Think Progress » Justice Department objected to secret spying program.

James B. Comey, former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy, “objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and refused ……

The only real course of action now is to find out who these individuals were that would not have been approved and get this information to someone like Fitzgerald for prosecution.

Watching this unfold will be quite entertaining for the 2006 midterms.

The only real course of action now is to find out who these individuals were that would not have been approved and get this information to someone like Fitzgerald for prosecution.

Watching this unfold will be quite entertaining for the 2006 midterms.

But I wasn’t trying to argue that the law should have been broken, only trying to provide some reasons why the administration may have felt it was justified in breaking the law. Because break the law it certainly did. If the administration feels that it can’t work effectively within the law, then it should get the law changed. If it feels that it must break the law, then it should be willing to take the consequences. Sometimes the law can be set aside in the name of justice. But that has to be judged by competent authority. And in our constitutional system, if the excutive decides to break the law, then the executive is not competent authority for excusing itself. That’s why impeachment was provided for in the constitution.

Yes, under FISA the president is authorized to wiretap anyone (including U.S. persons), anywhere, anytime as long as a warrant is applied for within 72 hours. That’s why the excuse that obeying FISA wasn’t possible because speed was essential to proper surveillance won’t fly. What is too slow about “immediately”?

Its not posted on their site yet (still obtaining permits and such).

We only found out today that Bubble boy is coming to town. Stay tuned, you should be recieving an alert in the next day or so.

I can’t make the meeting on Weds but I’m sure I will be alerted to the conclusions of the meeting.

I’m creative enough to design my own sign. It will read something like…”Impeach Bush and Cheney, their jail cells are ready and Bubba is looking foward to meeting them”.

I’ll have my recorder and camera ready to document what the mainstream media refuses to report.

3) Obeying the law (getting warrants, even with a 72 hour grace period) is too cumbersome and time-consuming. The paperwork involved is too onerous to make it worthwhile to file thousands of applications for warrants for short-term surveillance.

You can wire tap anyone, but you need to get a warrant in something like 72 hours?

1) The technology involved is so broadband that there is no way to get warrants for the number of wiretaps involved. If the surveillance amounts to running every phone call and email through an electronic filter looking for keywords or specific phone numbers or email addresses, then there is no way to get warrants for every wiretap. If such a system is used then only if the filter is tripped would there be the need for human intervention to assess the level of the intelligence. Only if the filter is tripped would there be the need for a warrant. But it is likely that even in this case there would be just too many wiretaps to make getting warrants feasible.

The remedy in this case (if one is concerned with staying on the right side of the law) is to get the law changed to permit purely electro-mechanical monitoring of electronic communications without a warrant and allow a phone call or email to or from a suspect number or address to constitute “probable cause”. If one is serious about combatting terrorism, it would probably be possible to get a law that would permit pre-approved warrants for a limited time with this level of probable cause. After this limited time, one would need a more conventional warrant to continue surveillance.

2) The legal route is not available because no probable cause can be shown against the targets of the surveillance and no warrants would be issued. This would be the case if surveillance was being carried out agains anti-war groups, journalists, political opponents, etc. This, of course, is simply illegal and violates FISA and the fourth amendment.

The legal remedy here is impeachment, indictment, and imprisonment. There is no way to create a law to allow this since it would be declared unconstitutional the first time it was challenged.

3) Obeying the law (getting warrants, even with a 72 hour grace period) is too cumbersome and time-consuming. The paperwork involved is too onerous to make it worthwhile to file thousands of applications for warrants for short-term surveillance.

The legal remedy here is to change the law to make the paperwork less burdensome, perhaps by extending the retroactive time period for applying for a warrant.

4) Legality is not an issue for the administration. The president is above the law and is not bound by congressional (FISA) or constitutional (4th amendment) restraints.

There is no legal remedy here. The only solution is outlined by the Declaration of Independence: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.

em>[NION-Chicago] planning for January 6th GWB visit.
WE ARE MEETING
Tuesday, Jan. 3 – 7 PM
Pizza Capri
962 W. Belmont, Chicago
corner of Sheffield and Belmont

Chicago Area CodePINK extends an invitation to all
organizations and individuals planning to protest
Bush’s address in Chicago to the Economic Club on
Friday, Jan. 6. We think it would be useful to meet
and discuss coordination of protest actions. We do
not want to impose a single strategy or agenda, but
believe it would be helpful to have some knowledge of
what various organizations are planning.

And if so I cannot wait until the list of names of who was listened to comes to light. That would be like exploding a nuclear device on the whole conservative power agenda.