Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)/Archive 1

message: I propose a link to C-SPAN's video feed of instead of the White House transcript. Scott McClellan's words have been altered in the official White House text on at least one occasion. --24.31.29.171 23:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. What is the link? We can add both links, incidently. There is absolutely no harm in it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added. --24.31.29.171 07:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work :) Ta bu shi da yu 08:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitehouse Transcripts 

message: Yahoo is running this statement by Feingold. Can we incorporate it into the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feingold's statement 

message: The third paragraph needs to be reworked. The claim that the "far left" has called for impeachment since the "beginning of his first term" needs to be cited if it is a fact. Speculating what Bush's defense of the issue will be in the future is unverifiable. --24.31.29.171 17:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would like to know is who these persons from the "far left" are. - Quirk 18:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Here is the edit in case anyone wants to look at what I've removed:  --24.31.29.171 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legal Issues" section 

message: The following content:<BR>
The ACLU has expressed concern, and has called for a special prosecutor. <BR> was removed by User:AustinKnight with edit comment, "Removed self-aggrandizing note re. ACLU".<BR>--JWSchmidt 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be okay since we now have a Congressional reference supporting an investigation.  I'm sure that if that is accepted by the Intelligence/Judiciary committee it'll require a special prosecutor.  In any event, I think that there are a number of sourcing problems (like should we really be using the National Review?). mmmbeerT / C / ? 14:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm...because their POV isn't your POV?  Remarkable logic, counselor. Let's instead go quote what Pravda or Al Jazeera are reporting on this, perhaps?  --AustinKnight 14:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... ok.  So much for civility.  Look, you can take your attitude and go elsewhere. You have really contributed nothing of substance to any of the discussions and you clearly have an axe to grind.  Perhaps you're too close to the issue?  And you have demonstrated very little knowledge on the subject of FISA, except insofar as you're able to recite talking points. I was on your side about removing the ACLU link.  I think that a contributing editor's opinion (even though he's on the American Foreign Policy Council) about the legality of the president's action isn't particularly persuasive.  Do you have a legal authority on the issue? mmmbeerT / C / ? 15:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the National Review is a fair and mostly non-polemic source to reference.  It's an analysis and it's as legitimate and germaine to the question at hand as the analysis by Kerr--although I'm inclined to disregard Kerr who offers his conclusions before trying to wrangle them out of the sourcelaw.  You should also stop attacking folks on this page for disagreements. DRJ 15:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have little problem with the analysis in the NRO article.  However, it seems that the amount of space its given is not proportional to its authoritativeness/persuasiveness on the particular issue.  I'm merely suggesting that we find one from a legal scholar--wouldn't it be great to have the Whitehouse's memos on the topic--that supports his line of reasoning.  Also, I think it might be important to identify who Kerr and Robbins are so that a reader could make their own value judgments on actual value of the argument. mmmbeerT / C / ? 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I can agree with that.  I'm all for accuracy rather than polemic.  A search could be made for an analysis by a well-credentialed legal expert to balance Kerr's.  At least, if there is one.  I'll look.  DRJ 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACLU 

message: ACLU= AMERICAN COMMUNIST LIBERTIES UNION.......SHEEEEEEESH....WIKI IS OFFICIALLY USELESS FROM HERE ON OUT.....
Since this seems to have come up, yet again, I'm going to create a talk entry for this.  Unless someone wants to provide authority on the point, the talking point that previous administrations have done the same thing seems to be just wrong.
First, no one doubts that the president has authority to authorize surveillance under §1802(a). As I understand it, that's pretty clear.  Of course, 1802(a) is limited in a number of important ways, including:
* "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers"; and
* "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party"
In this way, it's fairly clear that this does not surveillance of US persons.  Alternative interpretations (what I assume this administration is relying on) are not within the plain reading of this section.
Second, the two E.O.s at issue are usually those of Clinton and Carter.  and , respectively.  These authorize the A.G. to invoke thier authority under 1802(a), but specifically limited to the rules of that section.  It does not imply, in any way, a novel reading of FISA.
So unless there's some evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't permit these talking points. mmmbeerT / C / ? 18:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous administrations 

message: I've found an analysis in contrast with Kerr's that might come with a little more relevant authority than that of J. Robbins.  You can find the article here: .  Everybody who cares to weigh in on whether there should be a summary of this analysis included, please do so.  Thanks!  DRJ 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'm still new at this.  DRJ 19:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Analysis