quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000Look RC, you already deny that US Citizens were monitored...which you could not possibly know. Now you're going to declare what is legal and what is not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_


They were tapping into the major interconnections between the telecommunication companies ON US SOIL.

Because the calls to and from the foriegn terrorist were going through the exchanges on U.S. soil.

quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#NSA_surveillance_program
Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA (see 50 U.S.C. § 1802 50 U.S.C. § 1809 ). The complete details of the executive order are not known, but according to statements by the administration,[41] the authorization covers telephone calls originating overseas from or to a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US.

quote:

I deny that US citizens had their phones tapped. If they were talking with certain known foriegn terrorist, then then their conversations were reconded because the terrorist was tapped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

Do y'all really think that when someone has a tap on thier phone, and if they call you; that your conversation will not be recorded, and what ever you said can not be used in court or anywhere else the authorities so desire.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
the difference is that there is a warrant in that case. And once again there is already a method by which government can get a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER beginning surveillance so I am not even sure why there is a need for warantless tapping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
the difference is that there is a warrant in that case. And once again there is already a method by which government can get a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER beginning surveillance so I am not even sure why there is a need for warantless tapping.

No the difference is that they were tapping known foriegn terrorist, and any conversation of US citizens that were overheard were incidental to the known foriegn terrorist call the US citizen, or the citizen calling the known foriegn terrorist. Any call with known foriegn terrorist should be listened to.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And in that light the justice department had previously set up a mechanism by which that could be accomplished, a mechanism which allowed up to 72 hours for the government to get a warrant AFTER surveillance began.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
And in that light the justice department had previously set up a mechanism by which that could be accomplished, a mechanism which allowed up to 72 hours for the government to get a warrant AFTER surveillance began.

If the authorities felt they needed a tap on the US citizens phone to monitor all thier calls; they would have applied for a warrant.

But they were not tapping the US Citizens phone, they were tapping the known foriegn terrorist's phone.

Are you really tring to say that if a tap is on a Mafioso's phone, then before they can listen to whomever they call, that the authorities must also obtain a warrant on the person's phone who is recieving the call?


Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
May I recommend that you read up on FISA then we can discuss as it seems that you haven't been exposed to the rules and the procedures laid out under FISA.