Letters to the Editor
thelastnamechosen
Published Letters: 162
-
Foreign to Foreign
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everyone -- from Russ Feingold to the ACLU -- agreed that FISA never intended to require warrants for foreign-to-foreign calls that have nothing to do with U.S. citizens, and thus, none of the bills being considered -- including the bill passed by the House -- requires warrants for such foreign-to-foreign calls.
I would like to question what has become conventional wisdom.
(Warning--bad hypotheticals and argument by metaphor follows)
Let's say for example that I rented a room to a person for three months last year who is now a suspect in the recent murder of his wife. The police come to me at my house, explain the situation, and ask for my cooperation. They believe there may be a diary left behind or hidden in the room that our now murder suspect rented last year. Did I find anything or would I be willing to let the police search that room for evidence in the murder of this man's wife?
If I am willing to cooperate, then the police do not require a warrant. If I do not cooperate, the police need a warrant even though I am not the target of the investigation because they will be searching my property. The idea that a warrant is not required because I am not the target would be considered absurd by the courts.
To reel my metaphor back to FISA, while foreign to foreign communications may not need a warrant, the search of a US citizen's property to obtain that communication should require a warrant. Currently FISA does not require a warrant to compel the "cooperation" of a US citizen in obtaining foreign to foreign communications and I believe this is an obvious violation of the fourth amendment.
It does matter where and from whom the communication is obtained.
I am not criticizing Glenn here because I don't know his position on this particular issue, but the blanket idea that foreign to foreign communications should not require a warrant is one that need to be put out to pasture. Its only value is as fertilizer.
-
Mike Sulzer
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The telecom's defense in the civil suits against them for violating privacy and other US laws seems to be based on the idea that they were legally compelled to cooperate.
I do not know the truth of the matter, but if they did distribute information protected by US law without legal cover the only hope they have is amnesty.
-
Mike Sulzer
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me try and give you a better response since my last one severely constrained by my desire to post and bake at the same time--although I am making the same mistake again.
The important take away points from my original post (even if they weren't there originally ;) are:
- Currently FISA allows the government to compel a US citizen to consent to a search of their property or the installation of eavesdropping equipment on their property without a warrant if the government says it is in pursuit of foreign to foreign communications.
- This power, which was added in the latest revision of FISA, is not a simple change to "modernize" FISA to take into account that a significant percentage of worldwide communications now flows through US based equipment. It is a fundamental realignment of our view of the fourth amendment. One, I believe, which has been accepted as conventional wisdom without any debate.
- This power does not just apply to telcos. It also applies to individual citizens also. For example, if you use bittorrent or if you participated in an email conversation that involved two people that are not US citizens. Under current law, the government can seize those communications without your consent or a warrant.
I realize this isn't really a better response than my last one...a timer calls...
-
Cite
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The language in FISA I am referring to is section 105B. Specifically:
----
(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to--
(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and
(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.
(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).
(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.
-
Happy Thanksgiving!!!!
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I praise the sacred symbols retrieved from the catacombs for unspoken ritual.
The vessel, the chalice, the grail.
I praise the arrogance of alchemy. The belief that cast iron, entrails and mother's milk will summon back the blood so unceremoniously drained.
I praise the gravy boat.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Good riddance to John Howard ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't find any rhyme or reason to Salon's decisions to close posting on a particular thread. Any insight?
-
Thanks Glenn
[Read the article: Good riddance to John Howard ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and thanks for all the great work.