Comments on: Bush’s Surveillance Program: Probably Legal

By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Goldstein on the Surveillance Program

Patterico’s Pontifications » Goldstein on the Surveillance Program — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:25:08 +0000

[...] P.S. The guy Jeff quotes claims no conservative defending the program has mentioned the Youngstown case. Gee, didn’t I mention that case the other day? Why, yes, I did. [...]

By: Brian Korbelik

Brian Korbelik — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:13:42 +0000

Hello,
Parinoid folks. I am middle aged and have found groups like this very interesting. Seems to cluster together and reinforce each other’s fears.
The Los Angeles Times had flaws, yes. I lived in SoCal for the first forty and one half years of my life and subscribed to the Times for probably 10-15 of my adult years. When I was growing up my parents subscribed to the Pasadena Independent, now gone, it was the morning paper and the Star News the the afternoon paper,and the Star News has replaced everything. When we were forceable removed to “Lemon County” in very late ‘69-early 70, my family begain to take the Times. The OC Register was and is a rag. In Journilism class we used to have fun counting the “Tombstone Headlines” a basic from step one jouralistic no-no. Plus if you wish you get yellow Jouralism just subsribe to any Hearst owned newspaper. The LA Times has flaws and ome are major especially lately, however I do believe that they are tryhing to be reparied. Try living in a “half-civilized” area like Sacramento who pretend to be gong “big city” while they are still very small minded people. Trust me on this one. However the Sacramento Bee beats any Bay Area newspaper hands down. It is a very good paper for considering where it is and the conditions and area it operates in.

Will always love growing up in the LA area (An Altadena and Pasadena man), but could never live there again, I left because it has turnd into the third world, and I could not take that any longer.

Peace,

Brian Korbelik

By: Harry Arthur

Harry Arthur — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:19:02 +0000

Very interesting, well reasoned article IMHO. Also interesting that we now add president Carter to the list of presidents who have exercised this authority.

Your last sentence above is particularly appropriate to the context of this discussion.

By: antimedia

antimedia — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:55:23 +0000

I have concluded that it’s legal as well. In this article I examine not only FISA but legal precedents, previous practice and NSA’s on USSID 18, which appears to authorize warrantless searches with nothing more than the Director of NSA’s approval and was approved by Clinton in 1993.

One of the most interesting things I’ve seen on this issue is Fox News’ revelation that just seven months after FISA became Public Law 95-511, then President Jimmy Carter asserted his right to perform warrantless surveillance of foreign intelligence.

I believe, based upon my research (which was quite extensive), that so long as the NSA is simply capturing SIGINT with no intention to prosecute anyone (which is their charter anyway), they don’t need FISA approval or even the AG’s approval, except in certain cases where a legal opinion is desired to “cover their bases”, regardless of whether US citizen’s are involved.

People need to stop thinking of this in a law enforcement context and start thinking of it in a military context. (The NSA is a military organization, not a justice organization.)

By: ras

ras — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:38:17 +0000

Patterico,

The NYT probably agrees w/you on the pgm’s legality, else they would never have sat on the story for a year. Now, it’s just about scoring a few cheap points. As the refutations become clear, they’ll move on to the next bogus headline.