Sunday, January 29, 2006
A Discussion of FISA Hypotheticals
Here's what I wrote a few days in an attempt to get some comments on NSA listening in to foreigners:
Abdel, in Karachi, Pakistan and Mahmoud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia are both members of al Qaeda, although no one in America knows this. They talk to each other on cell phones at least once a week to plan an attack on Miami, FL. They plan to fill up an 18 wheel truck trailer with ammonium nitrate and diesel, park it close to the Dolphins stadium during a football game there and blow it up.
Can the President, through the NSA, listen in on their conversations without having to apply for any warrant? If not, why not?
If Abdel travels to Miami and continues to talk on the same phone about his plans with Mahmoud to blow up football fans, does the President then need a warrant for NSA's listening in? Why?
Young Mike in Prague is the only guy who commented on them and he says FISA would prevent us from listening in on Abdel without a warrant once he sets foot in America. I have to say if that is what FISA requires, it is a really stupid law. We have no constraints about listening in overseas, but as soon as one comes here to implement the plan and kill us, we can't listen any more. That's beyond stupid; that's insane.
There's no chance of a warrant here because no one can link these guys to al Qaeda. I think when the al Qaeda guy gets here is when we need to listen in the most, because here is were he can get things done and people, Americans, killed.
Abdel, in Karachi, Pakistan and Mahmoud in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia are both members of al Qaeda, although no one in America knows this. They talk to each other on cell phones at least once a week to plan an attack on Miami, FL. They plan to fill up an 18 wheel truck trailer with ammonium nitrate and diesel, park it close to the Dolphins stadium during a football game there and blow it up.
Can the President, through the NSA, listen in on their conversations without having to apply for any warrant? If not, why not?
If Abdel travels to Miami and continues to talk on the same phone about his plans with Mahmoud to blow up football fans, does the President then need a warrant for NSA's listening in? Why?
Young Mike in Prague is the only guy who commented on them and he says FISA would prevent us from listening in on Abdel without a warrant once he sets foot in America. I have to say if that is what FISA requires, it is a really stupid law. We have no constraints about listening in overseas, but as soon as one comes here to implement the plan and kill us, we can't listen any more. That's beyond stupid; that's insane.
There's no chance of a warrant here because no one can link these guys to al Qaeda. I think when the al Qaeda guy gets here is when we need to listen in the most, because here is were he can get things done and people, Americans, killed.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 3:41 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Now that the infamous wall is down, couldn't the NSA reveal the international survielence to the FISA courts, thereby proving the necessity of getting an immediate warrant to contine the survielence inside the country?
I guess they could, but the best way to go with secret programs for surveillance is to give as little public information as possible, so the enemy doesn't get wise and change its own methods. We cracked the German codes in WWII and they never really found out, but they doubted radio traffic security enough in mid-December 1944 that they put out no radio traffic about the Ardennes counter-offensive and achieved complete surprise. If we reveal how we do things, al Qaeda can do everyting with messengers and we're back in the dark.
Oh come on Roger,
The NSA can keep spying on Abdel so long as they report it to the FISA courts after. What is the big deal? Assuming Abdel doesn't have a mole sitting on a FISA court, he knows nothing. Are FISA warrents "public information"? I'd be surprised if they were.
I know the history about the codes. Incidentally, people could have been alerted about attacks but weren't in the interests of keeping our knowledge of German codes a secret.
Funny how we can sacrifice innocents in this case, but it would be unnacceptable to let Saddam actually USE some WMD (post 1991) before we invaded becasue innocents would be killed.
Back to the surviellence, I think you are really stretching with this example and yet there is STILL a legal way of continuing the listening.
So why all the subterfuge by the administration?
Anyone?
The NSA can keep spying on Abdel so long as they report it to the FISA courts after. What is the big deal? Assuming Abdel doesn't have a mole sitting on a FISA court, he knows nothing. Are FISA warrents "public information"? I'd be surprised if they were.
I know the history about the codes. Incidentally, people could have been alerted about attacks but weren't in the interests of keeping our knowledge of German codes a secret.
Funny how we can sacrifice innocents in this case, but it would be unnacceptable to let Saddam actually USE some WMD (post 1991) before we invaded becasue innocents would be killed.
Back to the surviellence, I think you are really stretching with this example and yet there is STILL a legal way of continuing the listening.
So why all the subterfuge by the administration?
Anyone?
I just listened to Attorney General Gonzales talk about what it takes to get his permission (finding) to wait the 72 hours before presenting it to the FISA court. It's not easy and it takes probable cause. Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. Of course we trust the FISA court, it's the discussion in the press which is damaging. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Post a Comment
<< Home
