# IS IT IMPEACHMAS YET?Surveillance reserved for overseas?This bug's for you... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 16, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882 "2005-12-16T07:24:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/21 "2005-12-16T16:35:55Z")
[http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/16/america/web.1216spy.php](http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/16/america/web.1216spy.php) In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it. For the first time, the Justice Department audited the N.S.A. program, several officials said. And to provide more guidance, the Justice Department and the agency expanded and refined a checklist to follow in deciding whether probable cause existed to start monitoring someone’s communications, several officials said. A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants. When the FISA chief judge wrinkles her nose, you smell bad, face it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/22 "2005-12-16T16:37:59Z")
In reading about this today in the newspaper, I was wondering why it was deemed necessary to bypass the warrant process. I can understand that the administration is typically going to want to push the limit as far as it can, but given that the phones being tapped were linked to high level Al Qaeda operatives (like Abu Zubayduh), just how difficult would it have been to get a warrant? The numbers supposedly were found on the laptops and cell phones of these operatives. At any rate, I hope this goes quickly to the SCOTUS so that a ruling can be made. Constiutional or not, this just plain looks bad. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/23 "2005-12-16T16:43:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In reading about this today in the newspaper, I was wondering why it was deemed necessary to bypass the warrant process. I can understand that the administration is typically going to want to push the limit as far as it can, but given that the phones being tapped were linked to high level Al Qaeda operatives (like Abu Zubayduh), just how difficult would it have been to get a warrant? The numbers supposedly were found on the laptops and cell phones of these operatives. > > At any rate, I hope this goes quickly to the SCOTUS so that a ruling can be made. Constiutional or not, this just plain looks bad. How does it get there? I guess a citizen could go to district court for an injunction if he could show he was being bugged, but how would he show that? Could a citizen NOT under surveillance bring an action? I will cheerfully donate my time (took a first in Constitutional Law…) for Mace v. Bush. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/24 "2005-12-16T16:48:26Z")
Is it just me? It looks like people are surprised that there is surveillance of US citizens within the US (not overseas). I remember being one of those who said it was possible - and would happen - under the Patriot Act. Why all the surprise now? This is not new or breaking news. Of course, at the time, I was just being “paranoid”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/25 "2005-12-16T17:14:44Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Is it just me? It looks like people are surprised that there is surveillance of US citizens within the US (not overseas). I remember being one of those who said it was possible - and would happen - under the Patriot Act. Why all the surprise now? This is not new or breaking news. Of course, at the time, I was just being “paranoid”. :rolleyes: If they get patriot II they will, within one week, cut out the datamining middleman and assemble their own base of everything done by everybody. The National Security Letters are not even a Rod and Reel–they’re a whole damn 20 mile long net. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/26 "2005-12-16T17:26:49Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > How does it get there? I guess a citizen could go to district court for an injunction if he could show he was being bugged, but how would he show that? > > Could a citizen NOT under surveillance bring an action? Under the FoIA, it should be possible to get a list of names that were under surveilance. At least a partial list, as some may be still considered classified. Any of those people can bring a case against the administration. > [@](#): > > I will cheerfully donate my time (took a first in Constitutional Law…) for Mace v. Bush. Let me get back to you on that one… ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/27 "2005-12-16T17:53:53Z")
I’m gonna guess that’s one foia request that won’t be honored under the “ashcroft guidelines” ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/28 "2005-12-16T18:20:25Z")
Apparently there are Republicans who are troubled by this. [Senator Specter Calls for Hearings on U.S. Spy Program](http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bush-NSA.html) It doesn’t seem like they were keeping the Senate as well informed about this as you would think. From Senator McCain: > [@](#): > > ‘‘Theoretically, I obviously wouldn’t like it. But I don’t know the extent of it and I don’t know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week.’’ ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/29 "2005-12-16T18:58:08Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I believe it is time to say, “Enough!” to that sort of behavior, elevating political factionalism over the good of the country, and **not** impeach Mr. Bush, even though his behavior is quite impeachable, to take a stand for restraint in using constitutional sledgehammers to drive home thumbtacks. A noble sentiment, but if the last twenty years has proven anything, it’s that taking the high road means you’ll get a razor-sharp swiftboat shoved up your ass. Feel free to disagree, but I’m done rolling over and exposing my belly on mere principle. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/30 "2005-12-16T22:03:22Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Just because I tell the local DA I’m gonna knock over a liquor store, and the DA says, “Proceed at your own risk,” it’ doesn’t mean I won’t get prosecuted if I knock over the liquor store. Well they aren’t informing a DA. They’re informing a Federal judge who’s job it is to inform the government if clandestine activity is unconstitutional. Since he hasn’t done that, I think that makes this a ‘legal debate’ and not a criminal one. It’s not illegal to do something that is of questionabl constitutionality. Bill Clinton utilized the line-item veto for some time, eventually it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So if Clinton tried to do it again AFTER that point, there would have been trouble. But not before hand. Anyways, who’s actually engaging in wishful thinking here, considering most realists would admit the Vegas odds of Bush being impeached over this are about 150,000 to 1 or worse? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/31 "2005-12-16T22:36:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t like it, so it must be unconstituional? Is that it? … > > Now, at some point the courts may say, “Nope, you can’t do that.” But they haven’t, and until they do, it’s a perfectly reasonable position for the government to take. Bricker, I have nothing but respect for your broad knowledge of the law, but give me a break – calling warantless domestic wiretaps carried out by the military for the alleged purpose of tracking down terrorists shouldn’t pass the laugh test. Do you really need a judge to rule before you can admit that this stinks? Isn’t it pretty darn clear that the FISA court was created for things like this? Isn’t it a matter of law that the military is prohibited from engaging in law enforcement activities within the United States absent a specific legal authorization? (For that matter, what would happen in the NSA got its hands on smoking gun evidence: send the Marines in to raid an aparment in Des Moines, IA?) It matters not a god-darn inch whether warrantless wiretaps were okay in 1982 or 1972 or 1932. If someone were arrested today, but not Mirandized or provided a lawyer for his defense, I’m sure you would condemn the government’s handling of that arrest and prosecution. I would not expect you to come here and argue that, for a very long period of US history, there were no Miranda rights or access to court-appointed attorneys. Why would you resort to such a facile argument in this particular case? I readily acknowledge that I’m no expert in these areas, but when the Republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee says “There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,” it seems bizarre to argue that warrantless taps by a military agency are “perfectly reasonable.” I’ll let more facts come in before I weigh in on the whole impeachment matter, but golly: you’ve presented a very weak case for failing to condemn the military conducting domestic spying missions. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/32 "2005-12-16T23:11:36Z")
George Miller (D) California, thinks it’s a big deal. “I am deeply troubled that the President of the United States may have secretly ordered his intelligence agents to spy on Americans without obtaining court orders,” said Miller, Chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "Congress had already broadened the powers of the Administration to fight terrorism through the gathering of intelligence, but now it is alleged that the President went even further and secretly ordered the NSA to conduct domestic spying in a manner that may be both unconstitutional and illegal. “Because the United States Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, would have been intimately involved with drafting this covert policy in his former role as White House Counsel, I do not believe he can be truly impartial in investigating this matter. The Attorney General should recuse himself from the case and immediately appoint a special counsel to fully determine the truth,” Miller said. "Congress and the American people need to know whether laws were broken, and if so who was responsible for it. “Fighting terrorists is essential,” Miller added. “No one disagrees with that. But allowing anyone to eviscerate America’s freedoms and liberties undermines our security and greatness as a nation. In the battle against international terrorism, America has faced a terrifying and deadly enemy, but it has also suffered a great loss in its stature as a result of the use of torture and degrading treatment against foreign prisoners and the use of unapproved espionage. We must not lose ourselves as a nation as we fight to protect ourselves.” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/33 "2005-12-17T00:13:32Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > George Miller (D) California, thinks it’s a big deal. Wow!!! George Miller?!? Comes out against the President?!? Next think you know, [Ron Dellums](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums) is going to come out of retirement to criticize the Administration! _Then_ where will Bush stand in two of the most liberal Congressional districts in the Nation? Holy Moley, Dubya’s house of cards is really starting to collapse! And I’m not one who’s easily excited!! Wow! A blue car! ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/34 "2005-12-17T00:30:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wow!!! George Miller?!? Comes out against the President?!? > > Next think you know, [Ron Dellums](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums) is going to come out of retirement to criticize the Administration! _Then_ where will Bush stand in two of the most liberal Congressional districts in the Nation? Holy Moley, Dubya’s house of cards is really starting to collapse! And I’m not one who’s easily excited!! > > Wow! A blue car! Do you have anything of any value whatsoever to say? This is not a conservative vs liberal or blue vs red issue. You may be surprised that real conservatives (not the nutjobs who stole that word) have more respect for privacy than you think. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/35 "2005-12-17T00:32:41Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Do you have anything of any value whatsoever to say? Check out post #31…then remove foot from mouth. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/36 "2005-12-17T00:54:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Bricker, I have nothing but respect for your broad knowledge of the law, but give me a break – calling warantless domestic wiretaps carried out by the military for the alleged purpose of tracking down terrorists shouldn’t pass the laugh test. Do you really need a judge to rule before you can admit that this stinks? > > Isn’t it pretty darn clear that the FISA court was created for things like this? Isn’t it a matter of law that the military is prohibited from engaging in law enforcement activities within the United States absent a specific legal authorization? (For that matter, what would happen in the NSA got its hands on smoking gun evidence: send the Marines in to raid an aparment in Des Moines, IA?) Were the wiretaps placed inside the US? The [FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)](http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html) allows wiretaps outside the US, but not inside the US. > [@](#): > > FISA does not regulate the use of electronic surveillance outside of the United States. For instance, electronic surveillance of electronic communications like e-mail is only governed by §1801(f)(4) if the surveillance device is installed “in the United States.” When e-mail sent by a U.S. person to a foreign person is intercepted outside the United States, that interception does not meet this definition. If the taps were placed inside the US, then Houston, we have a problem. Although the Bush administration is claiming that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (both parties) were made aware of what it was doing. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/37 "2005-12-17T00:55:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > In reading about this today in the newspaper, **I was wondering why it was deemed necessary to bypass the warrant process**. I can understand that the administration is typically going to want to push the limit as far as it can, but given that the phones being tapped were linked to high level Al Qaeda operatives (like Abu Zubayduh), just how difficult would it have been to get a warrant? The numbers supposedly were found on the laptops and cell phones of these operatives. > > At any rate, I hope this goes quickly to the SCOTUS so that a ruling can be made. Constiutional or not, this just plain looks bad. Now that is a damn good question. Another “rider” to it would be, why are we having the NSA flap right now, about warrantless(?) eavesdropping within the CONUS. It violates their stated mission (for starters). ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/38 "2005-12-17T00:58:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Check out post #31…then remove foot from mouth. 😛 > > -XT Dammiit dammit dammit. Shit. I didn’t get the WHOOSH of it all. I sir, have been severely whooshed. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/39 "2005-12-17T01:03:13Z")
Darn it, Steve, I was in the middle of writing an elaborate, smarmy response, and there ya go admitting you were whoosed. Well, I’m glad I previewed. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882/40 "2005-12-17T01:10:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Darn it, Steve, I was in the middle of writing an elaborate, smarmy response, and there ya go admitting you were whoosed. Well, I’m glad I previewed. 🙂 I did read the entire thread. Honest. But, I can’t keep that whole train of thought and simultaneously track who said what. Ooohh! Shiny!!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-impeachmas-yet-surveillance-reserved-for-overseas-this-bugs-for-you/335882.md?page=3)