Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)/Archive 7

message: This is Sanger's seminal "how-to-do" NPOV:
http://nupedia.8media.org/policy.shtml#nonbias
"On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres?"
===balance===
If we balance one side with the other, does it lose POV or is it just one article with bias views of both sides? Bona Fides 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased views from both sides with POV outriggers that may neutralize eachother. 24.148.93.88 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only cited conclusions are presented, it just becomes bi-lateral argument from authority. Better to identify the points of contention and perhaps provide the rationale for the conclusiobns using reputable sources Jpat34721 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: If we balance one side with the other, does it lose POV or is it just one article with bias views of both sides? Bona Fides 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased views from both sides with POV outriggers that may neutralize eachother. 24.148.93.88 04:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only cited conclusions are presented, it just becomes bi-lateral argument from authority. Better to identify the points of contention and perhaps provide the rationale for the conclusiobns using reputable sources Jpat34721 18:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: balance

message: I mentioned this in another article's discussion page, but is there a list of failed terror plots, specifically those which can be attributed to the NSA warrentless wiretapping surveillance?  Im sure some that could be included include the 2002 failed plot on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the recent uncovering of a terrorist cell in Miami of 7 African American muslims who tried and failed to obtain armaments to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago.--Xlegiofalco 00:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The teenagers who were supposedly going to blow up the Sears Tower were parading around in a parking lot pretending to be holy warriors.  It didn't take wiretaps, let alone warrantless wiretaps, to identify them.  You can be pretty sure that anyone who was indicted was not identified through the warrantless program, because it is very unlikely that a judge would accept any evidence that is derived--directly or indirectly--from a program that ignores the Bill of Rights. Nareek 01:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Im not sure if were talking about the same incident.  Go here to see what I mean- []--Xlegiofalco 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about the same incident.  Note the subtitle on the story you link to, "Plot to blow up Sears Tower  ‘more aspirational than operational’", this according to the FBI who presumably are not motivated to play down their coup.  Crust 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Failed Terror Plots 

message: In paragraph 3, changed "is expected to pass" to "is considering"; changed "is expected to fail" to "is also considering"; because "is expected" injects a POV, and this unfolding story has been full of surprises and twists.  Until a particular piece of legislation is passed, it would be prudent not to plant "expectations" in the minds of the Readers - some of whome might be members of Congress who vote on said legislation.
----
Before:
After an exchange of letters in June 2006 between Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Vice President Dick Cheney, the committee is expected to pass Specter's bill putting the NSA program under the FISA court and granting retroactive amnesty for warantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority. It is also expected to pass legislation sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), a member of the judiciary and intelligence panels, that would provide a legal foundation for the surveillance program. A third piece of legislation affecting the NSA program, sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), is expected to fail. 
After:
After an exchange of letters in June 2006 between Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Vice President Dick Cheney, the committee is considering Specter's bill putting the NSA program under the FISA court and granting retroactive amnesty for warantless surveillance conducted under presidential authority. It is also considering legislation sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), a member of the judiciary and intelligence panels, that would provide a legal foundation for the surveillance program. A third piece of legislation affecting the NSA program, sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), has also been proposed. 
----
fwiw, it would be handy to have links to the full Specter, DeWine, and Schumer bills.  I mention this with some reservations, as legislative proposals are very fluid and subject to change.  Nonetheless, it would be good for the Reader to be able to compare the various bills being considered.  The excerpts serve this purpose to a degree, but there is not yet an excerpt for the Schumer bill.
  --Dredeyedick 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed Paragraph 3 for NPOV

message: Added embedded link to B.Cunningham Feb 3 Letter to Congress, articles, and FISA
----
Before:
:*Bryan Cunningham, a national security lawyer and Justice and CIA officer in the Clinton and Bush Administrations (Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Council from 2002 - 2004) wrote extensively about the Constitutional and legal authorities supporting the President's authority to authorize the NSA activities in a February 3 2006 letter to Congress, available on the website of Cunningham's Denver law firm Morgan & Cunningham LLC, along with the relevant federal statute.
After:
:*Bryan Cunningham, a national security lawyer and Justice and CIA officer in the Clinton and Bush Administrations (Deputy Legal Advisor to the National Security Council from 2002 - 2004) wrote extensively about the Constitutional and legal authorities supporting the President's authority to authorize the NSA activities in a February 3 2006 letter to Congress, and other articles available on the website of Cunningham's Denver law firm Morgan & Cunningham LLC, along with the relevant federal statute (FISA).
----
I linked to the morgancunningham.net FISA page, since that seemed to be in context.  However, I don't think this is a sound practice, since it is more likely a private firm will redesign it's site and page locations (thus breaking the links) than a university or legal resource like Findlaw.  I would recommend changing this paragraph to keep the link to the articles at morgancunningham.net, but eliminate the link to the top of their site - it is not an ad for their law firm.  Perhaps keep the link to their embedded text version of FISA's table of contents (that's all it seems to be), but actually offer more reliable links to the full text of FISA. For example, 
Cornell
:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
Findlaw
:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/toc.html
I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and haven't yet had the chance to review all the rules and standards, so this may be a preferred method / source, I don't know.  And I think, fwiw, references to case law should be to relatively stable sources like the two listed above - in preference to private firms whose pages may or may not be there tomorrow. (Even so, universities and companies like Westlaw / Findlaw have been known to reorganise from time to time).
--Dredeyedick 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dredeyedick, your edits both here and changing the language away from judging which bills are or are not expected to pass look great -- clear improvements -- to my mind.  That said, I tend to think we should delete Cunningham altogether from the "Third Party" opinion section on the grounds that as Deputy Legal Advisor to the NSA he was presumably directly involved with the program from a legal point of view. Perhpas this info could go somewhere else (with your improvements to the links).  Crust 12:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents: That's not as straightforward because he was not deeputy legal advisor when information about the program was leaked. In any case, though, "...wrote extensively about the Constitutional and legal authorities supporting the President's authority to authorize...", besides using the same word three times, should be "alleged power" or something of the sort.  "alleged" needs to be in there. and it probably should be noted that it doesn't mention congress's constitutional power to make laws governing the government affairs (such as FISA) or the president's duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed". Kevin Baastalk 14:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party legal analysis

message: The Supreme Court's decision and the majority's reasoning in Hamdan would seem to undermine both the AUMF and inherent powers arguments for the program.  Should we add something to the article about this?  The following link has a discussion. 
(Admittedly the author, Glenn Greenwald, already thought the program was illegal before the Hamdan decision.)
Crust 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications of Hamdan for legal arguments 

message: The wiretapping has been declared unconstitutional.  Here's an early link .  The article will now need to be rewritten a bit to address this ruling.
:The first four or five sentences repeat the 8/17/2006 court ruling thrice.  Need to reword to make them flow better. Bona Fides 13:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the administration response to the section, but I don't know much to say beyond it, as the DOJ is being rather tight lipped about what they're going to do next.StvnLunsford 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Court Ruling, August 17, 2006

message: Hi! It seems to me the article is more of a Discussion/Debate of the NSA wiretaping rather than a simple NPOV account of the issue. Since it's obviously controversial, was wondering if there was anyone willing to do a little clean up and change some of the wording so it dosn't sound like Wikipedians are using it as a debate forum.
* for example, in the opening, 2nd paragraph, we have this line: "Most legal scholars outside of the administration find these arguments unconvincing (see "Third party legal analysis", below)" - the sentence is not neccessary where it is, and prevents readers from gaining a clear/brief understanding of the issue. The next sentence anyway says that a court ruled against the program, so the "opinions of 3rd party analysists" dosn't add anything to the introduction.
:Re a Discussion/Debate:  Note this is the controversy article.  There is a separate article (NSA electronic surveillance program) about the program.
:Re reference to Third Party scholars:  I'm not sure why it prevents a clear understanding (briefer I can see obviously).  As you say, a federal judge has ruled that it is unconstitutional but her ruling may (or may not) be overturned on appeal.  The ruling of the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is suggestive that the Supreme Court would also rule against the program, but who knows.  Perhaps we should move today's ruling up in the discussion.  Crust 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion versus Account

message: Despite what Rootology said above, I doubt if the Bush administration will stop its surveillance. Media announcements that a federal court has "struck down" something often result in a feeding frenzy of speculation that "now they will have to stop" but often overlook the appeals process. 
I predict that this ruling will have no effect whatsoever until the Supreme Court hears the matter. But I'm not sure enough about that prediction to put it into the article. Maybe we could quote someone from the White House or Justice? --Uncle Ed 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it will not stop the administration, it will move american public opinion.  Maybe that will finally convince congress to pass a new law to allow the administration easier access to EZ warrants or automatic warrants.  FISA warrants are almost never rejected, but the admin needs to wexplain to congress, preferably in closed executive seesion, why they need quicker and better access to eavesdropping!  We just need to regularize it to maintain separation of powers doctrine.  Bush will not be prez forever. !!!! Bona Fides 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the appeals process has no bearing on the requirement that they stop.  For now, the current ruling has the force of law unless it is overturned on appeal.  Now, whether an administration that has shown an utter disdain for the law of the land and a love for secrecy and blatant violation of the constitution will actually cease this operation is another, more practical issue.  Unfortunately, the Bushites have yet to grasp the wisom of Ben Franklin's sagacious statement that, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." •Jim62sch• 09:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does a federal court ruling really have the force of law? And in this case, did the court use its power immediately or did it 'stay the ruling' till September? --Uncle Ed 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federal court ruling

message: According to the ACLU, Bush is abusing NSA surveillance power. Romero called it:
*Government spying on innocent Americans; and,
*spying without cause on innocent Americans 
I guess for him the fact that it's only for
#conversations that betwen US locations and overseas; and,
#which are suspected of being related to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda
escaped his notice. Or have I misread his statements?
Anyway, the point is how to characterize his position. Is he disinterestedly trying to get the laws of the land enforced? Or does he have an agenda? What does he himself say about his agenda? (I remember him saying something about the chilling effect surveillance might have on activism.) --Uncle Ed 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Targets of the program

message: This article is sloppy in its use of the words domestic and international. The government has admited to the followin two points:
*The NSA has a domestic program where it collects information about phone calls, not actual eavsdropping.
*The NSA has a program where it acutally "listens in" to phone calls between a foreign party and someone in the US. I think it bears mentioning that there is no way to know before hand if the party within the US is acutally a US Citizen. If Osama bin Laden calls an Afghani national currently living in the US, eavesdropping on that conversation can hardly be characterized as "spying on Americans"
The use of the terms "domestic" and "international" mixed together in the article gives the distinct impression to the casual reader that the NSA was conducting domestic eavesdropping on Americans without a court order. That is not the case, and should be clarified. -- Dullfig 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The President has said ""What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate."  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is clear that listening in on a conversation without a warrant is only permitted when there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Otherwise, there are specific procedures called for in the law. The Justice Department on their web site admits those procedures are not being followed, claiming they are too cumbersome.  So it is very much the case that NSA was conducting domestic eavesdropping on Americans without a court order. President Bush claims he has authority to do this as Commander in Chief and by way of the Iraq war resolution. One judge disagrees. We'll see what happens on appeal. But there is nothing sloppy about calling it "domestic." --agr 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I guess if I couldn't explain the situation to the FISA court, I coudln't get a warrant, and therefore I couldn't wiretap. Kevin Baastalk 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If there was an ammendment that said "if we are attacked, we will roll over and play dead", would we abide by it? would we vote to abolish it?. Why would it make any sense that the constitution would block us from defending ourselves? -- Dullfig 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the president Congress can grant broad powers to take actions in time of war. The Bush administration has had almost five years since 9/11 to ask for FISA to be amended. Their party controls both houses of Congress. Instead they chose to simply ignore the law. Do you think the war on terrorism justifies giving the president dictatorial powers?--agr 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Domestic?

message: I think it is very important that a majority of this article is condensed to shorten the length. Every detail sould be provided on a seperate page with the "main article" link at the top. I am going to start on this. If anyone has a comment on my changes, feel free to revert and talk to me about it. --Connor K. 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing Size

message: There was a ruling today (see here).  I don't have the time or the energy to update this article today.  Anybody else up to it?--WilliamThweatt 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New ruling today (Oct 4)

message: Lichtbau filed an NYT story November 28th. He reports that Bush relented on denying security clearances to Justice Department investigators. There was an AP story yesterday about a Bush appointed panel having said that everything was fine. I feel as WilliamThweatt did in regard to editing - "I don't have the time or the energy to update this article today.  Anybody else up to it?" Metarhyme 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TPMmuckraker has a rather different take than AP.  I'm not sure what you mean by "could come back to life".  The eavesdropping without court oversight never stopped.Crust 20:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the wikipedia article about the controversy - this article - could return to being a lively scene. Early on one editor got banned for threatening (with specifics) to get an anon sacked. That was perhaps the sharpest incident in the article's Truth vs. NPOV wrangle when the controversy was fresh. The controversy has been languishing due to lack of information. The Administration's ability to cover things up diminishes starting in January.  Metarhyme 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sorry for the confusion.Crust 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Could come back to life

message: Ah, some developments reported in NYT 18 Jan 07 - the article needs an update:
: Court to Oversee U.S. Wiretapping in Terror Cases
: White House Retreats Under Pressure
: Also, Gonzales to face Leahy and the rest of the Justice Committee Senators 18Jan07; his letter:
: Text of Gonzales letter
Metarhyme 07:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FISC Judge settles with DoJ 

message: The responses section currently is organized like this:
# 3 Responses
    * 3.1 Administration response to press stories
    * 3.2 Congressional response
    * 3.3 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court developments
    * 3.4 Proposed FISA Amendments
    * 3.5 Third-party legal analysis
          o 3.5.1 Arguing that the program is legal or probably legal
          o 3.5.2 Arguing that the program is illegal or probably illegal
    * 3.6 Legal challenges
    * 3.7 Warrantless wiretapping by NSA ruled unconstitutional by District Court
# 4 FISA Court order
I propose, since these two sections be reorganized like this:
 3 Responses & analyzations
    * 3.1 Administration response to press stories
    * 3.2 Congressional response
    * 3.3 FISA Court analysis
    * 3.4 Third-party legal analysis
          o 3.4.1 Arguing that the program is legal or probably legal
          o 3.4.2 Arguing that the program is illegal or probably illegal
 4 Legal developments
    * 4.1 Congressionally proposed FISA amendments
    * 4.2 Legal challenges 
    * 4.3 Warrantless wiretapping by NSA ruled unconstitutional by district court
    * 4.4 FISA Court order
*The most significant change is moving "Proposed FISA Amendments" down a few (and pre-pending "congressionally" to it).  That is, in fact, the only change in order.
*Other than that, it's just moving the split point between section 3 and 4 up a few,
*and some renaming: renaming section 4 "legal developments", section 3 "responses and analyzations", and "Foreighn Intelligence.... developments" to "FISA Court analysis".
Thoughts? Kevin Baastalk 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good to me.  My only issue is "analyzations" isn't a word. Crust 17:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Analyzation.  1: The act of analyzing, or separating into constituent parts; analysis. <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=analyzation">from dictionary.com</a> Kevin Baastalk 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, "is a rare and probably seldom-needed synonym of analysis".  It's not in the complete OED (standard reference for British English).  But I'm getting pedantic. ;) Crust 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal for minor re-organization