Talk:FISA

Discussion moved from Talk pages. [1]

Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).

But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--Reginod 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

• I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been legel since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved foreign Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. RobS 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.

I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).

I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--Reginod 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps against US citizens by a foreign government. RobS 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.

For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).

Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--Reginod 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The point is, it has been legal for nearly 70 years now, and it would probably take revamping the NATO Charter to make it illegal. FISA had weaknesses, (1) it assumed all countertintelligence was directed at foreign governments; (2) while it made provisions for Americans acting as agents of foreign governements, it made no provision for counterintelligence agaisnt non-national entities like drug cartels or terrorist organizations; (3) its provisions for industrial espionage committed by non-governmental multinational corporations were ambiguous. In short, the whole Patriot Act & FISA Acts have nothing to do with the established procedures for domestic spying, and have been distorted by members of Congress and media allies for partisan politcal purposes. RobS 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I will happily continue this discussion elsewhere, but not here (see below). --Reginod 14:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Go to the discusssin page here; perhaps we can begin FISA out of this discussion. RobS 14:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don’t know enough about industrial espionages to comment intelligently on your point number three. I think you are right as to point 1—that is m impression of the history, but it’s a fairly week impression and not one I could support if pressed. My major concern is your point number two. I don’t think FISA is the right tool to be using to fight drug cartels and, to a lesser extent, I don’t think its what we should be using to fight terrorism as well. I see nothing wrong with forcing the government to use normal criminal procedures to fight drug cartels. I’d rather see a specific set of rules developed for terrorism—closer to FISA than to normal criminal procedure, but given the broad understanding the government gives to who can be monitored as part of the War on Terror, I’d rather something more restrictive than current FISA standards. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I want the police power of the executive branch to be as tightly and closely controlled and monitored by the other two branches of government as possible while leaving them enough room to actually do their job. --Reginod 15:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

(<--) Very good. "I don’t think FISA is the right tool to be using to fight drug cartels and, to a lesser extent, I don’t think its what we should be using to fight terrorism as well." Exactly. Non-state or non-governmental entities (and multinational corporations) is what the Patriot Act was designed to cover, to fill in the gap the FISA act did not anticipate or foresee. As to domestic spying on US citizens involved with these non-governmental entities, (or for that matter, foreign governments), the Executive Order on intelligence sharing with MI-5 already exists. So it's a bogus issue to pretend the Patriot Act threatens US citizens rights. RobS 17:36, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

• You managed to understand something half of Congress cannot grasp. Impressive. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)