Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Domestic Intelligence-Gathering Activities

Domestic Intelligence-Gathering Activities
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2009, 11:02 PM
 
Speaking of this topic*, I just came across this little gem of a story from the Congressional Quarterly website.
CQ Politics | Rep. Harman on NSA Tap Promising to Lobby Justice on AIPAC Case, Sources Say

It seems one of our very own members of Congress (Democrat Representative Jane Harman of California) was caught on an NSA wiretap promising a suspected Israeli spy that she would work through official channels to drop espionage charges against two other individuals charged with spying for Israel (spying on the United States, on behalf of Israel). I am curious to find out whether or not this domestic intelligence-gathering operation by the NSA was authorised by the FISA court.



*I thought we should continue in a new thread the discussion about US intelligence agencies conducting intelligence-gathering operations against US citizens in the United States as opposed to continuing to side-track another thread.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2009, 01:21 AM
 
I get the impression from page 2 that it was.

My recollection of the nuances of FISA are a little hazy, but I think if the person on the other end of the tap isn't an American citizen, it's covered, but there is some sort of explicit protocol for when one of the participants is an American in America.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 20, 2009 at 01:28 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2009, 07:22 AM
 
FISA was drafted to curb abuse of privacy. The abuse of privacy continues on a regular basis and when the definitions are blurry, FISA is amended. The solution? Warrant-bomb FISA courts so that there is precious little oversight anyway and when you run into obstacles presented by FISA, legislate them away. IMO, FISA is a joke and the punchline was written so that you and I would feel better. Little actually is better.

The other thread was derailed by the notion that abuse of FISA was popularized under Bush and there were many quiet at that time, quick to be critical now. This may or may not be true, but what you have are a number of foundations built under prior Administrations such as;
- Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act under Clinton
- DHS, FBI Office of Law Enforcement Coordination under Bush
- A new President showing similar disregard for privacy and equal propensity for selling fear.

What you have essentially are multiple heads of the same snake. What should not be in question at this point is whether or not FISA is going to be abused. The real question is what if anything can any of us do about it other than continue to bring it up. For that fact alone, FISA and this thread have merit. I'm not seeing anything on whether or not this was heard by the FISA court, but subego may be correct that is has no jurisdiction on this matter.
ebuddy
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2009, 10:13 AM
 
From this post in the other thread.
----------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Echelon is a global surveillance network and operates also under the NSA. Why didn't you just say you wouldn't accept any NSA related spying (even though you included the NSA in your list) or the notion that another President used domestic resources to spy directly on domestic operations? I mean, even Bush maintains that one party of the conversation was foreign.
Where did I say I wasn't accepting of intelligence-gathering by NSA? They are the world's premiere SIGINT organisation. But, the NSA, along with the CIA and NRO (to name just a few of the major US intelligence-gathering organisations) are NOT allowed to conduct surveillance operations if "there is substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". In other words, if the NSA wants to spy on the telephone conversation of an al Qaeda member and the other party of the conversation is in the United States, then the NSA is NOT allowed to perform that surveillance action. In practice, they would either get one of their Echelon partners to perform the surveillance and provide the NSA the results or turn over the matter to the FBI for a domestic wiretapping operation that requires its own separate approval and oversight process through the US court system.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is weak dc. Seriously. Give me your unbiased sources of news that detail Bush's violation of FISA. Bush didn't use an AMERICAN to illegally spy on an AMERICAN. So much for being "apolitical". Spare me. It's only meaningful if you can find it in a Bush apparently.
How about a statement from Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? Would you consider him to be an unbiased source?
Here is the link and here are a couple choice statements.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006...6gonzales.html

"No one takes lightly the concerns that have been raised about the interception of domestic communications inside the United States."

"It is imperative for national security that we can detect reliably, immediately, and without delay whenever communications associated with al Qaeda enter or leave the United States."
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2009, 11:43 AM
 
Now I'm way confused.

I was saying I think FISA does have jurisdiction, as long as one of the participants meets the bill's definition of "foreign agent". I'm pretty sure this is the case even if that foreign agent is on American soil.

As for FISA abuses under Bush, I can't speak for anyone else, but for all of the hollering I did about what I perceived as abuse of civil liberties, I never complained about him abusing FISA.

I did bring up FISA a bunch of times, but as an example of how Bush already had the keys to the castle (FISA) and didn't need to knock the door down too (secret NSA program).

I was (and am) even willing to have FISA expanded a little, but seeing the excuse given by the previous administration as to why FISA wasn't good enough amounted to an issue of "too much paperwork", I give former AG AG a hearty **** you.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Where did I say I wasn't accepting of intelligence-gathering by NSA? They are the world's premiere SIGINT organisation. But, the NSA, along with the CIA and NRO (to name just a few of the major US intelligence-gathering organisations) are NOT allowed to conduct surveillance operations if "there is substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". In other words, if the NSA wants to spy on the telephone conversation of an al Qaeda member and the other party of the conversation is in the United States, then the NSA is NOT allowed to perform that surveillance action. In practice, they would either get one of their Echelon partners to perform the surveillance and provide the NSA the results or turn over the matter to the FBI for a domestic wiretapping operation that requires its own separate approval and oversight process through the US court system.
Your argument reminds me of the Vanilla Ice defense of ripping Under Pressure by Queen. "Queen's was 'doogoodoo-doogoodoodoo' and mine was 'Doodoogoodoo-doogoodoodoo'"

Echelon was produced from an agreement shortly after WWII that developed COMINT. The two major players are the UK and USA as part of this aggregate UKUSA agreement. When it was first developed it was being used in a very limited scope of international phone traffic. Since the opening of communications technologies to law enforcement (don't try to derail this point by attempting to conflate the stated intention of the Communications Act under Clinton with the capabilities this Act serves) combined with the more useful advent of OCR technologies, By 1992, according to the former Director of the NSA, Vice Admiral William Studeman, the NSA was intercepting more than TWO MILLION phone, fax, telex and email messages PER HOUR. Again, 1992. I want you to add up all the terrorists and domestic terrorist partnerships and conspirators making calls 24/7 to see how that number would almost certainly include domestic, non-terrorist traffic. In fact, Intelligence officials told Insight Magazine in 1997 that a 1993 conference of Asian and Pacific world leaders hosted by Clinton in Seattle had been spied on by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, the magazine reported that information obtained by the spying had been passed on to big Democrat corporate donors to use against their competitors. The Insight story added that the mis—use of the surveillance for political reasons caused the intelligence sources to reveal the operation shortly thereafter. Echelon is a US source of intelligence under the NSA that collects and disseminates information dc. It's as plain and simple as this.

You say Bush's executive order was unprecedented, but I maintain that the only thing unprecedented about it was its transparency. Of course, notwithstanding Clinton's executive order authorizing his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section". Claiming "Clinton did it too" is as effective in this context as your derailment of the last thread with "Bush did it too".

How about a statement from Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? Would you consider him to be an unbiased source?
Here is the link and here are a couple choice statements.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006...6gonzales.html

"No one takes lightly the concerns that have been raised about the interception of domestic communications inside the United States."

"It is imperative for national security that we can detect reliably, immediately, and without delay whenever communications associated with al Qaeda enter or leave the United States."
I see absolutely no difference between what Bush was doing and Clinton was doing other than transparency of the program. I'd argue Bush had to make this move for political reasons as the indictments against him were vast and numerous while trying to get coverage on the actions of the Clinton Administration was like pulling teeth. The fact of the matter is that a HUGE chunk of communications traffic is intercepted (way above and beyond any reasonable amount of potential terrorist communications) and whether it's a brit listening to an American and giving the information to an american or an american listening and giving information to an american matters only to those trying to split hairs. The fact of the matter is that your conversations are being intercepted by Americans, under an American agreement and have been en masse since at least 1992. To pretend otherwise is simply naive.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Now I'm way confused.
Sorry about that subego. I misread your post.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Sorry about that subego. I misread your post.

No worries. I should check the bill again to be sure anyway.

I think this case is probably legit for three reasons though:

1) I remember there was a way to do this from when I read the bill.

2) They publicly released the fact this was related to FISA, if it wasn't legit, they would have...

3) At the time, claimed the information came from an informant and given it to the FBI, who would have used it to show probable cause for a legit tap.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2009 at 03:28 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
Okay. Here's the bill. Chapter 36 of Title 50.

This, I believe is the key part of it:


Originally Posted by Subchapter I, § 1802, (a)(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

Now, if I understand wiretaps correctly (and it's quite possible I don't), this is misleading. It doesn't mean there isn't a likelihood a citizen will get picked up by the tap (if there really was no substantial likelihood of that, I don't think they'd need a warrant), it means there isn't a substantial likelihood that communication will get used (disseminated, retained, etc.).

There's a bit of a catch 22 here. If you tap foreign agent X, you don't know who that person is going to call. In fact, much of the time you may not know who the person on the other end of the line is. They could be a foreign agent too. You have to listen to the conversation and then investigate the other party. If at the end of that trail you find an innocent American citizen, you throw out the tape. I'm simplifying somewhat, but that's the gist. As I said, they've already got the keys to the castle.

There's a whole protocol (which the AG is in charge of) to make sure this happens, as well as mechanism (where you call the judges back in) to override that protocol. This is alluded to in the CQ article.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2009 at 03:12 PM. )
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2009, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact of the matter is that a HUGE chunk of communications traffic is intercepted (way above and beyond any reasonable amount of potential terrorist communications) and whether it's a brit listening to an American and giving the information to an american or an american listening and giving information to an american matters only to those trying to split hairs.
You call it "splitting hairs" I call it extremism in defense of liberty. I take seriously the belief that a government should not spy on its own citizens except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.

Simply because the same ends obtain (americans listening in on american conversations) does NOT mean I think the means to achieve those ends are irrelevant (whether the capture of conversations is done by allies or americans). The means of how domestic intelligence-gathering occurs is important to serve as a check on government abuses of power against citizens. That's why the FISA court system was put in place in the first place, to oversee the means of domestic intelligence-gathering operations. And I, for one, do care about how domestic intelligence-gathering operations take place. I do NOT think the attitude of "the ends justify the means" should apply in any sort of government policy, especially a policy related to government spying on its own citizens.

@ebuddy,
Do you care how domestic intelligence-gathering operations take place? or do you care just that they do take place in an attempt to prevent future terror attacks?

As for me, I would rather see the various US intelligence agencies be restricted in their ability to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations even if putting in place restrictions on their operations increases the likelihood the intelligence agencies will miss information that could help prevent a terrorist attack. The way I see it, if we willingly give up our right to privacy from the prying eyes of the government then anything of valuable we have as a nation is lost already. The way I see it, if we willingly give up our right to privacy we have done ourselves what the foreign terrorists could only hope to do, namely destroy the very principles of personal freedom that make this country great.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Apr 22, 2009 at 06:54 AM. Reason: to help define my argument more clearly.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2009, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
You call it "splitting hairs" I call it extremism in defense of liberty. I take seriously the belief that a government should not spy on its own citizens except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.
I believed 9/11 was just such an extraordinary circumstance. Call it the hypocrisy of the human condition. I'm all for children expressing themselves in their own way, but let's say there's a Columbine-type incident at my daughter's Jr. High school. I might be all for profiling kids who wear trench coats or associate with known-associated clicks or "gangs" until such time as it is apparent the threat has subsided. I'm all for student visa's and immigration too, but realize there are times when perhaps these positive aspects of the American condition must be challenged for their negative potential. That said, I'm generally opposed to spying on US citizens of any kind for any reason.

Simply because the same ends obtain (americans listening in on american conversations) does NOT mean I think the means to achieve those ends are irrelevant (whether the capture of conversations is done by allies or americans). The means of how domestic intelligence-gathering occurs is important to serve as a check on government abuses of power against citizens. That's why the FISA court system was put in place in the first place, to oversee the means of domestic intelligence-gathering operations. And I, for one, do care about how domestic intelligence-gathering operations take place.
I certainly do too. This is why; "I promise I won't spy on you without first satisfying a list of rules, but instead I'll have Nigel here spy on you for me to avoid them" makes absolutely no difference to me. In these cases there was no "extraordinary circumstance" being mitigated. Here's that "hypocrisy of the human condition" thing again. I have less of a problem with defining foreign elements of Islamic extremism and the issues used as a means of recruiting (i.e. hatred for Jews, hatred for the ideals of the West, hatred for democracy, etc...) and hampering their domestic privacy rights shortly after the single most horrific attack on US soil in its history perpetrated by this apparent identity than I do defining right-wing extremism vis-a-vis opposition to illegal immigration, abortion, and gun control giving way to an equally potential hampering of their privacy rights; a patently less apparent profile. This was my problem with the issue from the last thread. Now, do I realize this falls in line with the; "they came first for my cigarettes and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker" mentality? Sure, but again- it's the hypocrisy of the human condition. I never claimed to be a stalwart of ideological consistency. I think it is possible to be both secure and pragmatic without blanket policies that facilitate acts of horror without temperance.

This was my problem with the right-wing extremist DHS report from the other thread. The apparatus for abuse has already been in place for decades combined with definitions of extremism that now include elements as broad as views on illegal immigration, gun control, and abortion.

@ebuddy,
Do you care how domestic intelligence-gathering operations take place? or do you care just that they do take place in an attempt to prevent future terror attacks?
I care how domestic intelligence-gathering operations take place, but a rigid stance here is more difficult to defend in light of the most extraordinary of circumstances such as terrorist attacks. What I won't do is pretend there's somehow a difference between Nigel and Nick with regard to violating my privacy.

As for me, I would rather see the various US intelligence agencies be restricted in their ability to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering operations even if putting in place restrictions on their operations increases the likelihood the intelligence agencies will miss information that could help prevent a terrorist attack. The way I see it, if we willingly give up our right to privacy from the prying eyes of the government then anything of valuable we have as a nation is lost already. The way I see it, if we willingly give up our right to privacy we have done ourselves what the foreign terrorists could only hope to do, namely destroy the very principles of personal freedom that make this country great.
I'm inclined to agree with you here, but it bothers me that a species capable of using its intellect to motor itself throughout the heavens is incapable of discerning simple common sense from oppressive totalitarian governance.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,