[IP] Re: Did wiretap laws put soldiers at risk?

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jon M. Peha" <peha@cmu.edu>
Date: October 15, 2007 8:41:01 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Did wiretap laws put soldiers at risk?

As Brett Glass and others have correctly pointed out, it is clear that
the FISA ACT would not force intelligence agents to delay this kind  
of wiretap.
But there is more to this story.

First, the New York Post did not invent it.  This dangerous  
misinformation comes
from a September House Intelligence Committee hearing in which  
Director of
National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified.  (This is a man who  
presumably
knows that FISA was not the real impediment.)

I haven't read the transcript yet, but if other press reports are  
accurate (e.g. see USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-23-missing_n.htm? 
loc=interstitialskip ),
then the 12-hour delay occurred because agents were waiting for  
approval from the Attorney General,
not the FISA Court.  That presumably means the problem occurred not  
because of the FISA law
passed by Congress, but because of mismanagement within the Justice  
Department.

Jon Peha
Professor, Carnegie Mellon University


David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
> Date: October 15, 2007 2:05:56 PM EDT
> To: dave@farber.net, ip@v2.listbox.com
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  Did wiretap laws put soldiers at risk?
>
> Dave:
>
> This story is, indeed, nonsense.
>
> Even if the incident had occurred on American soil, the FISA
> law would have allowed for retroactive approval of wiretaps --
> something which even the most inexperienced of lawyers would
> know.
>
> Secondly, because the incident did NOT occur on American
> soil, no approval was needed for a wiretap.
>
> Thirdly, one must remember that the New York Post -- a
> tabloid whose accuracy is on a par with that of the UK's
> Daily Sun, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same person who
> controls Fox News. Like Fox, the Post's coverage is heavily
> slanted toward the agendas of the Republican party and the
> Bush administration. As they say: Res ipso loquitor.
>
> One can only hope that the Wall Street Journal, which has
> just been acquired by Murdoch in a very damaging instance
> of media consolidation, will not also begin to publish
> biased, unsupported accounts which seem to be explicitly
> intended to mislead the public and persuade Congress to
> abridge citizens' Constitutional rights.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------