World War Three has started

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:45:30 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
>wrote:
>
>>In >, Dave Head wrote in part:
>>
>>>That does no good - they can't _distribute_ the information until it is
>>>approved by the court. Sooo... as I said in another post, if the NSA
>>>finds out that there is a meeting of the bad guys at Chico's Pizza in
>>>Chicago at 9:00 AM, and the FISA court approves this at 9:30 PM, then the
>>>opportunity for the NSA to tell the FBI to intercept the meeting is lost.
>>
>> Can you cite this?
>
>Nope. Can't remember where I heard it, either.
>
>But that would have to be the way it works, wouldn't it? Otherwise, if you
>just go distribute the information, then apply for the warrant, and it is
>turned down, then you've disclosed that information that the judge just said
>you can't use. You may have even illegally arrested somone using information
>you can't use.

Well, $#!+ sometimes happens, and the evidence will be not allowed in
court and the suspects will have to be let go. The government has 72
hours to make their case.

>> Meanwhile, I tried Googling this matter and found US Code Title 50
>>Chapter 36 Subchapter I 1805.
>>
>> That prohibits use in trials and proceedings and disclosures of the
>>information if an order for a warrant is denied, 72 hours pass without a
>>warrant being applied for, or the surveillance is abandoned without
>>seeking a warrant.
>
>Well, it prevents the "disclosures" of information if the warrant is denied, so
>doesn't that pretty much say that you better not be distributing that
>information without getting an approval first? If it is denied, then you sure
>can't "undistribute" it, and you'll be going to jail for violating the judge's
>denial of your warrant.

Won't that merely make the evidence inadmissible in court? I don't hear
about FBI agents or police officers going to jail for gathering evidence
that gets ruled illegal to use in court, such as without warrants. Worst
I ever hear about is false arrest lawsuits, and those are not common,
since winning one requires the plaintiff to mount a preponderance of
evidence that the arrest should not have been done. If the FBI makes the
arrest, then I expect a false arrest lawsuit to be filed in Federal court,
and I don't see most members of any Federal jury pool being sympathetic to
terrorist suspects.

>> If FBI agents come to Chico's Pizza at 9:30 AM in response to info
>>gathered at 9 AM, it sure appears to me they can arrest the suspects if
>>the info indicates they have to do with international terrorism or an act
>>of war. And that they just have to let them go scot free if they don't
>>get that warrant by 9 AM 3 days later.
>
>They may have _collected_ the information at 3:00 AM about the meeting that was
>_scheduled_ for 9:00 AM and finally got a judge to approve it at 9:30 AM and
>told the FBI immediately who rolled a car to Chico's that arrived at 9:45...
>and everyone involved in the terrorist plot had already left.... for the
>airport...

It surely appears to me that in that case, the FBI can arrest the
suspects at 9:01 AM, and have until 3 AM 3 days later to get the warrant.
Law enforcement makes arrests based on information of questionable
legality all the time, and that gets sorted out later in court. If there
is actually any significant evidence against the suspects and the FBI gets
that warrant by 3 AM 3 days later, what's gonna happen? Suspects try to
get evidence not admitted into the trial against them - well the warrant
was obtained in a manner provided by law! Suspects launch a lawsuit -
likely to be tried in Federal court? What are the suspects' chances there
when the jurors are mostly suburban/rural and in any case having a week or
two of their lives ruined by terrorist suspects hoping for their sympathy?

- Don Klipstein )

"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Dave Head wrote in part:
>
> >That does no good - they can't _distribute_ the information until it is
> >approved by the court. Sooo... as I said in another post, if the NSA
> >finds out that there is a meeting of the bad guys at Chico's Pizza in
> >Chicago at 9:00 AM, and the FISA court approves this at 9:30 PM, then the
> >opportunity for the NSA to tell the FBI to intercept the meeting is lost.
>
> Can you cite this?
>
> Meanwhile, I tried Googling this matter and found US Code Title 50
> Chapter 36 Subchapter I 1805.
>
> That prohibits use in trials and proceedings and disclosures of the
> information if an order for a warrant is denied, 72 hours pass without a
> warrant being applied for, or the surveillance is abandoned without
> seeking a warrant.
>
> If FBI agents come to Chico's Pizza at 9:30 AM in response to info
> gathered at 9 AM, it sure appears to me they can arrest the suspects if
> the info indicates they have to do with international terrorism or an act
> of war. And that they just have to let them go scot free if they don't
> get that warrant by 9 AM 3 days later.
>
At this point, I'll throw in that sometimes stopping a planned action trumps
a conviction. If you have intel of an imminent danger, like in the next 3
hours, you throw a wrench in the unfolding plan even if the bad guys walk.

Of course, in WWII, England had such intel and couldn't act in order to not
compromise some future intel, and a city got bombed. X dead now versus Y
dead later, when you don't know X or Y beyond educated guesses, has got to
be a mind-killing choice.

aem sends....

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:02:38 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:45:30 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In >, Dave Head wrote in part:
>>>
>>>>That does no good - they can't _distribute_ the information until it is
>>>>approved by the court. Sooo... as I said in another post, if the NSA
>>>>finds out that there is a meeting of the bad guys at Chico's Pizza in
>>>>Chicago at 9:00 AM, and the FISA court approves this at 9:30 PM, then the
>>>>opportunity for the NSA to tell the FBI to intercept the meeting is lost.
>>>
>>> Can you cite this?
>>
>>Nope. Can't remember where I heard it, either.
>>
>>But that would have to be the way it works, wouldn't it?
>>Otherwise, if you
>>just go distribute the information, then apply for the warrant, and it is
>>turned down, then you've disclosed that information that the judge just said
>>you can't use. You may have even illegally arrested somone using information
>>you can't use.
>
> Well, $#!+ sometimes happens, and the evidence will be not allowed in
>court and the suspects will have to be let go. The government has 72
>hours to make their case.
>
>>> Meanwhile, I tried Googling this matter and found US Code Title 50
>>>Chapter 36 Subchapter I 1805.
>>>
>>> That prohibits use in trials and proceedings and disclosures of the
>>>information if an order for a warrant is denied, 72 hours pass without a
>>>warrant being applied for, or the surveillance is abandoned without
>>>seeking a warrant.
>>
>>Well, it prevents the "disclosures" of information if the warrant is denied, so
>>doesn't that pretty much say that you better not be distributing that
>>information without getting an approval first? If it is denied, then you sure
>>can't "undistribute" it, and you'll be going to jail for violating the judge's
>>denial of your warrant.
>
> Won't that merely make the evidence inadmissible in court?

Well, we might logically think that, but the cite you ferreted out says,
"distribute". Dunno - IANAL - but it looks suspiciously like it means what I
thought it meant, that the NSA can't tell the FBI about the Al Queda meeting
until there's court approval.

>I don't hear
>about FBI agents or police officers going to jail for gathering evidence
>that gets ruled illegal to use in court, such as without warrants.

Yeah, the evidence is thrown out by using the exclusionary principal. But...
this is not stuff that comes under the FISA court act, either. Don't know if
they're different like that or not.

> Worst
>I ever hear about is false arrest lawsuits, and those are not common,
>since winning one requires the plaintiff to mount a preponderance of
>evidence that the arrest should not have been done. If the FBI makes the
>arrest, then I expect a false arrest lawsuit to be filed in Federal court,
>and I don't see most members of any Federal jury pool being sympathetic to
>terrorist suspects.

This would all be extremely complicated as the fact of the gathering of the
evidence is or was top secret itself, so referring to it other than simply
using it might get difficult.

>>> If FBI agents come to Chico's Pizza at 9:30 AM in response to info
>>>gathered at 9 AM, it sure appears to me they can arrest the suspects if
>>>the info indicates they have to do with international terrorism or an act
>>>of war. And that they just have to let them go scot free if they don't
>>>get that warrant by 9 AM 3 days later.
>>
>>They may have _collected_ the information at 3:00 AM about the meeting that was
>>_scheduled_ for 9:00 AM and finally got a judge to approve it at 9:30 AM and
>>told the FBI immediately who rolled a car to Chico's that arrived at 9:45...
>>and everyone involved in the terrorist plot had already left.... for the
>>airport...
>
>It surely appears to me that in that case, the FBI can arrest the
>suspects at 9:01 AM, and have until 3 AM 3 days later to get the warrant.

I am suspicious that the NSA, that gathered the info, can't tell the FBI about
the info until the FISA court judge says its OK to do it. It seems to be how
the cite you offered is worded. Again, IANAL, but that's what it looks like to
me.

>Law enforcement makes arrests based on information of questionable
>legality all the time, and that gets sorted out later in court. If there
>is actually any significant evidence against the suspects and the FBI gets
>that warrant by 3 AM 3 days later, what's gonna happen? Suspects try to
>get evidence not admitted into the trial against them - well the warrant
>was obtained in a manner provided by law! Suspects launch a lawsuit -
>likely to be tried in Federal court? What are the suspects' chances there
>when the jurors are mostly suburban/rural and in any case having a week or
>two of their lives ruined by terrorist suspects hoping for their sympathy?

My concern is more that I'm right, the NSA can't tell the FBI in a timely
manner, and the bad guys get away with whatever they're up to.

Dave Head.

> - Don Klipstein )

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:02:38 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:45:30 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In >, Dave Head wrote in part:
>>>>
>>>>>That does no good - they can't _distribute_ the information until it is
>>>>>approved by the court. Sooo... as I said in another post, if the NSA
>>>>>finds out that there is a meeting of the bad guys at Chico's Pizza in
>>>>>Chicago at 9:00 AM, and the FISA court approves this at 9:30 PM, then the
>>>>>opportunity for the NSA to tell the FBI to intercept the meeting is lost.
>>>>
>>>> Can you cite this?
>>>
>>>Nope. Can't remember where I heard it, either.
>>>
>>>But that would have to be the way it works, wouldn't it?
>>>Otherwise, if you
>>>just go distribute the information, then apply for the warrant, and it is
>>>turned down, then you've disclosed that information that the judge just said
>>>you can't use. You may have even illegally arrested somone using information
>>>you can't use.
>>
>> Well, $#!+ sometimes happens, and the evidence will be not allowed in
>>court and the suspects will have to be let go. The government has 72
>>hours to make their case.
>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I tried Googling this matter and found US Code Title 50
>>>>Chapter 36 Subchapter I 1805.
>>>>
>>>> That prohibits use in trials and proceedings and disclosures of the
>>>>information if an order for a warrant is denied, 72 hours pass without a
>>>>warrant being applied for, or the surveillance is abandoned without
>>>>seeking a warrant.
>>>
>>>Well, it prevents the "disclosures" of information if the warrant is denied, so
>>>doesn't that pretty much say that you better not be distributing that
>>>information without getting an approval first? If it is denied, then you sure
>>>can't "undistribute" it, and you'll be going to jail for violating the judge's
>>>denial of your warrant.
>>
>> Won't that merely make the evidence inadmissible in court?
>
>Well, we might logically think that, but the cite you ferreted out says,
>"distribute". Dunno - IANAL - but it looks suspiciously like it means what I
>thought it meant, that the NSA can't tell the FBI about the Al Queda meeting
>until there's court approval.

I believe that what I cited is (stating URL for the first time):

(split into 2 lines)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

I just tried a text search in that page for the word "distribute" and
got "not found".

>>I don't hear about FBI agents or police officers going to jail for
>>gathering evidence that gets ruled illegal to use in court, such as
>>without warrants.
>
>Yeah, the evidence is thrown out by using the exclusionary principal. But...
>this is not stuff that comes under the FISA court act, either. Don't know if
>they're different like that or not.
>
>> Worst
>>I ever hear about is false arrest lawsuits, and those are not common,
>>since winning one requires the plaintiff to mount a preponderance of
>>evidence that the arrest should not have been done. If the FBI makes the
>>arrest, then I expect a false arrest lawsuit to be filed in Federal court,
>>and I don't see most members of any Federal jury pool being sympathetic to
>>terrorist suspects.
>
>This would all be extremely complicated as the fact of the gathering of the
>evidence is or was top secret itself, so referring to it other than simply
>using it might get difficult.

I surely expect such complications to hurt the plaintiffs in a false
arrest lawsuit at least as much as the defendants!

<SNIP for space hypothetical 9 AM pizza joint meeting caught by NSA being
planned at 3 AM>

>>It surely appears to me that in that case, the FBI can arrest the
>>suspects at 9:01 AM, and have until 3 AM 3 days later to get the warrant.
>
>I am suspicious that the NSA, that gathered the info, can't tell the FBI about
>the info until the FISA court judge says its OK to do it. It seems to be how
>the cite you offered is worded.

I did not see it that way...

> Again, IANAL, but that's what it looks like to me.
>
>>Law enforcement makes arrests based on information of questionable
>>legality all the time, and that gets sorted out later in court. If there
>>is actually any significant evidence against the suspects and the FBI gets
>>that warrant by 3 AM 3 days later, what's gonna happen? Suspects try to
>>get evidence not admitted into the trial against them - well the warrant
>>was obtained in a manner provided by law! Suspects launch a lawsuit -
>>likely to be tried in Federal court? What are the suspects' chances there
>>when the jurors are mostly suburban/rural and in any case having a week or
>>two of their lives ruined by terrorist suspects hoping for their sympathy?
>
>My concern is more that I'm right, the NSA can't tell the FBI in a timely
>manner, and the bad guys get away with whatever they're up to.

What happens if the NSA tells the FBI before the warrant issues if you
are right? Surely appears to me limited to a lawsuit in Federal court,
with jurors unlikely to be sympathetic to international terrorism
arrestees!

And I thought one main battle was to increase the 72 hour deadline - how
is that going to help? And I am surely under the impression that much of
the popularity of this Bush-proposed BS is relying on ignorance of the
fact that wiretap warrants against international terrorism suspects can be
obtained up to 72 hours retroactively!

If NSA finds info worth making a quick arrest over, I would bet the
ranch that the FBI would do so and count on that warrant being issued
within 72 hours of the oldest information that the NSA allows to be known
outside the NSA to be received.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >,
"John of Aix" > wrote:

> Don't forget the duct tape, the North Koreans are sure to use chemical
> weapons on New York

Duct tape has recently been found to be highly effective at removing
warts! More effective than freezing, even!

If NK attacks us with any chemical that promotes warts, we'll slaughter
them with duct tape!

(disclaimer: duct tape has also been recently shown to be very
ineffective in sealing ducts)

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> They'd have to get it there first ( assuming they even have any such materiel
> ).

The DHS is securing the ports of entry into the U.S. 123 Fraud Blvd was
just a fluke.

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:

> Nope. Can't remember where I heard it, either.

Either O'Reilly or Limbaugh. No wonder you can't remember.

Eeyore > writes:

>> Don't forget the duct tape, the North Koreans are sure to use chemical
>> weapons on New York

: Good. Then we'll have an excuse to use plutonium weapons on Pyongyang.

> Only an American could find solace in such an idiotic idea.


Your anti-Americanism is duly noted. Your credibility is a casualty
thereof.



Geoff

--
"What happened is a bunch of arabs decided to
commit suicide by Israel." -- Morton Davis

Dave Head > writes:

> Also, there have been two incidents of the ultra-left-wing
> New York Times revealing things about how the US Government
> is thwarting the terrorists on a world-wide scale. Both were
> classified Top Secret, but were printed in the NYT anyway.

I'm on the opinion that Keller and Sulzberger should do time
for that. Liberals need to be shown that treasonous actions
have consequences, and that the country won't stand for their
sort of conduct.

Ideally, that time would be served at Guantanamo Bay. They
could be down there with the terrorists they obviously love
so much, with nothing to read but a Koran. One that was
printed in Arabic.


> This is just the ultra-liberal leftist New York Times trying
> to damage this Republican administration any way it can, while
> recklessly putting the country at risk.

Yup. The magnitude of their hatred of Bush obviously exceeds
that of their love of their country and their concern for the
welfare of its citizens. Michelle Malkin is right: these people
are unhinged. They're dangerous, and should be removed from
positions of influence whenever possible.

(By the way, people, please edit your posts. There's no reason
to include so much quoted text in your followups. The idea isn't
to include the entire thread intact within each and every post.)



Geoff

--
"What happened is a bunch of arabs decided to
commit suicide by Israel." -- Morton Davis

Dave Head wrote:
>
> We have a bunch of left-wingers that are all in a stew about the supposed
> "warrentless wiretaps" that the NSA uses to monitor the phone calls between
> known terrorists overseas and "citizens" in the USA who are probably also
> terrorists.

Short memory, huh, Dave? I suppose you've never talked with the likes
of, say John Paul Sr. on the phone. Think about it. Muslim jihadists
aren't listed in the Yellow Pages under "Terrorists". They do other
things as well. Maybe even racing ...

> They don't want 'em doing that - they want 'em to get a warrant -
> but of course the time required to do that could be crucial. Plus, the court
> in question, created to issue these warrants, had delayed or denied some 5000
> plus of these, after having a history of previously denying exactly zero.

That couldn't possibly be because *the very same court* found the
current administration to be a tad overreaching, could it? Oh, no.
That couldn't be it.

> That's when the President consulted some people that gave him the opinion that
> he could do this without a warrant under the constitution. The left-wingers
> disagree - mostly as a partisan ploy, in my opinion - they oppose pretty much
> everything the President is doing, and are likely to get this country
> successfully attacked again if they prevail.

Partisan ploy, my ass! This ****ing idiot has signed *every single
piece* of legislation passed during his term with a disclaimer that, if
he doesn't feel like obeying it, *he won't*. Because he has vetoed
none, it forecloses Congress' opportunity to override his signing
statements. The American Bar Association ain't the most liberal
organization in the country, but even they're ****ed off about it.

In other legal news, he's also chosen to ignore the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights six ways from Sunday. It's not so much that I have
a problem using as many tools as possible against terrorists, but that,
as soon as this 'crisis' passes, every LEO in the country is going to
take his newfound invasive investigative procedures and use them
against guys like us. Yeah, Dave. You and me. You can ****in' count
on it. And how are we going to slam that door shut?

> Also, there have been two incidents of the ultra-left-wing New York Times
> revealing things about how the US Government is thwarting the terrorists on a
> world-wide scale. Both were classified Top Secret, but were printed in the NYT
> anyway. The 1st was the aforementioned warrantless wiretap information, the
> last was the fact that the intelligence services have been monitoring the
> financial transactions of the terrorists thru international banking. Maybe the
> terrorists knew,

Gee; and if the terrorists had been listening to W's speeches from
years ago in which he said *exactly the same things*, they'd know, too.
****, I even REMEMBER hearing that part. Are so brainwashed that you
believe everything the neocons are feeding you? So paranoid you can't
see straight? Taking stupid pills?

> maybe they didn't, but they damn sure all do now. This is
> just the ultra-liberal leftist New York Times trying to damage this Republican
> administration any way it can, while recklessly putting the country at risk.

And irrelevant.

> There's also the question of the intelligence services monitoring the telephone
> connectivity within the United States. They've been recording what phone
> number gets connected to what other phone number, millions of calls a day, for
> quite some time and storing it to enable tracing communications between
> terrorists after-the-fact. These left-wingers also oppose this, although the
> courts have also previously ruled tha this information is not protected in any
> way, but they just want to whine so as to attempt to damage the Republican
> administration, again at the possible cost of another terrorist attack.

No, dumb****. I remember a time when *I* had a right to some privacy.
Now I don't. And it's all W's fault. If you think for a second they
won't take this same principle and start screwing with native-born
Americans like you and me as soon as they think they can get away with
it, then apparently aliens have stolen your brain and replaced it with
a haggis.
--
C.R. Krieger
(Not as stupid as you ...)