[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Dave Arbogast]

Aaron Kulkis wrote:

> This is the type of reasoning that allowed Hitler his ultimate control.
>
>>He did not get it over night. He got it piece by piece. The Executive 
>>branch did not get all this power since 9-11, it has been a building 
>>process. Right now, it is past the line in the Constitution.
>>
>>Cold war or not, Law is Law.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, we are a nations of laws, and the law is the law.
>
>FISA is for DOMESTIC wiretaps (calls placed within the United
>States to another location within the United States), and is
>a necessary
>
>The current wiretapping in question are calls placed from
>external locations.  As I said before, ALL countries have
>always reserved the right to monitor and even disrupt
>communications between a party within their borders and
>another party outside of their borders.
>
>In addition, a lot of the calls being monitored are
>actually from one foreign location to another foreign
>location, which just happen to be routed through the
>U.S.  This is allowed under the "search and seizure"
>clause of the 4th Amendment -- because sovereign
>country (including the U.S.) has ever considered it to
>be an "unreasonable search" if Customs officers review
>any books, papers, recordings, or other communications
>before allowing them to be brought into the country.
>
>  
>
Err, it sounds like politics are influencing your reasoning. I don't 
care if it is Bush or Clinton or Mickey Mouse in the White House, please 
look at the law...  The fact that wire taps with an American at one end 
and no FISA or any other court order is the problem. The Law does not 
say both parties must be American. Where did you ever get that idea ? If 
both parties are foreign and the communication crosses US equipment, all 
the more power to who ever wants to intercept it :-)  What I am talking 
about is not following the Constitution because "The law was outdated".  
So, if the original Law has no language about spying on Americans. then 
simply the Forth Amendment is sufficient - a court order is required. 
Period.

 From Cornell - 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html

Notice under 1802 (b) that an American CAN NOT BE A PARTY TO THE WIRETAP 
!!!!  And this is the updated law, which the Exceuttive Branch still 
would have violated post 9-11.

Title 50, Chapter 36, subchapter 1,  § 1801.
(f) "Electronic surveillance" means--
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance 
device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or 
intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who 
is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally 
targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a 
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be 
required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance 
device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in 
the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such 
acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the 
acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would 
be permissible under section 2511 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html> 
(2)(i) 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html#2_i> 
of title 18 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18.html>;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other 
surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under 
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy 
and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if 
both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the 
United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other 
surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire 
information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under 
circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy 
and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.


    § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
    certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional
    committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of
    communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

How Current is This? 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HowCurrent.php/?tn=50&fragid=T50F00510&extid=usc_sec_50_00001802----000-&sourcedate=2007-12-26&proctime=Thu%20Dec%2027%2004:39:41%202007> 

(a)
(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 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html> 
(a)(1) 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html#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 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html> 
(a)(1) 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html#a_1>, 
(2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will 
acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States 
person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such 
surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under 
section 1801 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html> 
(h) 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html#h> 
of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any 
changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days 
prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines 
immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of 
such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective 
immediately.