Conundrum: FISA allows 15 days- not 72 hrs, in time of war

Senator Biden recently said that the Afgan war resolution was equal to a declaration of War.

I understand that a lot of folks dont buy into Bidens interpretation- I dont-- not 100%- never the less-- the evironment in which this country has/is operated in, as well as any other country, for 60 years-- is such that the authorization of Military force is the legal equivalent.

And in light of that -- section 1811 of TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I, does indeed stipulate a 15 day period, before the Feds need to apply for said wiretap at the FISA court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html


Now this presents us with a conudrum. Since to the best of my knowledge the BUSH administration hasnt used the 15 day period--HAVE THEY?- as cited in section 1811-- so we're not at War?
I mean if we were at WAR-- wouldnt all of us want the BUSH regime to use every available tool? But they didnt-- did they?

SO--- Bush is not a Wartime President?


On a side note--The Viet Nam war was also an undeclared war, and it is assumed that Nixon would have been found guilty of Article 2 (wiretapping) of his impeachment.

The 15 day limit ONLY applies to the FIRST 15 DAYS OF THE WAR, NOT THE FIRST 15 DAYS OF THE WIRETAP.

The 72 hour limit STILL HOLDS IN ALL CASES.

Secondly, for this to legally be a war and for the 15 day rule to apply there must be a DECLARATION OF WAR by CONGRESS. Only CONGRESS has the constitutional authority to declare war, NOT THE PRESIDENT.

There is no such thing as "equal to a declaration", it either IS a declaration because it explicitly says so or it is NOT a declaration because it FAILS TO SAY SO.

Anything less than an explicit declaration would have to fall under Congress' power to issue letters of "Marque and Reprisal", i.e. either a threat or getting even with someone but Letters of Marque and Reprisal are NOT Declarations of War and do not constitute a state of war.

Whatever it was they wrote for Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan doesn't even meet this test. It was a simple blank and unconstitutional check written by Congress to the President.

Finally, I would add further that according to Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, when the "blank check" was handed to Bush, they still explicitly denied him war making powers inside the United States IN SPITE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST FOR SUCH POWERS.

Doug D.

what would be the purpose of limiting wiretaps to the 1st 15 days? In the context of WW2- that is just not logical. Counter intuitive.

Back to my topic--- THe Bush regime is assuming those powers ARE granted. That is the point of my post-- and yet- does the Bush Regime use what is afforded them under those assumed powers? NO they dont.

That is the Conundrum.

FogerRox:

The FISA law is EXPLICIT: 15 calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS. There is no way to spin this to mean 15 days after a warrant is issued or that a war grants the President special powers.

And YES it is certainly logical in that the President has no powers not granted to him by the Constitution and neither the Founding Fathers nor the Congress that passed the FISA ACT wanted a President creating wars as an excuse to run roughshod over American citizens rights. "National security" is always the lame excuse given for these sorts of usurpations:

I've already researched this thoroughly so here is the CITE:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

(Emphasis added).


This is yet another lame attempt to try to spin this into an excuse for Bush's televised confession to multiple felonies. Again it is 15 days following a DECLARATION, not a warrant and it requires a DECLARATION OF WAR BY CONGRESS which NEVER HAPPENED.

So there's no place to hide for Bush under THAT ROCK...

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL


Here's the article I wrote about this at brainshrub.com:

www.brainsshrub.com/president-wiretap


Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1) specifically prohibits the government from doing what the President has secretly ordered and it is a serious felony with major penalties.

The President has publicly confessed to this felony on national television. He ordered government agencies to engage in spying on thousands of American citizens without a warrant when the Congress made specific provisions in law to cover all circumstances, even emergency situations so that the government could listen in for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant, plenty of time to find and convince a judge.

There is no excuse for this action, yet the President has done so anyways.

That the President has colluded with others to do so, also makes this a conspiracy subject to fine and imprisonment up to 5 years per count under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371.

That he has chosen to hide it from the public, the Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts through secret findings and secret orders may also be a case for obstruction of justice under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 paragraph (b).

The penalties for illegal wiretaps are severe, up to 5 years and $10,000 per count. The President has admitted to reauthorizing this violation of the law 30 separate times and thousands of phone calls have been intercepted.

Did anyone ever see the movie The Firm? I think we've just found the way to shut down the firm of Bendini Lambert and Locke.

The time has come for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to step forward and finally take the gloves off.

It is definitely time for the Congress to convene impeachment hearings.

More information:

FISA Act:

USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

I am confused -- what do you mean when you wrote this:

There is no way to spin THIS - means there is no way to spin the FISA LAW CITATION THAT I JUST GAVE YOU.

What part of "there is no way to spin this" that you can't understand? Are you really that simpleminded or are you playing stupid because you don't have any way to dispute me?

Doug D.
Orlando

I work with the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Center, at Rutgers University. And have done research for the NJ Appleseed Legal center.

The 15 day period in a time of DECLARED war would replace the 72 hr time frame.

NOw back to the topic at hand-- do you see the the conundrum? DO you see how the Bush regime has contradicted themselves-- ?

I JUST GAVE YOU THE CITE WHICH IS EXPLICIT.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec...

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.


The law is what the WORDS OF THE LAW SAY IT IS - not what you WANT IT TO SAY. The President gets 15 days after war is declared (WHICH NEVER HAPPENED ANYWAYS) not 15 days without a warrant.

FREEPER ALERT!

Doug D.
Orlando FL

do you see the the conundrum? DO you see how the Bush regime has contradicted themselves-- ?

Sorry but this was not a tool legally available to them. They illegally took it and your whole premise is therefore just a waste of time. To accept your point that there is some sort of "conundrum" is to cede that what they did was somehow legal when in point of fact is is not.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Did anyone in the Bush Regime cite, use, the 15 day period?

No declaration of war by Congress means no 15 day period ever existed in the first place.

It is straightforward.

The President broke the law.

He broke it thousands if not millions of times. Every call intercepted is another felony count worth up to 5 years and a 10,000 dollar fine.

He reauthorized the action at least 30 times which amounts to at least 30 federal conspiracy counts against him worth also 5 years each. And you can add to that federal obstruction charges for hiding this information from the courts and law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing the FISA act.

Did you ever see the movie "The Firm" based on the Grisham book? Mitch McDeere, the young lawyer and the protagonist of the movie gets every lawyer in the firm of "Bendini Lambert and Locke" which was provided counsel to the mob on charges of mail fraud, hundreds of counts worth 5 years each.

Well Bush has outdone the firm of Bendini Lambert and Locke by several orders of magnitude by using the NSA to do his spying. They didn't just illegally spy on just one or two people but literally on thousands and possibly millions of people.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

It matters what the law actually is.

Doug D.

SO If bush thinks he has the power-- why stick with the 72 hr waiting period?

Which he hasnt -- theyve just gone ahead and done it. SO Bush has even discarded the 15 day waiting period.

And Doug -- was it you who posted it may be millions of interceptions--- you would be right.

You've heard of datamining software-- right? Makes it easy to intercept millions of emails and phone calls per day and process then for keywords.

He does not believe himself covered by any law and has totally ignored both the Constitution AND the law.

1) He HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE WAR. That power is reserved to the Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
2) Congress did not DECLARE WAR. Therefore he is not a "wartime" President regardless of what he calls himself.
3) Congress did not grant him warmaking powers in the United States even when specifically requested by the Bush Administration. See Tom Daschle's recent op-ed on this.
4) The President has NO unenumerated "magic" powers that are not explicitly listed in Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. His "Executive" power as listed in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution ONLY means the power to execute and enforce the laws AS PASSED BY CONGRESS.
5) All unenumerated powers (are reserved to the States and the People) as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. Therefore the President can not infer that he is entitled to any unwritten magic powers not written in Article II section 2.
6) A time of "war" does not give the President a "magic" get out of jail free card. The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with "times of war" and thought through the powers to be granted BY THE CONSTITUTION to the President with "times of war" already in mind. Read Federalist #69. PLEASE...
7) The President simply violated the black letter law and belongs in JAIL.

I am not a lawyer, but I am an intelligent well read person. I am an engineer and programmer by trade and yes I have a much better idea than most Americans exactly how the Bush administration used the NSA to collect millions of phone calls, emails, etc. They illegally swept up millions of communications and had software analyze it and put it into a coherent relational database of some sort so that the President and his subordinates could do whatever search they like on it be it:

SELECT * WHERE AL_QAEDA_MEMBER=1

or

SELECT * WHERE 'BUSH_SUPPORTER'=0

or

SELECT * WHERE (FIRST_NAME=JOHN) AND (MIDDLE_NAME='FORBES') AND (LAST_NAME='KERRY')

But - hey -since there were no warrants, then there probably isn't that much of a paper trail now is there? Very convenient...

Doug D.

based on what you have posted so far so don't think you can impress us with your claims about working for Rutgers..

Doug D.

the eavesdropping can occur for 15 days before the application at FISA

this replaces the 72 hr time frame

Please show where in the statute it says anything about replacing the 72 hours time frame.

wouldnt you want--- in a declared war-- the 15 day period instead of the 72 hr peiod? like in WW2-- why limit those powers to the 1st 15 days of WW2?

Lets pretend that Iraq attacked the US, and we declared war on Iraq-- doesnt limiting electronic eavsedropping to the 1st 15 days of the declared war seem a little restrictive?

Clearly you are clueless. You claim to work in Constitutional law but everybody knows it's not what you want, it's not even what is morally right, it's WHAT THE LAW SAYS that MATTERS.

If you don't like the law you must change it, not break it.

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

In a time of war would you want a 15 day period, in which to conduct electronic eavesdropping befroe going to a FISC?

Or do you support the interpretation that only the 72 hour provision applies in a time of war?

edited for spelling

It doesn't matter what I want, It matters what the law says. You have YET to acknowledge this very elementary point.

And no, in a time of war I wouldn't WANT A 15 day period. I don't live my life in utter fear of whatever hoax scare news they broadcast on FoxNews and what they say at White House press briefings.

Like any REAL American, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

If it was up to what I WANT, there would be no 72 hour exception as the law is currently written. The Constitution in the 4th Amendment is quite clear on the matter and I support it's language. There are to be no searches or seizures without a warrant.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

CAN YOU NOT READ AND WRITE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?? STOP TRYING TO SPING AND ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ALREADY!

THIS is the law as written:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

THIS is the law as you CLAIM it is written:

Notwithstanding any other law, following a declaration of war by the Congress, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days.

Ask anyone who understands grammar, there is no COMMA between "days" and "following" in the actual law, therefore the clause "following a declaration of war by the Congress" refers to "days", and does not refer to "the President".

Doug De Clue
Orlando FL

you seem very poor at reading a legal document.

The act specifically says:

"the President, through the Attorney general, may authorize the use of a pen register or trap and trace device without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence for a period not to exceed 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1844.

Not to exceed 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress!

What is so hard to understand?

The provision makes sense, since it allows the president to do surveillance without a court order in a time when obtaining such an order might be impossible, because of for instance an invasion. But it is limited to 15 days. No Declaration of war, no 15 day period.

Pretty easy to understand!

Thank you!!!

I really think he is just trying to impress us by name dropping..

Doug D.

before going to a FISA Court?

That concept is counter intuitive.

and it does not matter if it is "counter intuitive", it is the law.

I leave you to ponder the following quote from the Robert Bolt play, "A Man For All Seasons":

Rich: (Moves swiftly to exit; turns) I would be steadfast!

More: Richard, you couldn't answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (RICH exits. All watch him; the others turn to More, their faces alert)

Roper: Arrest him.

Alice: Yes!

More: For what?

Alice: He's dangerous!

Roper: For libel; he's a spy.

Alice: He is! Arrest him!

Margaret: Father, that man's bad.

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

twit stood on that air craft carrier declaring major combat over, the US was then entered into another police action as Nam.

The Republican spin machine is throwing out new lies by the minute as cover stories for why they think this was legal when they KNOW it wasn't and they hope to win simply by spinning faster and longer than the left. We have to not only knock this crap down but take the case TO THEM and back THEM into a corner where they can no longer spin and make them cry uncle.

Doug D.

thier spin brings out the f*cking ugliest in me!

That the Bush regime is ASSUMING those powers. Lets say for the sake of argument- they are right-- that gives them the 15 day period to work with. But they havent- to the best of my knowledge - used the 15 period---

They have operated -- or seemingling so as if they 15 day period is not applicable.

Thusly the conundrum

Please, read the damn statute.

The time runs FROM THE DECLARATION OF WAR. Not from when the President decides to use it.

Simple.

You might want to ask for your tuition money back.

for a moment thought the neo-cons and right wing automatons were after Roe but rather had fascism in their sights from day one.

The Bush regime has publicly stated they have the powers to wiretap under the Afgan war resolution. Assuming that is true-- they have 15 days. Which-- it appears -- they havent used-- they have used the 72 hr period, as if the Afgan war resolution didnt give the Bush Regime the power to wiretap--

do you see the conundrum?

Dear Roger Ailes: (FogerRox->RogerFox->RogerFoxNews->Roger Ailes...)

That 15 day time period has long since passed. The FISA law is EXPLICIT: 15 calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS. There is no way to spin this to mean 15 days after a warrant is issued or that a war grants the President special powers.

I've already researched this thoroughly so here is the CITE:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

(Emphasis added).


This is yet another lame attempt to try to spin this into an excuse for Bush's televised confession to multiple felonies. Again it is 15 days following a DECLARATION, not a warrant and it requires a DECLARATION OF WAR BY CONGRESS which NEVER HAPPENED EITHER WITH AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ.


Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL


Here's the article I wrote about this at brainshrub.com:

www.brainshrub.com/president-wiretap


Listening in without a warrant isn't just impolite, it's a felony.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1) specifically prohibits the government from doing what the President has secretly ordered and it is a serious felony with major penalties.

The President has publicly confessed to this felony on national television. He ordered government agencies to engage in spying on thousands of American citizens without a warrant when the Congress made specific provisions in law to cover all circumstances, even emergency situations so that the government could listen in for up to 72 hours before obtaining a warrant, plenty of time to find and convince a judge.

There is no excuse for this action, yet the President has done so anyways.

That the President has colluded with others to do so, also makes this a conspiracy subject to fine and imprisonment up to 5 years per count under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371.

That he has chosen to hide it from the public, the Congress, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts through secret findings and secret orders may also be a case for obstruction of justice under USC TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 paragraph (b).

The penalties for illegal wiretaps are severe, up to 5 years and $10,000 per count. The President has admitted to reauthorizing this violation of the law 30 separate times and thousands of phone calls have been intercepted.

Did anyone ever see the movie The Firm? I think we've just found the way to shut down the firm of Bendini Lambert and Locke.

The time has come for Prosecutor Fitzgerald to step forward and finally take the gloves off.

It is definitely time for the Congress to convene impeachment hearings.

More information:

FISA Act:

USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subchapter 1

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—

(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or

(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

(b) Defense

It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

and you might want to fix your link-- its broke

There are only two options available regarding the 15 days.

1) If the Resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan is a declaration of war, the 15 days have passed a long time ago. (Official start day for the "war" was October 7, 2001)

or,

2) The Resolutions was not a declaration of war, in which case, the 15 days do not come into play at all.

In any way, Bush cannot now legally do any wiretapping without a court order.

Sorry but this was not a tool legally available to them. They illegally took it and your whole premise is therefore just a waste of time. To accept your point that there is some sort of "conundrum" about not using the tools available is to cede that what they did was somehow legal when in point of fact is is not.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Just questioning the OP. Which I might add, seem to have a hard time reading a legal document.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you imagine being in a real war, and being limited to the 1st 15 days for your electronic evesdropping?

But what if the war continues for 1 year? I think the folks in the Senate Arms services com thought of that, back in 1978.

But has BushCo ever claimed the 15 day period--- that is where they contradict them selves. They claim the powers--they assume-- but yet have thay taken adavantage of the 15 day period?

Not to my knowledge.

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong side.


Have a happy New Year. Maybe you should spend more time studying and less time surfing the net.

:party:

http://secure.hop.com/ :dunce: :crazy:

:rofl:

:argh: :banghead: :grr: :nuke:

:yoiks:

Roger Ailes:

The President only has 15 days following a declaration of war, not when he wants to start the clock. That is the black letter law.

And I'm much more afraid of tyrants like King George Bush taking away my liberty than any scary threat you and FoxNews can conjure up so YES I WANT IT TO BE HOW IT ACTUALLY IS OR EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec ...

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.


The law is what the WORDS OF THE LAW SAY IT IS - not what you WANT IT TO SAY. The President gets 15 days after war is declared (WHICH NEVER HAPPENED ANYWAYS) not 15 days without a warrant.

FREEPER ALERT!

Doug D.
Orlando FL

"the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days"

PLaese read the above cite from section 1811- what does this sentence mean?



but Doug-- you said- in your post #38-


while FISA section 1811 says



Doug it seems that you have found yourself in a contradiction.

Congratulations.

so your just trying to deceive people and waste their time.

US CODE TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

There is no point in arguing with you if you insist on making up the facts..

just not the whole thing-- as I stated-- I broke it down for you-- into a simplier form

You want to break it down into a simpler form well here you go buddy:

There is only ONE correct way to read the sentence below. Did you ever have to diagram a sentence in English composition in school?

Removing the two clauses that say:

1) Notwithstanding any other law - this means that this section supercedes any other part of the US Code.

2) through the Attorney General - describes the method by which the President may authorize the wire taps.

That leaves:

the President may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

The subject is : The President
The verbs are :may authorize
The object is : electronic surveillance

There is a conditional clause attached to the verb:

without a court order - meaning that the President does not require a search warrant.. but...

there is a clause attached to this clause

under this subchapter - meaning that this warrantless search only applies to cases covered by this subchapter of the United States Code

there is another limiting clause:
to acquire foreign intelligence information - meaning he can't use it to listen in on the Kerry campaign.

and there is one final limiting clause:
for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days FOLLOWING A DECLARATION OF WAR BY THE CONGRESS.

meaning that this warrantless search provision is limited to a fifteen day window AFTER Congress makes a declaration of War.

If Congress makes no declaration, then the warrantless search window never opens.

Wasn't that fun?

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

The meaning of the statute is that in a time of declared war, warrentless survelliance aimed at foreign intelligence may be continued up to fifteen days before applicatioj to the F.I.S.A. court. The language of the statute does not indicate this can be done only during the fifteen days immediately following the declaration.

The words are clear and they are as I've posted them, not as you are imagining them.

Learn how grammar works please!

Doug D.

Doubtless a panel of judges will one day decide the matter....

"I knew not Sin until I knew the Law."

THIS is the law as written:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

THIS is the law as you CLAIM it is written:

Notwithstanding any other law, following a declaration of war by the Congress, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days.

Ask anyone who understands grammar, there is no COMMA between "days" and "following" in the actual law, therefore the clause "following a declaration of war by the Congress" refers to "days", and does not refer to "the President".

Doug De Clue
Orlando FL

The comma in this case is not quite so transformative as that involving the celebrated panda in the busy restaurant with an AK-47....

As I said without the all important comma, "following a declaration of war by the Congress" according to the rules of standard English grammar, must refer to "days" not "President".

Even if a comma were present, it would be a poor wording and the second wording below would be much clearer.

The actual law

1)Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

THIS is the law as you CLAIM it is written.

2) Notwithstanding any other law, following a declaration of war by the Congress, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Make no claim whatever concerning the actual wording of the law. They merely retail what the words of the statute communicate to me, within the limits of my understanding of the English language....

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

Go read John Dean if you don't believe me.

Doug D.

what good is a law limiting wiretaps to the 1st 15 days of a war- DO you really think that after the Church Committee report-- which is partially responsible for congress writing the FISA laws--- that these highly intelligent Constitutional Lawyers-- who just went thru WATERGATE-- would waste their time writing 1811 to read "wiretapping, only during the 1st 15 days" Some of these "gentlemen" had lived thru WW2, and I somehow doubt your ability, Doug, to second guess them.

I can't help it that you are wrong.

The law is clearly written and they understood what it meant. They did NOT want another President or FBI director wiretapping them so they wrote it to say the 1st 15 days after a declaration of war.

Go read John Dean's op-ed on this, he's a lawyer. He was NIXON's lawyer during Watergate and has a better understanding of this issue than probably any man alive and he's on my side of this argument.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

of course DEAN never mentions section 1811 -- so I dont have a clue why you would cite Deans ARTICLE. Unless---

you are reaching for --- ahhh-- a straw

Just wondering -- Doug-- were you alive-- during watergate?

Sometimes people who lived thru WAtergate have a TINY problem with people - who didnt live thru it-- telling them- who did- about Watergate. It may be that by invoking Watergate you may bring the rath of older folks down on your head. Just a survival tip for DU.

I don't need any survival tips from you thank you..

And no Dean doesn't cite the law specifically. You might have noticed that he writes on a website called "findlaw.com"... It's for lawyers and he assumes that his audience is well read in the law.

The only person reaching for straws here is you.

What is your problem?

Do you have nothing better to do than bicker back and forth all day even when it's obvious to everyone who reads this that you are wrong. The law is written in plain English and it says what I said, not what you said.

Doug D.

yeah --ok that counts---

I got another decade on ya-- I worked for McGovern in '72.

Nixon resigned August 8th, 1974, which is 2 days from my birthday so I remember it quite well.

The break-in happened in 1972 and was little known about until mid 1973 when the hearings started.

In fact I've been rereading the Ervin Report lately now that this story has broken. You can get it at B&N for about 10 bucks.

And so what if I wasn't born until 1985? Just because you're old doesn't make you right.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

yes sorry 8 years old-- my math skills start sucking as I get more grey hair

And I agree.. although not so much about being young, I'm 39 years old....

I'm right because my argument is correct.

Doug D.

Someday you'll get over it, just chaulk it up to a lesson learned.

Congress has not declared war and Section 1811 is clear as a bell:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

the debate is

1) section 1811 says you can only wiretap for the 1st 15 days of a war .
-------------- or
2) section 1811 sets aside the 72 hr time frame for a 15 day time frame.

Edited for typo

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

THERE IS NO SECTION "1911"...The highest it goes to is 1863... JESUS...

and 1811 specifically says you can only wiretap without a warrant for the first 15 days of a DECLARED BY CONGRESS WAR. After that it's back to the 72 hour rule.

http://secure.hop.com/ :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


Doug D.
Orlando, FL


SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE


Release date: 2005-03-17
§ 1801. Definitions
§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
§ 1803. Designation of judges
§ 1804. Applications for court orders
§ 1805. Issuance of order
§ 1806. Use of information
§ 1807. Report to Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress
§ 1808. Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; limitation on authority or responsibility of information gathering activities of Congressional committees; report of Congressional committees to Congress
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
§ 1810. Civil liability
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER II

SUBCHAPTER II—PHYSICAL SEARCHES


Release date: 2005-03-17
§ 1821. Definitions
§ 1822. Authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
§ 1823. Application for order
§ 1824. Issuance of order
§ 1825. Use of information
§ 1826. Congressional oversight
§ 1827. Penalties
§ 1828. Civil liability
§ 1829. Authorization during time of war

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER III

SUBCHAPTER III—PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES


Release date: 2005-03-17
§ 1841. Definitions
§ 1842. Pen registers and trap and trace devices for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations
§ 1843. Authorization during emergencies
§ 1844. Authorization during time of war
§ 1845. Use of information
§ 1846. Congressional oversight

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER IV

SUBCHAPTER IV—ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES


Release date: 2005-03-17
§ 1861. Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations
§ 1862. Congressional oversight
§ 1863. Repealed.]

Im not sure he would appreciate you answering for him-- why dont you wait for him to come back.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

come on doug-- lets go round again-- one more time -- for old times sake

Ya think ya can take the old man out-- go for it

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the message is --you disabled it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=171177

I can only go by what SKinner says & SKinner says you disabled it

Assuming for the sake of argument-- Bush is right--- the Afgan war resolution is = to a declaration of war-

The Bush regime is still in violation of section 1811. Since apparently - they have gone past the 15 day time frame-- many times.

1) There Afghan resolution was not a declaration of war.
2) The 15 days would only apply IF IT WAS and then ONLY to the first 15 days of the hypothetical war.
3) They never bothered with any of it so, Bush was ALWAYS in violation of 1811 but not because there was a declaration of war or he adhered to the letter of the law.

Doug D.

in a 1 year war -- what good is 15 days of wiretapping?

It is the consensus that your interpretation of 1811 is wrong.

Again- what good is 15 days of wiretapping? in a 3 month war?

Let alone a 1 or 2 year war---

tell us all, Doug how you still think that section 1811 calls for wiretapping only in the 1st 15 days Really Doug, sing it to the roof tops, sing it loud and clear

Real Americans believe in "Give me liberty or give me death" and "Live free or die". They don't believe as you apparently believe "Better alive than free".

The President is not charged with protecting our safety or our persons.

The President is charged with protecting the Constitution.

Read Article II of the Constitution and you will see what I mean.

FISA grants these warrants with a rubber stamp nonetheless, having rejected only a handful out of 19,000 plus in 25 years. The President has a duty to obey the law and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He can get search warrants under the FISA law up to 72 hours after the fact which grants him plenty of time to get them rubber stamped.

Yet he failed to do so. This can only be because the government was engaged in total surveillance of every phone call on the planet which is so many miles over the line that it isn't even funny. There can be no justification for this. Bush belongs in jail.

by the Bush regime-

ANd of the 13,000 applications prior to BUSH only 2 were modified.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051226-122526-7310r

and that all the rejects are under Bush would tell you that Bush is trying to skirt the law doesn't it.

We have a 3 part government with checks and balances in this country, not a monarchy. If Bush can't get what he wants out of a rubber stamp court like FISA then it's his fault.

And he can still appeal those very few reject cases to the FISA appeals court.

Doug D.

so it doesn't matter if they had to wait 3 days or 15 days or 150 days.

it was a declared war--- giving the FEDS 15 days before going to FISA court--

The Bush Regime has still violated the 15 day provision set aside in section 1811.

I originally hoped to talk about BUSH-- section 1811 of the FISA law allows for a wiretap to go for 15 days before applying at the FISA court.

IF

Bush was right-- & I am sure, in his own mind he thinks he is--- that BUSH has

WAR POWERS

& that the Afgan war resolution is the = of a declaration of war.

more on this here-
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

Then the Busdh Regime has violated even the FISA section 1811--
found here-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001811----000-.html

Section 1811 puts aside the 72 hr time frame & replaces it with the 15 day time frame- only during a time of declared war-- so even if BUSH is right--

he has violated a Federal law
designed to give the President expanded powers during a time of war.