They are already on shaky ground with the American public on this.

You're basing this on what exactly?

only for foreign intelligence information If they are only targeting calls to and from countries with terrorist ties then that would be considered foreign intel.

What's your point here? I never said it was for any purpose other than for "foreign intelligence information", and neither did the reporter asking Hayden the questions.

and the other inferred".

Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an inference? Seems rather enumerated to me.

Great show, Davad70!

If what GW has done was as illegal as you and your link assert, then "why" hasn't GW been brought up on charges in front of the senate?

Oh, you would just love that, wouldn't you? Drawn out impeachment sessions, so the press and Reps could distract the nation from other important issues for the coming elections.

It would leave the gaping hole wide open as any individual physically situated in the US is a "United States person" as defined by the law. This could mean that if Mohammed Atta were chatting up OBL from DC, as a hypothetical, we'd be precluded from sniffing for it.

An example totally without merit. Intelligence agencies and the FBI have an array of probable suspects, and they would have more if their computers were updated.

Here is some additional relevant information regarding "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion";

The first thing that struck me when General Hayden made the ignorant observation that the Fourth Amendment didn't include a probable cause standard was that someone needed to tattoo the Bill of Rights on his chest, backwards, so he could read it every time he looked in the mirror in the morning. The second thing that struck me about his insistence that a "reasonable suspicion" standard prevails over probable cause for the spying program was that this Administration and the Congress already rejected a reasonable suspicion standard.

In 2002, Republican Senator DeWine introduced an amendment to the PATRIOT ACT that would have lowered the FISA warrant standard for non-U.S. citizens from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion." The DeWine amendment, S. 2659, was rejected in Committee. DeWine's amendment would have lowered the standard ONLY for non-U.S. citizens. The administration expressed serious misgiving about the constitutionality of DeWine's amendment. In the end, his amendment did not pass.

James Baker was then counsel for intelligence policy at the Department of Justice and head of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which is the office that prepares and presents to the FISA court "all the applications under the FISA Act for electronic surveillance and physical search of foreign powers and their agents." If there was any expert on FISA warrant and applications at the time, it was Baker. He began his testimony by praising the PATRIOT ACT FISA changes, testifying as follows:

In my view, the changes have allowed us to move more quickly and more effectively and to also be more focused in our approach in dealing with the kinds of threats that Mr. Bowman made reference to. So we at the Department are grateful for the changes that Congress made in the statute, because I believe they've been important and have been employed effectively.

In his formal statement to the Committee, Baker wrote:

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. [Baker testified twice at the hearing that the administration made "aggressive" use of the FISA process, and that the FISA court had not rejected ONE of its warrants under the probable cause standard]. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

Link

and the other inferred". Protection against unreasonable search and seizure is an inference? Seems rather enumerated to me.

The quote was on the right to privacy.  Not search and siesure. Show me where I sid Alito or Leahy said it was about search and seisure?

Cheap shot? In his own words? he was asking Alito why he could discuss the right of free speech, vs the right of privacy!

His own words? Whose own words, Leahy's? Show me where he asked that please.

Oh, you would just love that, wouldn't you? Drawn out impeachment sessions, so the press and Reps could distract the nation from other important issues for the coming elections.

Actually, yes I "would" love it. But NOT for the reasons you state. I'd love because when the case was dropped due to unsubstantiated evidence, the left would "finally" have to shut up about the whole thing.

They are already on shaky ground with the American public on this. You're basing this on what exactly?

THIS

Rasmussen Poll on Wiretapping by Matt Stoller This polling data is not a surprise. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Rasmussen Poll on Wiretapping by Matt Stoller This polling data is not a surprise. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Don't you find something conspicuously missing from that poll?

The issue of warrants.

To be honest, I can't believe on that particular poll that the number isn't a lot higher than 64%.

Do you honestly believe that 64% support doing this without warrants?

Do you honestly believe that 64% support doing this without warrants?

Probably. I believe the majority of America believes fighting terrorism is a priority. All the liberal whining about this shows once again they have nothing better to do than complain about something.

I believe the majority of America believes fighting terrorism is a priority.

I agree with you on this. Democrats believe this too. Just do it in a way that is consistent with the laws of this country.

I agree with you on this. Democrats believe this too. Just do it in a way that is consistent with the laws of this country.

I don't believe democrats believe this. Their base is the "blame America" crowd. I love it how you guys keep going on about "the law", but there is still no proof a "law" was broken.

Democrats believe fighting terrorism is a lawenforcement problem, like it was dealt with in the 90's.

I love it how you guys keep going on about "the law", but there is still no proof a "law" was broken.

We'll see

Democrats believe fighting terrorism is a lawenforcement problem, like it was dealt with in the 90's.

Funny....I don't see this philosophy anywhere on the DNC site, nor do I know any Dems who believe this.

We'll see

But that doesn't stop you from accusing someone of breaking the law.

Funny....I don't see this philosophy anywhere on the DNC site, nor do I know any Dems who believe this.

Oh well since you don't know any democrats who believe this then you must be right. Look at terrorism in the 90's and you will see terrorism treated as a law enforcement problem. Was there a military respone to the first WTC bombing? Democrats have done everything they can to undermine the war against terrorism.

Here's the man democrats wanted elected.

Under a Kerry administration, he said, the fight against terrorism "will involve the military now and then," but it will be "primarily an intelligence gathering, law enforcement operation."

But that doesn't stop you from accusing someone of breaking the law.

It's not just me, even the completely non partisan Congressional Research Service finds this program inconsistent with the law.

It's undeniable that the FISA law have been broken.

It's undeniable that the FISA law have been broken

No it's not undeniable that a law was broken. IF it had been...the left would have GW up on charges real smart like. That has not happened, nor will it. What is holding them back are the war powers granted to "any" sitting president. Which by the way are part of the constitution.

An example totally without merit. Intelligence agencies and the FBI have an array of probable suspects, and they would have more if their computers were updated.

steve -

See my subsequent reply on this above - I had the legal definition wrong. However, I'm not so sure the example is "totally without merit" since communication by Atta with overseas terrorist contacts did indeed occur and it went unmonitored and unknown because the NSA had taken a more "liberal" definition of a United States person than the law required, mainly because of the problem of geographically-limited laws being applied to a problem that has no geographic boundaries. The NSA recognized that there was no way to sniff for this kind of information without it being "domestic" surveillance in the geographic sense. Taken in its totality, Hayden's explanation was rational, lucid and forthcoming. It's not clear to me at all that the FISA law has been undeniably broken - we don't know the specifics so I don't see how we can draw a conclusion. I'm sure this will end up in the courts at some point and we'll just have to wait it out.

Cheers,
Daiwa

weren't the fbi and cia separately monitoring calls made/received by the hijackers in san diego? or am i confusing the senate committee report with tom clancy?

Would you all concede atleast that Bush brought this on himself by not being honest with Congress and the American people? All he had to do was to explain that in unusual cases he conceivably could by-pass the law, yet it seems, he has juiced up random search wholesale without warrants.

Would you all concede at least that Bush brought this on himself by not being honest with Congress and the American people? All he had to do was to explain that in unusual cases he conceivably could by-pass the law, yet it seems, he has juiced up random search wholesale without warrants

No I would not. First off random searches? Since when? Messages! NO searches OR seizures! How many times do I got to say this? They have ONLY thing they have done is to target phone calls that originate in or are going to countries that have obvious ties to terrorists! And I hate to break the news to you but between the patriot act and the war powers granted to him by the constitution he doesn't need to explain anything about unusual cases to anyone.

weren't the fbi and cia separately monitoring calls made/received by the hijackers in san diego? or am i confusing the senate committee report with tom clancy?

Whatever was being done, it clearly was insufficient, wasnt' it?

Cheers,
Daiwa

Whatever was being done, it clearly was insufficient, wasnt' it?

The surveillance was sufficient, but their response was lacking.