Domestic Spying?

Original: 2/16/06

Let me preface this article with two things

    1. I agree with most of what they are doing, but not how

    2. I always assumed that the NSA/CIA/FBI was listening to international phone conversations, all the way back to Hoover & his FBI wiretapping of Dr. King, and anyone they chose out of an anti-war rally. Any government, unchecked, will do whatever they can get away with.

Now when I first heard the report (confirming my assumption) of the "domestic wiretaps without warrants" I was outraged. The media left open the idea that my conversations with friends were being listened to, because I was so upset after 9/11 that I went into the local FBI office and told them off (everything I accused them of - that the FBI/CIA had evidence before the attack that they did not act on was later proven to be true) so unfortunately that put me on their radar.

Then I started hearing from the administration; they tried to say it was necessary, and finally VP Cheney described what was really(?) happening - that one end of an international communication was coming from 'known terrorists', so I had to agree - this was needed in order to find out what was being planned so that the next attack could be stopped. If allowed, I would assist in such wiretaps, because it is a useful tool in a war.

But I still have a problem with the procedure used; Pres. Bush says to do wiretaps without going to the FISA court - ever. Pres. Bush reviews his own order and deems it correct every 45 days. Pres. Bush tells a few select Congress people about the operation, but tells them that they would be breaking the law and could be prosecuted if they reveal to anyone that they ever even met with him for any such briefing. So Pres. Bush makes up constitutional powers for international calls; it is not beyond reason then for us to assume that he has also decided that Article II has given him the right to listen in to domestic calls. After all, he is fighting a war, and "all is fair in love and war". Remember, too, that there are already laws that allow people to be picked up and held, without any notification, if suspected of treasonous acts (the Evansville 7 were picked up and detained for weeks and no contact, not lawyers or family, was allowed. And some of them lost their business because of the government's detention-without-evidence), and Jose Padilla was held without contact even though he is a citizen, and supposedly protected by our constitution. [I believe that these "laws" are unconstitutional, as supported by Amendments 4, 5, and 6.]

[Kind of sounds "divine" - he looks at what he has done - "and it is good." Scary, isn't it? Pres. Bush makes comments about a 'crusade', he tells a reporter that he does not consult his father (Bush 41), but his "Father", and now creates a new Presidential power (one without Congressional check and balance review) by his own will. {Mr. Bush needs to study Amendment 1.}

Isn't this the problem we are in right now, with Bin Laden and others claiming to pray to God for guidance, then claiming that God wants them to wage war? This looks more like two religious zealots fighting a war, but using other people's bodies for the ammunition! Looks like the "Founding Fathers" were right - when you have a state religion, you tend to use the state to fight your religious battles, so separation of church and state was mandated when the United States was formed. ]

The Administration says they won't go to the FISA court because it might decide that a "probable cause" requirement was not met. How could it not agree, if the NSA shows that the non-U.S. end of the conversation is a "known" terrorist? To have a known terrorist on the phone is basically the definition of probable cause.

What about this? 'A' in Afghanistan talks to 'B' in Kansas. "B' then calls 'C' in Boise. At this point, we are told that the NSA should then listen to the B/C conversation, but go to FISA right away for an "after the fact" warrant. But they have to give probable cause, so they must tell FISA about the A/B conversation; except that they are ordered by Mr. Bush to not tell about this call. NOW they can't use the B/C call in court because it was an illegal/secret wiretap or - will someone lie about a source to try to get the tap used in court later, only to have any prosecution fail when the truth about the tap becomes known?

The irony of all this debate about secrecy is - if Pres. Bush had used the FISA court, as the LAW states he must, then we would not have all this discussion right now. This entire 'secret wiretap' plan fell apart because of those who said it was wrong, and illegal, and who left their jobs in protest. It is a 99% probability that one of those dissenters confirmed to the press what I had always assumed. And - what is the real story; did they leak over international, or truly domestic, wiretaps?