Many alleged critical cases must then be dismissed.

here’s something I don’t get. if the wiretapping evidence is introduced in these case, it has to be approved by or submitted to a judge. right?

before it gets approved, the prosecutor has to tell where it came from. am I still right? he has to produce evidence that this was a legal search. no?

has there been any case where the prosecutor told that this wiretapping evidence came from a warrantless wiretapping operation but was approved by George W?

probably not…

then what cases are at risk of being dismissed? I’m not saying the illegal wiretapping wasn’t used by prosecutors (whether they knew or not it was illegal is an other story) but it more than probably wasn’t used in court as evidence or grounds for conviction.

am i wrong? could very well be of course since I’m hardly an expert on U.S. law…

BurningMonk @ 01/12/06 05:50:21

I think what the FISA judges were commenting on was that the NSA could have been on phishing expeditions (randomly analyzing incredible amounts of data) and based on what they found “illegally”, they applied for a FISA warrant to legitimize their illegally collected evidence.

Ex. They see Muhamad is talking to Pakistan once a week, the FBI go to FISA and say, we believe this guy is making lots of phone calls to people were interested in, let us find out. and poof illegally collected evidence becomes legally collected evidence

radek @ 01/12/06 06:47:19

IMO, one source of the problem lies in the fact that the NSA is a military agency. Canada has known in the past similar scandals involving the RCMP. As a result a civilian agency was created with the exclusive mandate of intel/counter espionage and they answer to the Sollicitor general of Canada.

Too many agencies are operating on US territory. Both military and civilian. Creation of Homeland security, rather than simplifying things just acted as some sort of superstructure over all those infighting agencies.

Accountability implies definite missions and scope. Not just setting up more layers of red tape.

Who is in charge?

mikecimerian @ 01/12/06 09:37:08

An impeachment of the President would kill the GOP re-election effort in 2006. So there is no chance. Dream on.

IsraelForever2 @ 01/12/06 10:08:27

The Impeachment of George W. Bush: Former US Representative Elizabeth Holtzman writes: As awful as Watergate was, after the vote on impeachment and the resignation of President Nixon, the nation felt a huge sense of relief. Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy.

ShiftShapers @ 01/12/06 10:46:57

if you can impeach a Pres. much of the public liked for lying about his afternoon blowjobs, then SURELY, if our system is fair and just, then you can easily impeach a Pres. who lied about, well EVERYTHING and cost many people their lives and limbs in the process.

Belphegor69 @ 01/12/06 12:42:57

burningmonk, the idea is that in appeals many people who are found guilty will be able to now ask where all the prosecution’s evidence for conviction came from. If any of it can be traced back to this arena which is now under question of legitimacy it can be thrown out in appelate court (the courts that hear appeals for the guilty). In this manner many savvy lawyers will be able to have many cases thrown out, or mired in the illegal surveillance debate.

It will be interesting to see how large this gets… It is so easy to spy on Americans from the inside (as evidenced by past indiscretions of our un-trusted agencies) that given months to do it, a great deal of information can be amassed, and if it is illegal, it can comprimise legally obtained warrants as well, that relied upon past information that was illegally obtained therefore making the whole chain to the end illegitimate.

Personally I dont see this going very far, the outcry is so quiet and the issue is one of “security from terror” and so most people are either not going to understand what the hell is going on (like what? 80% of our nation is comprised of 80 iq workaholic morons too steeped in their own problems to worry about much of anything) or the ones who understand it might compromise their rights will feel “helpless” and go along with the media that happens to help them understand that there is really nothing anyone can do about it, and certainly worries would be unfounded.

this administration seems to be acting on a mandate, as Bush said in his re-election campaign, sadly this mandate seems to be Orwell’s book “1984”.

tyrecian @ 01/12/06 13:22:36

The NSA actually does monitor a large number of worldwide communications, but as long as the data on US citizens or residents is not processed, retained or disseminated then it is o.k. (from what I remember)

The man who is supposed to be in charge is John D. Negroponte (Director of National Intelligence), but his record is ugly (wanted by HRW) and he is currently on the low… he would also have been the UN ambassador to whom information was disseminated during the 2002-03 Iraq sessions

Here are the collection guidelines (from 1993)

I am not clear on the implications of the Patriot Act or the new Intelligence Organizational charts, but the DNI is the go to guy… and he’ll stay where he is even if Bush is impeached…. You should look into the OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) projects of the DNI, and then realize that the web is almost pure OSINT, especially dissenting sites like this… for more on OSINT ideas see extra text below the big section 4 piece

SECTION 4 – COLLECTION

4.1 (S-CCO) Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx not be intentionally intercepted. [1 line redacted.]

a. With the approval of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the conditions outlined in Annex A of this USSID.

b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
(a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
(b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]
(c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).

(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and

(3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.

c. With the approval of the Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service (DIRNSA/CHCSS), so long as the COLLECTION need not be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Attorney General, and

(1) The person has CONSENTED to the COLLECTION by executing one of the CONSENT forms contained in Annex H, or

(2) The person is reasonably believed to be held captive by a FOREIGN POWER or group engaged in INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, or

(3) The TARGETED [3 lines redacted.]

(4) [3 lines redacted.]

(5) [5 lines redacted.]

(a) A non-U.S. PERSON located outside the UNITED STATES, or

(b) [1 line redacted.]

(6) Copies of approvals granted by DIRNSA/CHCSS under these provisions will be retained in the Office of the General Counsel for review by the Attorney General.

d. Emergency Situations

(1) In emergency situations, DIRNSA/CHCSS may authorize the COLLECTION of information to, from or about a U.S. PERSON who is outside the UNITED STATES when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical because:

(a) The time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE and would cause substantial harm to the national security.
(b) A person’s life or physical safety is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.

(c) The physical security of a defense installation or government property is reasonably believed to be in immediate danger.

(2) In those cases where DIRNSA/CHCSS authorizes emergency COLLECTION, except for actions taken under paragraph c.(1)(b) above, DIRNSA/CHCSS shall find that there is probably cause that the TARGET meets one of the following criteria:

(a) A person who, for or on behalf of a FOREIGN POWER, is engaged in clandestine intelligence activities (including covert activities intended to affect the political or governmental process), sabotage, or INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM activities, or activities in preparation for INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM activities; or who conspires with, or knowingly aids and abets a person engaging in such activities.

(b) A person who is an officer or employee of a FOREIGN POWER.

(c) A person unlawfully acting for, or pursuant to the direction of, a FOREIGN POWER. The mere fact that a person’s activities may benefit or further the aims of a FOREIGN POWER is not enough to bring that person under this subsection, absent evidence that the person is taking direction from, or acting in knowing concert with, the FOREIGN POWER.

(d) A CORPORATION or other entity that is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a FOREIGN POWER.

(e) A person in contact with, or acting in collaboration with, an intelligence or security service of a foreign power for the purpose of providing access to information or material classified by the United States to which such person has access.

(3) In all cases where emergency collection is authorized, the following steps shall be taken:

(a) The General Counsel will be notified immediately that the COLLECTION has started.

(b) The General Counsel will initiate immediate efforts to obtain Attorney General approval to continue the collection. If Attorney General approval is not obtained within seventy two hours, the COLLECTION will be terminated. If the Attorney General approves the COLLECTION, it may continue for the period specified in the approval.

e. Annual reports to the Attorney General are required for COLLECTION conducted under paragraphs 4.1.c.(3) and (4). Responsible analytic offices will provide such reports through the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO) and the General Counsel to the DIRNSA/CHCSS for transmittal to the Attorney General by 31 January of each year.

4.2 (S-CCO) [2 lines redacted.]

[3 lines redacted.] [2 lines redacted.]

4.3 (U) Incidental Acquisition of U.S. PERSON Information. Information to, from or about U.S. PERSONS acquired incidentally as a result of COLLECTION directed against appropriate FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE TARGETS may be retained and processed in accordance with Section 5 and Section 6 of this USSID.

4.4 (S-CCO) [1 line redacted.]

a. [3 lines redacted.] (1) [1 line redacted.] (2) [2 lines redacted.] b. [2 lines redacted.] c. [2 lines redacted.] d. [3 lines redacted.]

4.5 (C-CCO) [1 line redacted.]

a. [3 lines redacted.] b. [2 lines redacted.]

4.6 (S-CCO) [3 lines redacted.]

4.7 (C-CCO) [6 lines redacted.]

4.8 (U) Distress Signals. Distress signals may be intentionally collected, processed, retained, and disseminated without regard to the restrictions contained in this USSID.

4.9 (U) COMSEC Monitoring and Security Testing of Automated Information Systems. Monitoring for communications security purposes must be conducted with the consent of the person being monitored and in accordance with the procedures established in National Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Directive 600, Communications Security (COMSEC) Monitoring, dated 10 April 1990. Monitoring for communications security purposes is not governed by this USSID. Intrusive security testing to assess security vulnerabilities in automated information systems likewise is not governed by this USSID.

From USSID 18

see also Cryptome

and the extra material

(f) Identification of a United States person means the name, unique title, address, or other personal identifier of a United States person in the context of activities conducted by that person or activities conducted by others that are related to that person. A reference to a product by brand name, or manufacturer’s name or the use of a name in a descriptive sense, e.g., “Monroe Doctrine,” is not an identification of a United States person. (S-CCO)

(g) [2 lines redacted.]

(h) Publicly available information means information that a member of the public could obtain on request, by research of public sources, or by casual observation. (U)

scooter @ 01/12/06 16:49:31

Sweet jebus. This is it. Every criminal in the country will have an automatic appeal; the criminal justice system will go up in flames, and when that happens, the newspaper articles will start. “So-and-so murdered this three-year-old girl after he raped and tortured her, and GOT OFF BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION WAS BASED ON ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE.” Whooo-eee! Look out, Shrub, you just covered yourself with gasoline and here comes the match.

Schneibster @ 01/12/06 16:56:50

This will not lead to impeachment. Why? Because everybody in Congress is in a position to be blackmailed. Don’t think they haven’t been filmed taking bribes, or seduced with drugs and sex (just what do you think that Boys Town thing was used for?). It’s possible that elements of the CIA and the Military want Bush out, but this isn’t the issue they want to use, because it will make them look bad and result in limiting their own snooping powers and tech toys.

Chickenma1 @ 01/12/06 17:06:43

ma, if it does this to the criminal justice system in this country, nobody’s going to have any choices any more. You might be able to fiddle between 49% and 51% but there’s no game you can play when the exit polls say that 80% voted the bastard out. You fiddle with that you just lit the fuse on a keg of dynamite.

Schneibster @ 01/12/06 17:08:59

Last two verses to a song I wrote, which I call “The Saddest Song in the World”:

When we were young, we protested Vietnam,
we marched with Martin Luther King.
And what do we have, now all is said and done –
Monsanto, Iraq, and New Orleans!

Oh the dawn never came we were hoping for.
The end never came to the war.
The dawn never came we were hoping for,
and we don’t have much hope anymore.

Chickenma1 @ 01/12/06 17:42:07

Impeachment Calls Grow Louder: Matthew Rothschild: I’m telling you, my friends, there’s something going on at the grassroots that the mainstream media isn’t getting. And that’s this urgent desire by millions of Americans to defenestrate Bush from power and reclaim our democracy.

ShiftShapers @ 01/13/06 15:12:41

The problem is this. I support democracy, yet I don’t think that the NSA is doing enough spying on potential terrorists. Terrorists have no rights as far as I am concerned. And I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would disapprove of US spying on terrorists or potential terrorists. I strongly suspect that the majority of Americans support my view.

I suspect that the crocodile tears leftists shed for the Constituion and the 4 th Amendment in this NSA affair is just another disengenious attack on Bush. If someone was spying for the promotion of socialism, you leftists would find the arguments and spin to support it.

IsraelForever2 @ 01/13/06 19:07:36

There are no impeachment calls in Congress. Just the usual far left Congressmen and women from the far left trying it on. Not even Kennedy calls for impeachment and so that really tells it all.

IsraelForever2 @ 01/13/06 19:09:05

“Impeachment Calls Grow Louder: Matthew Rothschild: I’m telling you, my friends, there’s something going on at the grassroots that the mainstream media isn’t getting. And that’s this urgent desire by millions of Americans to defenestrate Bush from power and reclaim our democracy.”

Yaaaaaawn,

Shifty, do wake me up when something happens with this impeachment.

There will be news of Bush a plenty,
For he is our Pres until Jan 20,
2008 is the year, a new man will try,
to fill his shoes as we say goodbye,

Our economy is rockin, despite those Euros from Iran,
That the leftist assured was going put us in the can,
We are as strong as ever, as we show our fists,
But we are getting bored waiting for the terrorists,

Cause they all in Gitmo, or blown apart you can bet
Thanks to our President, they are no longer a threat,
In his Presidential library they will hang a plack,
To his greatest legacy, freedom to Iraq

IsraelForever2 @ 01/13/06 19:18:08

Nancy Pelosi said she does not support impeachment or getting out of Iraq. What good are the dems?

Chickenma1 @ 01/16/06 00:03:33

Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst: ‘‘A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment,’‘ an administration source said.

ShiftShapers @ 01/24/06 22:37:08

Bush on Trial for Crimes against Humanity: The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration convened last weekend in New York City’s Riverside Church.

ShiftShapers @ 01/24/06 22:37:42

Wow. I knew most of that, Shifty, but not this:

Karpinski also testified that American female soldiers in Iraq were assaulted or raped by male soldiers in the women’s latrines, and an alarming number committed suicide. “Because the women were in fear of getting up in the darkness [to go to the latrine], they were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon,” Karpinski said. “In the 100 degree heat, they were dying of dehydration in their sleep.

Chickenma1 @ 01/25/06 00:58:52

I still don’t think there’ll be an impeachment – or why would they allow the court to be stacked? What a bunch of wimps.

Chickenma1 @ 01/25/06 01:11:11