The New York Times editorial of July 29th is worth commenting on. We would draw attention to purely domestic wiretapping. There is no doubt that it occurs in multiple technologies, even incurring embarrassing incidents and violations of privacy in the installation process.
President Bush is asking for FISA law updating. The implication is that he would have used the FISA process for his spying program outside FISA had the technologies not been so involved. Again, there seems to be no one in government informed enough to know to challenge that spin job.(2) There seems to be no one shrewd enough to ask if Bush means to imply that existing FISA law does not allow electronic surveillance.
Bush tries to paint a picture of this hugely free country where even spies are not under electronic surveillance. MIM reads the bourgeois press in dismay to see no one able to offer concrete information or examples to the contrary.
The FISA law allows electronic surveillance very explicitly, so there is nothing technology-wise that is relevant in Bush's remarks. What Bush does not like is the FISA law's restrictions on how to deal with U.$. citizens:
(h) "Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means--
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
Also relevant is the section on what an "agent" of a foreign power is, something picked up in the "Patriot Act" as well when it comes to U.$. citizens:
any person who--MIM would guess that "A" enables infinite opportunism in its readers. The word "may" is open-ended and the comma before the "which" in "A" makes it unclear why the phrase is necessary. For example, if one gives the Chinese a newspaper clipping, it may not involve a violation of criminal statutes, but there is a comma where it should not be.
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
MIM has made it clear before that president Bush operates outside the law. This may matter more to the imperialists and lawyers themselves than to MIM. Politically, we do not believe the Amerikan public cares that Bush is outside the law. Subjectively, Bush probably just tells himself he is a president at "war" able to do what he wants via the Constitution. That's what "war on terror" means.
Lastly, we want to say we know that our friends and even the neutral camp are numerous on this point. We wish they would stop trying to communicate with us.
Notes:
1. New York Times 29July07.
2. http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Briefing/2007/07/19/boehner_urges_boosting_fisa/5682/