Sign My Petition For Expanded Wiretapping

[aquapub]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reform-fisa-now

The critical FISA reforms of August 5th, 2007, allowing the U.S. to intercept communications from foreign terrorists without warrants, is only going to fully work if the telecommunications companies making these intercepts possible can be assured that they won't be devastated by frivolous lawsuits for their trouble.

These companies continue to put themselves on the line to help ensure public safety. To continue to deny them the litigation protection they urgently need to continue helping us prevent terrorism would be disrespecting the risks they've taken while leaving national security hanging in the balance.

The time has come to decide whether big brother paranoia and the non-existent privacy rights of foreign terrorists are really worth compromising national defense over.

Tell Congress to renew, make permanent the FISA reforms signed into law on 8-5-07, and enact litigation protections for the telecommunications companies keeping us safe.

[Rhino]

1. FISA rules have changed significantly since 9/11.

2. The change passed on 8/5 has no effect on someone in Brooklyn. It deals with surveillance targets located overseas.

3. The change passed on 8/5 does not authorize electronic surveillance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110QOUCD9

[aquapub]

1. FISA rules have changed significantly since 9/11.

2. The change passed on 8/5 has no effect on someone in Brooklyn. It deals with surveillance targets located overseas.

3. The change passed on 8/5 does not authorize electronic surveillance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110QOUCD9

Your link didn't work.

1. Not enough.

2. Unless that person overseas calls the person in Brooklyn.

3. Right, but what it did do will only last for 6 months, which is why Congress needs to come up with something more permanent, that actually expands the 8/5 reforms.

[Maggie_T]

Well, I was going to sign it until I stumbled on the word "sensible". That's the sort of word that makes me go Hmmmmmm.

It reminds me to vividly of "comprehensive." As in "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill."

Sorry. I pass.

[Rhino]

Your link didn't work.Apparently the Thomas law library expires their search links after a specified period. Try this one:
http://cryptome.org/s1927.htm

1. Not enough.Maybe, but that wasn't the point. You said we were "operating under ineffective pre-9/11 FISA Court rules". That isn't true, and that was what I was pointing out.

2. Unless that person overseas calls the person in Brooklyn.That wasn't the scenario you provided. You said we should intercept the calls of the guy in Brooklyn. The change passed on 8/5 has no effect on that.

3. Right, but what it did do will only last for 6 months, which is why Congress needs to come up with something more permanent, that actually expands the 8/5 reforms.I agree that it should be permanent. I was wondering why they even put the limit in there at all. Do they expect something better to come along in the next six months? As far as expansion goes, I'd want to know the details before supporting it. Congress has done too many stupid things with generalities before.

[aquapub]

1. Maybe, but that wasn't the point. You said we were "operating under ineffective pre-9/11 FISA Court rules". That isn't true, and that was what I was pointing out.

2. That wasn't the scenario you provided. You said we should intercept the calls of the guy in Brooklyn. The change passed on 8/5 has no effect on that.

3. I agree that it should be permanent. I was wondering why they even put the limit in there at all. Do they expect something better to come along in the next six months? As far as expansion goes, I'd want to know the details before supporting it. Congress has done too many stupid things with generalities before.

1. No, I said "we cannot be expected to ensure public safety while operating under ineffective pre-9/11 FISA Court rules."

Pre-9/11 FISA: International terrorists cannot be monitored. The 8-5-07 reforms: We can now listen to international terrorists.

We need to be able to listen to the phone calls of terrorists here and abroad, period. So like I said, the 8-5-07 FISA reforms need renewed, expanded, and made permanent.

2. Hence the use of the word "expand."

3. When I say expand, I mean allow more exceptions to the no warrants rule.

[Rhino]

1. No, I said "we cannot be expected to ensure public safety while operating under ineffective pre-9/11 FISA Court rules."

Pre-9/11 FISA: International terrorists cannot be monitored. The 8-5-07 reforms: We can now listen to international terrorists.

We need to be able to listen to the phone calls of terrorists here and abroad, period. So like I said, the 8-5-07 FISA reforms need renewed, expanded, and made permanent.Read it again. This change does not affect monitoring (surveillance). We already had that power (internationally). It was one of the changes made after 9/11, and it's what the dems have been whining about for years now. The only point I was making was that the 8/5 change had no effect on any of that.

2. Hence the use of the word "expand."Fair enough.

3. When I say expand, I mean allow more exceptions to the no warrants rule.Right, and I'd want the details on those exceptions before supporting them. I worked electronic intelligence for many years and we had these patches made up that said, "In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor". While that was all well and good in the tongue in cheek vein that it was intended, the devil is truly in the details.

[aquapub]

1 Read it again. This change does not affect monitoring (surveillance). We already had that power (internationally). It was one of the changes made after 9/11, and it's what the dems have been whining about for years now. The only point I was making was that the 8/5 change had no effect on any of that.

2 Right, and I'd want the details on those exceptions before supporting them. I worked electronic intelligence for many years and we had these patches made up that said, "In God We Trust, All Others We Monitor". While that was all well and good in the tongue in cheek vein that it was intended, the devil is truly in the details.

1) Before 9/11, FISA was the law of the land and we weren't allowed to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on foreign terrorists. Then the Attorney General made a broad interpretation of a law Congress passed just after 9/11 and claimed Bush no longer had to follow FISA's absurd rules about warrants.

<TABLE class=cquote style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; POSITION: relative; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>"Just a few days after the events of September 11th, Congress enacted a joint resolution to support and authorize a military response to the attacks on American soil. In this resolution, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Congress did two important things. First, it expressly recognized the President’s “authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Second, it supplemented that authority by authorizing the President to, quote, “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” in order to prevent further attacks on the United States."</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Then the 8-5-07 reforms allowed us to use phone companies, etc. to do the equivalent of electronic surveillance.

Allowing these reforms to expire would be returning to the pre-9/11 FISA rules that Bush was rightfully ignoring.

2) I would say the Yemeni guy in my example should have every phone call, in or out, domestic or international, tracked and recorded. That's the expansion I want. And let their be judicial oversight, but don't require judicial approval in writing before anything can be listened to. You lose a lot of valuable information that way.

[aquapub]

Alright. I revised my petition to focus more on the fact that the August 5th reforms left telecommunications companies without critical protections from frivolous lawsuits:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reform-fisa-now

I also have another one about the "Fairness" Doctrine:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/congress-ban-the-fairness-doctrine-now

[Rhino]

1) Before 9/11, FISA was the law of the land and we weren't allowed to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on foreign terrorists.Not completely true, but mostly.

Then the Attorney General made a broad interpretation of a law Congress passed just after 9/11 and claimed Bush no longer had to follow FISA's absurd rules about warrants.It wasn't that he no longer had to comply with FISA, it was that FISA was not applicable in the case of international terrorism. FISA also only applied to "US persons", which non-citizens outside the US, and their communications, were not. I had to abide by FISA rules in my job, but don't confuse that to mean that our hands were totally tied.

Then the 8-5-07 reforms allowed us to use phone companies, etc. to do the equivalent of electronic surveillance.We already were allowed to on some communications, especially on those of non-US persons where international communications were involved. This reform just clarified and relaxed some of the restrictions, some of which had only been imposed by the courts recently. Prior to those court decisions, we were already acting under policies pretty much similar to what this change allows.

Allowing these reforms to expire would be returning to the pre-9/11 FISA rules that Bush was rightfully ignoring.Not pre 9/11 really, but certainly pre-reforms.

2) I would say the Yemeni guy in my example should have every phone call, in or out, domestic or international, tracked and recorded. That's the expansion I want. And let their be judicial oversight, but don't require judicial approval in writing before anything can be listened to. You lose a lot of valuable information that way.Actually, under the scenario you described, a warrant would be extremely easy to obtain anyway.

I'm not sure you understand my intent here. I wasn't really trying to argue with you. I was merely trying to provide some clarification and minor adjustments in verbage, both for yourself and also for others who may read this thread. Please don't construe my posts as being contrary to what you are trying to do.

[aquapub]

1) It wasn't that he no longer had to comply with FISA, it was that FISA was not applicable in the case of international terrorism.

2) We already were allowed to on some communications, especially on those of non-US persons where international communications were involved. This reform just clarified and relaxed some of the restrictions, some of which had only been imposed by the courts recently. Prior to those court decisions, we were already acting under policies pretty much similar to what this change allows.

3) Not pre 9/11 really, but certainly pre-reforms.

4) I'm not sure you understand my intent here. I wasn't really trying to argue with you. I was merely trying to provide some clarification and minor adjustments in verbage, both for yourself and also for others who may read this thread. Please don't construe my posts as being contrary to what you are trying to do.

1) "The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3))."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Scope_and_li mits

Like I said, FISA forbade it in the case of international terrorism. Then the Attorney General used the law Congress passed in the wake of 9/11 to override that.

2) You're right. I ment to say these reforms allowed us to us to use phone companies, etc. more easily.

3) So you're saying that before 9/11, we were doing the same kind of surveillance the 8-5-07 reforms re-allowed, and that the only interruption was some post-9/11 reforms before the 8-5-07 reforms?

4) I wasn't sure, but as we've gone along it became clear that you were just very knowledgable about the subject and wanted to set the record straight. I would never resent someone for honestly trying to keep me from embarrassing myself.

Thanks for the enlightenment on the issue. For the record, I edited my petition to focus entirely on the lack of protections telecommunications companies are getting against frivolous lawsuits while they're sticking their neck out to help ensure public safety and prevent terrorism.

[aquapub]

Well, I was going to sign it until I stumbled on the word "sensible". That's the sort of word that makes me go Hmmmmmm.

It reminds me to vividly of "comprehensive." As in "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill."


Touche. It has been re-written with a new focus. I'm glad I came here. I've got a lot of good guidance on touching this thing up.

[Rhino]

1) "The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3))."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Scope_and_li mits

Like I said, FISA forbade it in the case of international terrorism. Then the Attorney General used the law Congress passed in the wake of 9/11 to override that.Wiki is wrong. 1802(a)(1) specifies defintions in relation to foreign powers, not terrorist groups, and it does not forbid them.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

3) So you're saying that before 9/11, we were doing the same kind of surveillance the 8-5-07 reforms re-allowed, and that the only interruption was some post-9/11 reforms before the 8-5-07 reforms?Basically, yes. The declaration Congress passed after 9/11 expanded it somewhat under executive powers, but the courts later started limiting that, beginning around 2003 I think. This latest reform reverses some of the limits those courts imposed. I know from personal experience that we engaged in it prior to 9/11, but obviously I can't give you any details on that because I don't want to go to prison.

[Lazarus]

Man, this is just fascinating... Have some popcorn, Maggie...

:munch:




:D

[Maggie_T]

Well, I signed both. As you can guess, I stumbled over myself to sign the (Un)Fairness Doctrine censorship bill.

I signed because I thought of all the wacky petitions liberals must be signing right and left, and that the MoveOrg-owned minions in CONgress will push, and I said "what the heck."

Do I still get to share the popcorn? :dance:

[Rhino]

For aquapub, and some other 'newer' members, this is what I used to do in the military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rivet_joint.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/cobra_ball.htm

I was mostly with Rivet Joint, but had a couple of years with Cobra Ball.

I was also involved peripherally with Combat Sent (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/combat_sent.htm), and worked with several other intel programs during my headquarters assignments, such as the SR-71, U-2, Senior Scout (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/senior_scout.htm), and some others.

[Lazarus]

...Do I still get to share the popcorn? :dance:You have to ask? :kiss:

[aquapub]

Well, I signed both. As you can guess, I stumbled over myself to sign the (Un)Fairness Doctrine censorship bill.

I signed because I thought of all the wacky petitions liberals must be signing right and left, and that the MoveOrg-owned minions in CONgress will push, and I said "what the heck."

Do I still get to share the popcorn? :dance:

Thanks. I emailed Hannity about signing the "Fairness" Doctrine one, but something tells me not to hold my breath.

[aquapub]

For aquapub, and some other 'newer' members, this is what I used to do in the military.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/rivet_joint.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/cobra_ball.htm

I was mostly with Rivet Joint, but had a couple of years with Cobra Ball.

I was also involved peripherally with Combat Sent (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/combat_sent.htm), and worked with several other intel programs during my headquarters assignments, such as the SR-71, U-2, Senior Scout (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/senior_scout.htm), and some others.

Hey, I just noticed your location. I'm a long-time Cincinnati resident. Did any of this technological work (most of which I struggle to follow) relate to GE? Did you work out of Wright Patt?

[Rhino]

Hey, I just noticed your location. I'm a long-time Cincinnati resident. Did any of this technological work (most of which I struggle to follow) relate to GE?I don't recall any, at least not on the RCs. Most of our stuff was done by E-Systems, which I believe was bought out by Raytheon. I remember that GE did bid on some of our contracts, and they may have had involvement in some of the other programs that I was peripherally involved with.

Did you work out of Wright Patt?No. I retired at Offutt AFB in Omaha. My wife remained on active duty for several years and she got an assignment to Wright-Patt, which is how we came to be here. She's retired now too.

[aquapub]

I don't recall any, at least not on the RCs. Most of our stuff was done by E-Systems, which I believe was bought out by Raytheon. I remember that GE did bid on some of our contracts, and they may have had involvement in some of the other programs that I was peripherally involved with.

No. I retired at Offutt AFB in Omaha. My wife remained on active duty for several years and she got an assignment to Wright-Patt, which is how we came to be here. She's retired now too.

Raytheon is a client of mine. Anyway, do you support enacting litigation protections for the telecommunications companies sticking their necks out to help us intercept the phone calls of foreign terrorists?

If so, please sign my petition.

[TheIrishman]

Whatever happened to AWACs, or something like that?? They sounded indispensible to me, if you're gonna fight an enemy.
Course they were a coupla moons ago.

[Rhino]

We still have AWACS.