(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 ..."This appears to mean that if ONE party is NOT INSIDE THE USE, that then the call CAN BE LEGALLY INTERCEPTED .
Since Bush ordered INTERNATIONAL calls between al Qaeda and their affiliates to be intercepted, FISA does NOT apply. YES: NSA and the US Armed Forces are ABSOLUTELY FREE to collect all the intel they need OVERSEAS by any means they deem necessary - WITHOUT a court order. And FISA seems to also allow similar freedom as it relates to intercepts of INTERNATIONAL calls, too.
NOTE: this definition says "RADIO COMMUNICATION" - and I am assuming that the NSA intercepts were done of the cellphones' signals as they were transmitted as RADIO SIGNALS; (cellphones send radiowaves/microwaves).
But perhaps this is why the MSM and the Dem/Left keeps referring to the intercepts as "wiretaps" - they don't want this section of FISA to apply.
UPDATE (file this under "blowin' yer own horn!"): I first blogged on this clause on WEDNESDAY AT 5:21PM, HERE. (This is a few hours after John at POWERLINE mentioned it in passing in his long and brilliant essay, "ON THE LEAGLITY OF..."; though I hadn't read POWERLINE at that time I posted). I thought this clause was so important I posted on it again today (above). NOW... POWERLINE has published an email from a lawyer who has worked these issues for the feds, and he makes the SAME EXACT POINT I DID: 1801 (f) (3) means that FISA does NOT apply. Which means that I got it right - and FIRST. (An' I ain't a lawyer, even!)
5 comments:
Thanks for kickin' butt on this issue, Reliapundit.
thanks for all YOU do!
and MERRY CHRISTMAS to you and yours!
If this is the case, why the secret program? I suspect that the Shrub administration's legal maneuvering has much less to do with monitoring Al Qaeda (which as you suggest they've always had the ability to do) than it does with finding loopholes to allow monitoring of political organizations.
karlo:
bwhahahahahahaha!
and that's why they informed congressional leaders for 4 years!
sheesh.
take of the tinfoil hat and wake up to reality!
are you part of the loony left who think that the busHitlerburton crime family were behind 9/11 but that they wouldn't just assassinate dick clarke or joe wilson or saddam!?!?!? sheeeeesh.
clinton ordered the search of us citizen aldrich ames home WITHOUR a warrant.
but bush can;t do the same with al Qaeda call without getting accused of some crime.
SHEEEESH.
you are all effin NUTZ!
reliapundit -- "Fisa EXPLIXCITLY DEFINES "ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE" AS BEING BETWEEN TWO PARTIES BOTH OF WHO ARE IN THE USA. SEE: FISA - 1801 (f)(3):"
Section 1801 is a definitions section, with no actual law in it; it's merely defining terms that will be used later in the laws sections, so in order for this to be meaningful, you'd actually have to show where this definition is used in the laws.
However, that is a minor point compared to this one. You refer me to 1801(f)(3). Obviously, since there is an 1801(f)(3), there is also an 1801(f)(2) and 1801(f)(1). Indeed, there is also an 1801(f)(4). All of these are joined by an implied "or" clause. So, the definition of "Electronic surveillance" is everything in all of these sections. When you say, "Fisa EXPLIXCITLY DEFINES "ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE" AS BEING BETWEEN TWO PARTIES BOTH OF WHO ARE IN THE USA," you ignore (1), (2), and (4):
(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 (2)(i) of title 18;
(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.
Please also note that your (3) is exclusively restricted to "radio communication" and **not** wire communication like (1) and (2). Did you notice that part?
Finally, if you actually take the time to read the Powerline article that you linked to, you'll notice that they make no reference to 1801 (f) (3). They recognize and work on the assumption that the relevant part of this definition is 1801(f)(1-2), the part you completely ignored. From Paul at Powerline: "This is an excellent analysis of 50 U.S.C. 1801(f)(1). If the activity at issue constitutes surveillance under FISA, it more plausibly does so under section (f)(2), which encompasses...". Additionally, since the parts they concentrate on are 1-2, they make no mention of your sole argument that the statute requires that both parties are in the USA. Since neither 1 nor 2 makes that statement, they obviously don't make that argument. Their article's argument relies on the idea that the United States person may have been unknown, not that one of the parties was outside the US.
Post a Comment