Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    Members, Although the RLC doesn t normally engage in direct lobbying efforts, we ve been asked to support an effort to stop the pending renewal of FISA,
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 19, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Members,
      Although the RLC doesn't normally engage in direct
      lobbying efforts, we've been asked to support an effort
      to stop the pending renewal of FISA, which adds many
      unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act.
      The RLC National Board has approved our sign-on
      to a letter opposing the FISA provisions, which can
      be reviewed at:
      http://www.republicanliberty.org/news/release/LC_FISACoalitionLetter.pdf

      Please consider calling Republican Congressmen
      to urge them to oppose this serious encroachment on
      liberty and separation of powers.

      Bill Westmiller
      RLC National Chairman
      ---------------------------------
      michaeldostrolenk@... writes:
      Dear Liberty Coalition Partners,
      We are now just days if not hours from the possible conclusion to the FISA
      debate and it does not look good for the 4th amendment. I have included a
      list of Republicans below. This is especially for our center-right partners but
      should not be limited to them. Please contact any of those members listed
      below and tell them to vote against the final FISA compromise bill.

      U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your representative's
      office.

      1) Bartlett - MD
      2) Bishop - UT
      3) Cubin - WY
      4) D. Young - AK
      5) David Davis - TN
      6) Duncan - TN
      7) Ehlers - MI
      8) Flake - AZ
      9) Garrett - NJ
      10) Gilchrest - MD
      11) Gillmor - OH
      12) Inglis - SC
      13) Issa - CA
      14) Jones - NC
      15) Kingston - GA
      16) Kirk - IL
      17) Mack - FL
      18) Manzullo - IL
      19) Marchant - TX
      20) Moran - KS
      21) Paul - TX
      22) Poe - TX
      23) Rehberg - MT
      24) Rohrabacher - CA
      25) Sali - ID
      26) Stearns - FL
      27) T. Johnson - IL
      28) Tom Price - GA
      29) Upton - MI
      30) Walberg - MI
      31) Wamp - TN
      32) Westmoreland - GA
      33) Whitfield - KY





      **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
      fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
    • George Blumel
      F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and destroys our
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party.  I am appalled and ashamed to be part of that list.  This law is a reasonable approach to gathering intelligence on terrorists and, had it been in effect at the time, might have enabled us –that is the US —to prevent the events of 9/11. The RLC National Board should go back to the LP along with Bob Barr and his employer, the ACLU. Disgusting!  -Geo.

         


        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of westmiller@...
        Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:14 PM
        To: rlc-action@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [SPAM] [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

         

        Members,
        Although the RLC doesn't normally engage in direct
        lobbying efforts, we've been asked to support an effort
        to stop the pending renewal of FISA, which adds many
        unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act.
        The RLC National Board has approved our sign-on
        to a letter opposing the FISA provisions, which can
        be reviewed at:
        http://www.republic anliberty. org/news/ release/LC_ FISACoalitionLet ter.pdf

        Please consider calling Republican Congressmen
        to urge them to oppose this serious encroachment on
        liberty and separation of powers.

        Bill Westmiller
        RLC National Chairman
        ------------ --------- --------- ---
        michaeldostrolenk@ gmail.com writes:
        Dear Liberty Coalition Partners,
        We are now just days if not hours from the possible conclusion to the FISA
        debate and it does not look good for the 4th amendment. I have included a
        list of Republicans below. This is especially for our center-right partners but
        should not be limited to them. Please contact any of those members listed
        below and tell them to vote against the final FISA compromise bill.

        U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your representative' s
        office.

        1) Bartlett - MD
        2) Bishop - UT
        3) Cubin - WY
        4) D. Young - AK
        5) David Davis - TN
        6) Duncan - TN
        7) Ehlers - MI
        8) Flake - AZ
        9) Garrett - NJ
        10) Gilchrest - MD
        11) Gillmor - OH
        12) Inglis - SC
        13) Issa - CA
        14) Jones - NC
        15) Kingston - GA
        16) Kirk - IL
        17) Mack - FL
        18) Manzullo - IL
        19) Marchant - TX
        20) Moran - KS
        21) Paul - TX
        22) Poe - TX
        23) Rehberg - MT
        24) Rohrabacher - CA
        25) Sali - ID
        26) Stearns - FL
        27) T. Johnson - IL
        28) Tom Price - GA
        29) Upton - MI
        30) Walberg - MI
        31) Wamp - TN
        32) Westmoreland - GA
        33) Whitfield - KY

        ************ **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
        fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos. aol.com/used? ncid=aolaut00050 000000007)

      • Sakshale eQuorian
        ... Hmmm... This posting is an example of the kind of emotionally overloaded posts that make me wonder if there can ever be a rational discussion of these
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          > I am appalled and ashamed to be part of that
          list.

          Hmmm...  This posting is an example of the kind of emotionally
          overloaded posts that make me wonder if there can ever be a rational
          discussion of these issues.

          I had no problems with the original FISA provisions.  I have a
          lot of problems with the current Patriot Act.

          To reject a bill simply because the ACLU endorsed it, seems to
          me to be irrational.  The term "strange bedfellows" comes to mind.
          Just because you agree with someone on a single issue, does not
          paint a target on your back.

          Tell me, based on your analysis of the bill, what are its strong
          points from a libertarian perspective?  What would make me,
          as someone who supports the platform of the RLC, want to
          support this bill.

          Emotional name calling will only succeed in convincing me
          that there is no place for rational discussion on this list... or
          any of these lists.

          Sakshale

          On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 8:11 AM, George Blumel <gblumel@...> wrote:

          F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party.  I am appalled and ashamed to be part of that list.  This law is a reasonable approach to gathering intelligence on terrorists and, had it been in effect at the time, might have enabled us –that is the US—to prevent the events of 9/11. The RLC National Board should go back to the LP along with Bob Barr and his employer, the ACLU. Disgusting!  -Geo.

           


          From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of westmiller@...
          Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:14 PM
          To: rlc-action@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [SPAM] [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

           

          Members,
          Although the RLC doesn't normally engage in direct
          lobbying efforts, we've been asked to support an effort
          to stop the pending renewal of FISA, which adds many
          unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act.
          The RLC National Board has approved our sign-on
          to a letter opposing the FISA provisions, which can
          be reviewed at:
          http://www.republicanliberty.org/news/release/LC_FISACoalitionLetter.pdf

          Please consider calling Republican Congressmen
          to urge them to oppose this serious encroachment on
          liberty and separation of powers.

          Bill Westmiller
          RLC National Chairman
          ---------------------------------
          michaeldostrolenk@... writes:
          Dear Liberty Coalition Partners,
          We are now just days if not hours from the possible conclusion to the FISA
          debate and it does not look good for the 4th amendment. I have included a
          list of Republicans below. This is especially for our center-right partners but
          should not be limited to them. Please contact any of those members listed
          below and tell them to vote against the final FISA compromise bill.

          U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your representative's
          office.

          1) Bartlett - MD
          2) Bishop - UT
          3) Cubin - WY
          4) D. Young - AK
          5) David Davis - TN
          6) Duncan - TN
          7) Ehlers - MI
          8) Flake - AZ
          9) Garrett - NJ
          10) Gilchrest - MD
          11) Gillmor - OH
          12) Inglis - SC
          13) Issa - CA
          14) Jones - NC
          15) Kingston - GA
          16) Kirk - IL
          17) Mack - FL
          18) Manzullo - IL
          19) Marchant - TX
          20) Moran - KS
          21) Paul - TX
          22) Poe - TX
          23) Rehberg - MT
          24) Rohrabacher - CA
          25) Sali - ID
          26) Stearns - FL
          27) T. Johnson - IL
          28) Tom Price - GA
          29) Upton - MI
          30) Walberg - MI
          31) Wamp - TN
          32) Westmoreland - GA
          33) Whitfield - KY

          **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
          fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


        • Dave Nalle
          ... left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party. I am appalled and ashamed
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            >>F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other
            left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and
            destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party. I am appalled
            and ashamed to be part of that list. This law is a reasonable approach
            to gathering intelligence on terrorists and, had it been in effect at
            the time, might have enabled us –that is the US—to prevent the events of
            9/11. The RLC National Board should go back to the LP along with Bob
            Barr and his employer, the ACLU. Disgusting! -Geo.<<

            George, when the whole war on terror started I was all for the FISA act,
            but after studying it and reading the act a number of times I concluded
            that despite the need for surveillance of foreign agents and terrorists,
            FISA itself is fundamentally unconstitutional, a clear violation of the
            4th amendment. In my opinion - and I'm not a legal scholar - it is legal
            to listen to phonecalls made by foreign nationals and made to suspicious
            persons outside of the US without a warrant and without any of the
            provisions of FISA. All FISA does is muddy the waters and erode the
            basic protections which American citizens are entitled to, especially in
            this new version. It ought to be repealed, and even if various dubious
            groups oppose it for other reasons (the ACLU excepted as it is not
            really the bugbear many conservatives make it out to be), we have valid
            reasons for opposing it.

            Dave
          • David Johnson
            ... ...and we would have gotten away with it too, if not for that meddling constitution!
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 24, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              > F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other
              > left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and
              > destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party. I am appalled
              > and ashamed to be part of that list...

              "...and we would have gotten away with it too, if not for that meddling
              constitution!"
            • George Blumel
              There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents our government from listening in on international calls to and from terrorists who have killed our people
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
              • 0 Attachment

                There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents our government from listening in on international calls to and from terrorists who have killed our people and intend on doing much more to hurt us. If here was, the Constitution could be properly called a suicide pact.  If the intelligence agencies had this ability to listen to terrorists calls with the help of the phone companies prior to 9/11 the tragic events of that day might have been prevented. (Not to mention the other impediments to intelligence gathering in effect at the time under the Clinton admin's Reno and Gorelik.)  The FISA immunity protection against lawyers for cooperating telecoms is necessary because of the low ethical standards of the tort bar exacerbated by their exceeding greed and lack of patriotism. Job #1 of FedGov is the defense of our nation. Good intelligence can save untold numbers of lives by preventing horrible attacks --and they are doing just that, not only here but in other nations, as well.  Names of those in congress that depend on the money that they get from the lawyers can be found among those voting against this national security imperative. I know of no socially redeeming value of the ACLU.   –Geo.

                 

                -----Original Message-----
                From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Dave Nalle
                Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 2:17 PM
                To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [SPAM] [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

                 

                >>F0r the RLC to sign on to this letter along with the ACLU and other

                left-wing and Muslim anti-American organizations cheapens the RLC and

                destroys our credibility as part of the Republican party. I am appalled

                and ashamed to be part of that list. This law is a reasonable approach

                to gathering intelligence on terrorists and, had it been in effect at

                the time, might have enabled us –that is the US —to prevent the events of

                9/11. The RLC National Board should go back to the LP along with Bob

                Barr and his employer, the ACLU. Disgusting! -Geo.<<

                 

                George, when the whole war on terror started I was all for the FISA act,

                but after studying it and reading the act a number of times I concluded

                that despite the need for surveillance of foreign agents and terrorists,

                FISA itself is fundamentally unconstitutional, a clear violation of the

                4th amendment. In my opinion - and I'm not a legal scholar - it is legal

                to listen to phonecalls made by foreign nationals and made to suspicious

                persons outside of the US without a warrant and without any of the

                provisions of FISA. All FISA does is muddy the waters and erode the

                basic protections which American citizens are entitled to, especially in

                this new version. It ought to be repealed, and even if various dubious

                groups oppose it for other reasons (the ACLU excepted as it is not

                really the bugbear many conservatives make it out to be), we have valid

                reasons for opposing it.

                 

                Dave

                 

                 

                ------------------------------------

                 

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                 

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/

                 

                <*> Your email settings:

                    Individual Email | Traditional

                 

                <*> To change settings online go to:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RLC-Action/join

                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                 

                <*> To change settings via email:

                    mailto:RLC-Action-digest@yahoogroups.com

                    mailto:RLC-Action-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                 

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                    RLC-Action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                 

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

              • David Johnson
                ... One end of that international phone call is within the US border and sovereignty, so the constitution does indeed apply. You need a search warrant issued
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  > There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents our government from
                  > listening in on international calls to and from terrorists who have killed
                  > our people and intend on doing much more to hurt us.

                  One end of that international phone call is within the US border and
                  sovereignty, so the constitution does indeed apply. You need a search
                  warrant issued on probable cause in order to tap that call.

                  > If here was, the
                  > Constitution could be properly called a suicide pact. If the intelligence
                  > agencies had this ability to listen to terrorists calls with the help of
                  > the phone companies prior to 9/11 the tragic events of that day might have
                  > been prevented.

                  The problem was not a lack of intelligence, but the compartmentalization
                  of intelligence. Warrantless wiretaps would not have prevented 9/11. If
                  this is such a big deal to you, then instead of ignoring the constitution,
                  why not try to amend it? If warrants are such a horrible thing, then have
                  the cojones to advocate removing the 4th Amendment from the constitution.

                  David Johnson
                • George Blumel
                  Does Mr Johnson concur in Boumediene? That foreign terrorists have US Constitutional rights? Then you have a majority of the Supreme Court. It is my opinion
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Does Mr Johnson concur in Boumediene? That foreign terrorists have US Constitutional rights?   Then you have a majority of the Supreme Court.  It is my opinion that a majority of the Supremes ignore the Constitution when it pleases them. I revere the Constitution, innocent life and believe in a strong national defense.  Obviously, you believe that the 4th Amendment applies to foreign terrorists.  That is a dangerous belief held by many Democrats and a few Repubs. Fortunately not enough to kill FISA.  You’ll be safer now.  –Geo.

                     


                    From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of David Johnson
                    Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:08 PM
                    To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

                     

                    > There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents our government from

                    > listening in on international calls to and from terrorists who have killed
                    > our people and intend on doing much more to hurt us.

                    One end of that international phone call is within the US border and
                    sovereignty, so the constitution does indeed apply. You need a search
                    warrant issued on probable cause in order to tap that call.

                    > If here was, the
                    > Constitution could be properly called a suicide pact. If the intelligence
                    > agencies had this ability to listen to terrorists calls with the help of
                    > the phone companies prior to 9/11 the tragic events of that day might have
                    > been prevented.

                    The problem was not a lack of intelligence, but the compartmentalizatio n
                    of intelligence. Warrantless wiretaps would not have prevented 9/11. If
                    this is such a big deal to you, then instead of ignoring the constitution,
                    why not try to amend it? If warrants are such a horrible thing, then have
                    the cojones to advocate removing the 4th Amendment from the constitution.

                    David Johnson

                  • DGHarrison
                    There sure are a lot of folks getting their undies in a bunch over the U.S. intel community s analysis of domestic telephone traffic. Every time I hear them
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There sure are a lot of folks getting their undies in a bunch over the U.S. intel community's analysis of domestic telephone traffic. Every time I hear them complain about it, they say something about "monitoring my phone calls," "eavesdropping on me," "listening in," and such. All this concern is based on the misconception that MIB are parked outside their homes in unmarked vans, panting over every word they hear through wiretaps. That isn't how it works.

                      The way it works is a two phase process. Phase One: Traffic Analysis, and Phase Two: Communications Processing. In Phase One, the telecoms are provided with lists of telephone numbers and are asked to provide a complete list of all other phone numbers that have interacted with those initial numbers. Then, all those subsequent numbers are run to see what numbers they communicate with. When all is said and done, the traffic analysis reveals networks through a process we call "circles and arrows." The circles represent control and outstations, each of which is an individual telephone number, and the arrows represent the direction in which the call was made. Some arrows point in only one direction; others point in both directions.

                      Where does the original list of numbers come from? There are several sources. Sometimes they come from good old-fashioned counter-terrorism investigations. Sometimes they come from captured al Qaida documents and computer files. And there are other sources. Usually, there is nothing but a phone number, with no other identification. Some might be disposable phones with only a few minutes loaded on their accounts. Could they be triggers for IEDs? These numbers can be from anywhere in the world. Many are of U.S. origin, disposable phones bought with cash and registered to unknown persons. The original numbers are already tainted for hav
                      ing been linked to al Qaida. Is it not acceptable to track all connections made from known terrorist entities to the entire network that emerges from the "circles and arrows" process?

                      At th
                      is point, no one is listening to actual telephone calls. The telecoms do not record people's conversations, but they do have records [for billing purposes] of what number called what other number. The government is not running "circles and arrows" on every single telephone number in America. They don't have the manpower, time, or resources to do that. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of Americans will never have their phones connections processed, let alone be tapped.

                      Once the networks are revealed, the rest of the process kicks in -- Phase Two. Phase Two involves warrants, wiretapping, recording, voice and data processing, reporting, search warrants, and arrests of targeted foreign entities and their U.S. collaborators. No phone calls get monitored except those that will bear intel data. Nobody's listening to Joe Quarterback telling Buffy Cheerleader what he's gonna do to her under the bleachers after the game.

                      It is important to understand the reason for the changes to FISA. Terrorists are acting on tight schedules, and FISA requirements were too cumbersome to allow us to react in a timely enough manner. The old FISA required not only the telephone number, but also the person's name, address, and the probable cause before opening the case. When you're dealing with anonymous entities, with no known address, and the probable cause is that the number appeared in al Quaida documents, there were issues. You might have seen half a dozen episodes of "Law & Order" in which prosecutors were unable to get a search warrant in time to prevent a crime from occurring. Often the judge was a prick who remained unmoved about the urgency and particulars of the case. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, as Barack Obama wants to do, means terror suspects will be given more time to carry out their diabolical plans.

                      We need to adapt to the terror
                      ists, because they certainly are adapting to us. Reminds me of how stupid the Red Coats were to continue marching in rank and file down country roads, only to be picked off by the colonial guerrilla fighters. The red uniforms prevented even the cowards who cut and ran from escaping into the woods. It's said that the British wore red uniforms so the sight of massive amounts of bloodshed would not scare the troops into retreat. Lucky for us, they never learned to adapt.

                      Here
                      is a little background on the FISA process, as explained by a Jack Boot Thug friend of mine [his choice of words, not mine]:
                      FISA, from the FBI perspective, is still an option, but it requires a bit more of a work up called either a Preliminary Investigation (PI) or a Full Investigation (FI), the difference being the degree of investigative action that can be taken under each category. You can ask for electronic toll records in one and not the other; you can ask for financial records in one and not the other, etc.; and then use all that information on the FISA Application.

                      The Application is something like 20 pages long. It is not a blanket authority proposal. There are multiple levels of review, unlike a standard "T-3" wiretap in a criminal case. In fact, there is much more oversight in a FISA, and to be honest, there probably should be. We have one FISA going on in the office that has been up for almost 5 years now and was based on information captured from enemy documents. The initial information came from a friendly foreign service ... which requires even more vetting and validation.

                      The reporting requirements once you have one running are also cumbersome. There are minimization requirements out the wazoo, and if you screw up and transcribe the wrong call or mark it as pertinent because it's some lurid, juicy phone call between the subject and his favorite porn site phone sex service you are literally screwed ... time on the bricks, loss of the overall FISA, possible potential lawsuits if it ever goes to court, etc. You can't even index a name without being able to justify it, and they send review teams out from DOJ periodically to review your entire files. I went through two of those inspections and they are not fun. My partner indexed [name deleted] on one call and I was not on that shift when he did it. Try telling DOJ why you indexed [name deleted] on a FISA. I called in my partner on the FISA and he clearly stated that the target had been using "code words" for specific individuals and he initially thought that is what the subject was doing when he mentioned [name deleted]. Whew! Dodged that bullet!

                      But that is how specific they get. They pull up every tech cut you transcribed, every affidavit you wrote; you have to provide each and every piece of supporting material you used in the affidavit, and it better damn well be there or they will take down the FISA within minutes, literally.

                      Each National Security Letter had to be reviewed again for its applicability and to be sure that you had the correct level of investigation (PI vs FI) before you requested them. Dissemination is another big issue ... and the list goes on.


                      --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

                    • George Blumel
                      Thank you, DG. We all need to better understand the underlying details of the issues we discuss. Your explanation goes a long way in educating us about how our
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Thank you, DG. We all need to better understand the underlying details of the issues we discuss. Your explanation goes a long way in educating us about how our officials are doing their jobs to keep us safe, especially since 9/11. It would be nice to just hang out and argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but those of you who are on the line do have to adapt to the enemy for the sake of the Republic and you are doing a fine job, in spite of the ACLU, et al. Thank you.  –Geo.

                         


                        From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of DGHarrison
                        Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:48 PM
                        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

                         

                        There sure are a lot of folks getting their undies in a bunch over the U.S. intel community's analysis of domestic telephone traffic. Every time I hear them complain about it, they say something about "monitoring my phone calls," "eavesdropping on me," "listening in," and such. All this concern is based on the misconception that MIB are parked outside their homes in unmarked vans, panting over every word they hear through wiretaps. That isn't how it works.

                        The way it works is a two phase process. Phase One: Traffic Analysis, and Phase Two: Communications Processing. In Phase One, the telecoms are provided with lists of telephone numbers and are asked to provide a complete list of all other phone numbers that have interacted with those initial numbers. Then, all those subsequent numbers are run to see what numbers they communicate with. When all is said and done, the traffic analysis reveals networks through a process we call "circles and arrows." The circles represent control and outstations, each of which is an individual telephone number, and the arrows represent the direction in which the call was made. Some arrows point in only one direction; others point in both directions.

                        Where does the original list of numbers come from? There are several sources. Sometimes they come from good old-fashioned counter-terrorism investigations. Sometimes they come from captured al Qaida documents and computer files. And there are other sources. Usually, there is nothing but a phone number, with no other identification. Some might be disposable phones with only a few minutes loaded on their accounts. Could they be triggers for IEDs? These numbers can be from anywhere in the world. Many are of U.S. origin, disposable phones bought with cash and registered to unknown persons. The original numbers are already tainted for having been linked to al Qaida. Is it not acceptable to track all connections made from known terrorist entities to the entire network that emerges from the "circles and arrows" process?

                        At this point, no one is listening to actual telephone calls. The telecoms do not record people's conversations, but they do have records [for billing purposes] of what number called what other number. The government is not running "circles and arrows" on every single telephone number in America . They don't have the manpower, time, or resources to do that. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of Americans will never have their phones connections processed, let alone be tapped.


                        Once the networks are revealed, the rest of the process kicks in -- Phase Two. Phase Two involves warrants, wiretapping, recording, voice and data processing, reporting, search warrants, and arrests of targeted foreign entities and their U.S. collaborators. No phone calls get monitored except those that will bear intel data. Nobody's listening to Joe Quarterback telling Buffy Cheerleader what he's gonna do to her under the bleachers after the game.

                        It is important to understand the reason for the changes to FISA. Terrorists are acting on tight schedules, and FISA requirements were too cumbersome to allow us to react in a timely enough manner. The old FISA required not only the telephone number, but also the person's name, address, and the probable cause before opening the case. When you're dealing with anonymous entities, with no known address, and the probable cause is that the number appeared in al Quaida documents, there were issues. You might have seen half a dozen episodes of "Law & Order" in which prosecutors were unable to get a search warrant in time to prevent a crime from occurring. Often the judge was a prick who remained unmoved about the urgency and particulars of the case. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, as Barack Obama wants to do, means terror suspects will be given more time to carry out their diabolical plans.

                        We need to adapt to the terrorists, because they certainly are adapting to us. Reminds me of how stupid the Red Coats were to continue marching in rank and file down country roads, only to be picked off by the colonial guerrilla fighters. The red uniforms prevented even the cowards who cut and ran from escaping into the woods. It's said that the British wore red uniforms so the sight of massive amounts of bloodshed would not scare the troops into retreat. Lucky for us, they never learned to adapt.


                        Here is a little background on the FISA process, as explained by a Jack Boot Thug friend of mine [his choice of words, not mine]:

                        FISA, from the FBI perspective, is still an option, but it requires a bit more of a work up called either a Preliminary Investigation (PI) or a Full Investigation (FI), the difference being the degree of investigative action that can be taken under each category. You can ask for electronic toll records in one and not the other; you can ask for financial records in one and not the other, etc.; and then use all that information on the FISA Application.


                        The Application is something like 20 pages long. It is not a blanket authority proposal. There are multiple levels of review, unlike a standard "T-3" wiretap in a criminal case. In fact, there is much more oversight in a FISA, and to be honest, there probably should be. We have one FISA going on in the office that has been up for almost 5 years now and was based on information captured from enemy documents. The initial information came from a friendly foreign service ... which requires even more vetting and validation.

                         

                        The reporting requirements once you have one running are also cumbersome. There are minimization requirements out the wazoo, and if you screw up and transcribe the wrong call or mark it as pertinent because it's some lurid, juicy phone call between the subject and his favorite porn site phone sex service you are literally screwed ... time on the bricks, loss of the overall FISA, possible potential lawsuits if it ever goes to court, etc. You can't even index a name without being able to justify it, and they send review teams out from DOJ periodically to review your entire files. I went through two of those inspections and they are not fun. My partner indexed [name deleted] on one call and I was not on that shift when he did it. Try telling DOJ why you indexed [name deleted] on a FISA. I called in my partner on the FISA and he clearly stated that the target had been using "code words" for specific individuals and he initially thought that is what the subject was doing when he mentioned [name deleted]. Whew! Dodged that bullet!

                         

                        But that is how specific they get. They pull up every tech cut you transcribed, every affidavit you wrote; you have to provide each and every piece of supporting material you used in the affidavit, and it better damn well be there or they will take down the FISA within minutes, literally.

                         

                        Each National Security Letter had to be reviewed again for its applicability and to be sure that you had the correct level of investigation (PI vs FI) before you requested them. Dissemination is another big issue ... and the list goes on.


                        --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

                      • Chris Edes
                        No. Job #1 is protecting the private rights of Citizens. Declaration of Independence: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          No.  Job #1 is protecting the private rights of Citizens.

                          Declaration of Independence:

                          "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; --> that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men <-- ..."

                          The President takes an oath of office, prescribed by the Constitution:

                          "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

                          to defend the Constitution, NOT the nation.  No President can sacrifice, nor diminish to any degree, the Constitution in the course of his duties.

                          While defense from foreign enemies is one aspect of protecting the rights of Citizens, it cannot override those rights in the process.  Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is much smaller, and has far less material and human resources, than the U.S. government.  Al-Qaeda simply cannot pose a threat, to the degree that our own intelligence and security forces can, should those forces lack sufficient oversight or other restraint, on the arbitrary or wrongful exercise of their power.

                          Chris Edes


                          necessary because of the low ethical standards of the tort bar exacerbated by their exceeding greed and lack of patriotism. Job #1 of FedGov is the defense of our nation. Good intelligence can save untold numbers of lives by


                        • George Blumel
                          Ok I stand corrected. You say that defense is secondary -yet in the Preamble to our Constitution it says they were ordaining it to provide for the common
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Ok I stand corrected.  You say that defense is secondary –yet in the Preamble to our Constitution it says they were ordaining it “to provide for the common defence.”  The “defence” part came ahead of “secure the blessings of liberty” (although I believe they meant them to be equal goals).  Just one question: If you lose your country by not defending it from enemies domestic or foreign, what good are the rights of…whoever is still there?  I always thought that under our system along with your rights come responsibilities. You want to make sure your children have opportunity in life but first you have the responsibility to keep them safe so they can live their lives. It is a matter of priorities.  BTW, it is absurd to say the Constitution must be defended rather than the nation. How do you separate them?  Think about it. And to say that our intel guys are more dangerous than Al Qaeda, well I suppose you got that from Dennis Kucinich.    –Geo.


                            From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Chris Edes
                            Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:55 PM
                            To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

                             

                            No.  Job #1 is protecting the private rights of Citizens.

                            Declaration of Independence :

                            "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; --> that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men <-- ..."

                            The President takes an oath of office, prescribed by the Constitution:

                            "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

                            to defend the Constitution, NOT the nation.  No President can sacrifice, nor diminish to any degree, the Constitution in the course of his duties.

                            While defense from foreign enemies is one aspect of protecting the rights of Citizens, it cannot override those rights in the process.  Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is much smaller, and has far less material and human resources, than the U.S. government.  Al-Qaeda simply cannot pose a threat, to the degree that our own intelligence and security forces can, should those forces lack sufficient oversight or other restraint, on the arbitrary or wrongful exercise of their power.

                            Chris Edes

                            necessary because of the low ethical standards of the tort bar exacerbated by their exceeding greed and lack of patriotism. Job #1 of FedGov is the defense of our nation. Good intelligence can save untold numbers of lives by

                             

                          • Sakshale eQuorian
                            If you believe that a certain clause of the Constitution is not good for the safety of the nation, then lobby to have it changed. Don t just ignore it. There
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              If you believe that a certain clause of the Constitution is not good
                              for the safety of the nation, then lobby to have it changed. Don't
                              just ignore it.  There is a reason that the Constitution comes with
                              an approved method for changing it.

                              Selective disobedience of one clause opens the door to disobedience
                              of all of them.  Allowing any one person the right to selectively ignore
                              random clauses of the Constitution will give them the right to ignore
                              them all!  Who will you grant that right to? 

                              Remember, you may trust the current president to respect the law
                              while breaking it, but will you trust his/her successor?

                              When I signed up to run as a write-in candidate, I was required to
                              swear/affirm that I would defend the Constitution of the US and
                              my state.  Are you saying that I can ignore that oath and work to
                              allow the President to ignore the US Constitution?

                              Interesting.
                            • David Johnson
                              ... You may not tap the phone converstations of US residents without a search warrant. Even if one of the parties is a foreign national outside our
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wednesday 25 June 2008 01:41:05 pm George Blumel wrote:
                                > Does Mr Johnson concur in Boumediene? That foreign terrorists have US
                                > Constitutional rights? Then you have a majority of the Supreme Court. It
                                > is my opinion that a majority of the Supremes ignore the Constitution when
                                > it pleases them. I revere the Constitution, innocent life and believe in a
                                > strong national defense. Obviously, you believe that the 4th Amendment
                                > applies to foreign terrorists. That is a dangerous belief held by many
                                > Democrats and a few Repubs. Fortunately not enough to kill FISA. You'll be
                                > safer now. -Geo.

                                You may not tap the phone converstations of US residents without a search
                                warrant. Even if one of the parties is a foreign national outside our
                                sovereignty.

                                "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."

                                Do I believe that? Yes I do! Is it a dangerous belief? You bet it is!
                                Libertarianism is a dangerous belief! Just go ask any statist.

                                --
                                David Johnson
                              • Steven J Burden
                                Constitutionally, there are three issues here: Separation of Powers Fourth Amendment First Amendment Read these:
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jun 25, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Constitutionally, there are three issues here:
                                   
                                  Separation of Powers
                                  Fourth Amendment
                                  First Amendment
                                   
                                  Read these:
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                  They might bring a little perspective to this DISCUSSION (hint, hint: where should this be occurring?)
                                   
                                   
                                  -Steve
                                   
                                   


                                  From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Johnson
                                  Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:47 PM
                                  To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Liberty Coalition (LC) ACT NOW on FISA

                                  On Wednesday 25 June 2008 01:41:05 pm George Blumel wrote:
                                  > Does Mr Johnson concur in Boumediene? That foreign terrorists have US
                                  > Constitutional rights? Then you have a majority of the Supreme Court. It
                                  > is my opinion that a majority of the Supremes ignore the Constitution when
                                  > it pleases them. I revere the Constitution, innocent life and believe in a
                                  > strong national defense. Obviously, you believe that the 4th Amendment
                                  > applies to foreign terrorists. That is a dangerous belief held by many
                                  > Democrats and a few Repubs. Fortunately not enough to kill FISA. You'll be
                                  > safer now. -Geo.

                                  You may not tap the phone converstations of US residents without a search
                                  warrant. Even if one of the parties is a foreign national outside our
                                  sovereignty.

                                  "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."

                                  Do I believe that? Yes I do! Is it a dangerous belief? You bet it is!
                                  Libertarianism is a dangerous belief! Just go ask any statist.

                                  --
                                  David Johnson

                                • westmiller@aol.com
                                  Posted by: Steven J Burden ... Correct. I posted a notice of an RLC national board ACTION, whose propriety might be discussed here, but the issue debate
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Jun 26, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Posted by: "Steven J Burden"
                                    > ... They might bring a little perspective to this DISCUSSION
                                    > (hint, hint: where should this be occurring?)
                                        Correct. I posted a notice of an RLC national board
                                    ACTION, whose propriety might be discussed here, but
                                    the issue debate belongs on RLC-Discuss. If members
                                    want to re-post their arguments to that forum, I'll reply.
                                     
                                    Bill




                                    Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.