From: "Gary Britt" 

Come Randy you're smarter than what you are writing.  Quit cutting and
pasting liberal talking points.  No crime need be committed BUT ONLY IF
THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT one end of the communications will
include a US Person.  In other words the section you quoted is completely
INAPPLICABLE if there is a likelihood that one end includes a US person.

What you called a crock is not a crock but the TRUTH and your quote below
is irrelevant.  The truth is that FISA requires probable cause to conduct
surveillance whenever a US person might be involved.  Now, how do you show
probable cause for a phone number when that's all you got??  You can't.
Hence you can't meet the requirements to get a FISA warrant.  Like I said,
even terrorists have phone numbers of people who aren't terrorists.

Your comments about how easy it is to get the owner of a phone number is
disingenuous in light of cell phones that get handed around from person to
person, and while somewhat easy isn't instantaneous either.  So that canard
fails for two reasons.

The there are other requirements when a US Person might be involved.
Requirements in addition to showing probable cause.  You have to show the
location or locations to be surveilled IN ADVANCE.  Which is a little hard
for roving cell phones and terrorists jumping around on different computers
from Kinko's to a library and from city to city.  Its IMPOSSIBLE to timely
comply with FISA when a US Person might be involved, and that's why the
President exercised his other constitutional authority in order to protect
us.

Gary

Look at what you pasted below when you said what I wrote was a crock:
"Randy H"  wrote in message
news:43a99545$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Getting the owners of US phone numbers is damn near instanteneous-foreign
> phone numbers are probably a little less so daunting. Getting cell data,
> well, that depends on the technology-why do you think the government
wanted
> E911 pushed so hard and so fast?
>
> And as for FISA requiring a crime to be commited, that's a crock: FISA
> allows for collecting of intelligence without a court order for up to 1
year
> (50 U.S.C. $ 1802), but with the proviso that there is no "substantial
> likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a
> U.S. person is a party. $ 1802(a)(1)(B).
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43a98741$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> > Fair enough, but you omit the fact that Clinton's people argued to
> > congress
> > that the President has "inherent constitutional
authority" that isn't
> > defined by these statutes.  Just like the current President's advisor
say.
> >
> > Next your quote points out the problem for Bush and why he had to
exercise
> > his inherent constitutional authority.  Read the part below you quoted
> > where
> > the attorney general has to certify that no US Person will be surveiled.
> > Then tell me how the attorney general could make such a certification
when
> > all they have that needs  to be quickly and instantly acted upon is a
list
> > of phone numbers some which might be cell phones with foreign numbers
but
> > operating out of the US or US telephone numbers which may or may not
have
> > US
> > Persons at the other end.
> >
> > Then explain to me how if that's all the info you have how you convince
a
> > judge that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed
> > by
> > the person at the other end of the phone number when that's all you
have.
> > Even terrorists have to call their turbin makers, tailors, and order out
> > for
> > pizza now and then.  FISA requires a criminal law, full probable cause
> > approach, when a US Person might be involved and is wholly inadequate
for
> > protecting this country.
> >
> > FISA exists because the left has never stopped viewing the world through
> > the
> > prism of a bunch of unwashed hippies looking at Nixon, Johnson, and
> > Vietnam.
> > This so colors their thinking they are unfit to lead or even have input
on
> > these matters, and their lack of nuance is shown in how they are unable
to
> > even discuss these matters without saying if we don't maintain an Al
Qaeda
> > bill of rights then the sky is falling and we are all suffering from KGB
> > and
> > Hitler type control and surveillance.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Randy H"  wrote in message
> > news:43a9779f{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize
Warrantless
> >> The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET
> > SEARCH
> >> ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the
breakdown –
> >> What Drudge says:
> >>
> >>   Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to
> > approve
> >> physical searches, without a court order”
> >>
> >> What Clinton actually signed:
> >>
> >>   Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the
> >> [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is
> > authorized
> >> to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
> >> intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
> >> General makes the certifications required by that section.
> >>
> >> That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search
will
> > not
> >> involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United
> > States
> >> person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United
States.
> >>
> >> The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time
> >> ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people
> >> inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not
> >> authorize that.
> >>
> >> Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
> >>
> >> What Drudge says:
> >>
> >>   Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney
General
> > is
> >> authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
> >> intelligence information without a court order.”
> >>
> >> What Carter’s executive order actually says:
> >>
> >>   1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
> >> Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
> >> authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
> >> intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney
> >> General makes the certifications required by that Section.
> >>
> >> What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
> >> surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to
which
> > a
> >> United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are
involved.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:43a8d996$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> > Read 'em and weep boys:  I wonder how Carl Levin, Russ
Feingold, and
> >> > Barbara
> >> > Boxer are going to explain this to the American People.
> >> >
> >> > Next on Drudge.  Monkeys spotted flying out of the Ass
of Harry Reid.
> >> > Film
> >> > at 11:00!!!!!!!!!!!!   LOL
> >> >
> >> > From Drudge:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT
> >> > ORDER
> >> >
> >> > CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE'
WITHOUT COURT ORDER
> >> >
> >> > Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed
Attorney General to
do
> >> > searches without court approval
> >> >
> >> > Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is
authorized to
> > approve
> >> > physical searches, without a court order"
> >> >
> >> > Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979:
"Attorney
General
> > is
> >> > authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
> >> > intelligence information without a court order."
> >> >
> >> > WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of
the homes of
> > U.S.
> >> > citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department
> >> > official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or
would be unlikely
to
> >> > find
> >> > information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the
government to
> > use
> >> > classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared
sensors
> > to
> >> > observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
> >> >
> >> > Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton
administration
> >> > believes the president "has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless
> >> > searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
> >> >
> >> > Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in
June
> > and
> >> > October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5