US intelligence no longer needs to know that at least one of the parties to a communication is abroad prior to eavesdropping. It needs only to "reasonably believe" that one person is off US soil.

In the weeks since this bill's passage some Democrats have begun to regret the manner in which it was approved. They feel the vote was held in haste, with summer break looming. And they've started to worry that by changing just a few words in a massive piece of law they've opened the door to practices they did not intend.

Some civil liberties experts believe that the US may now be able to gather a wide range of information from US citizens on home soil without a warrant as long as it bears upon the monitoring of a person thought to be overseas.

Nor do many lawmakers like the fact that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is one of the key officials who will determine how the new rule is put into practice.

The bottom line: The vote will likely be revisited.

In a letter to House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D) of Michigan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) of California wrote that "Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six-month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken."

In addition, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Aug. 20 threatened to pursue contempt charges against the administration over its reluctance to produce documents outlining the eavesdropping's legal foundation.

Senator Leahy subpoenaed the NSA, the National Security Council, and the offices of the president and vice president for these papers in late June. They are necessary, he says, so that the Senate can understand better exactly what it's voting for in regard to warrantless wiretapping.

White House counsel Fred Fielding has asked for more time to respond. In an Aug. 20 letter to Leahy, however, he noted that the White House had identified a "core set" of these papers that it would likely withhold under a claim of executive privilege.

Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, indicated that they had found more than 40 "Top Secret/Codeword Presidential authorizations" and memoranda dealing with the issue.

"When the Senate comes back in session, I'll bring it up before the committee," Leahy said at a press conference. "I prefer cooperation to contempt. Right now, there's no question that they are in contempt of a valid order of the Congress."

In regard to the subpoenaed documents, both sides have strong arguments for their positions, notes one legal expert.

Congress is directly legislating on the subject. In fact, eavesdropping legislation "is a critically important item on the congressional agenda," notes Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Yet courts have generally favored claims of executive privilege when they deal with issues of national security. And any move to hold the White House in contempt of Congress over the withheld documents would be slow going