Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Transcript of the Edward Snowden portion of my show this week [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)50. It is more complicated than that, but not in the way you are asserting.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm
Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Nos. 83-1313, 83-1315, 83-1317, 83-1318
1984.C02.40409 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 743 F.2d 59
decided: August 8, 1984.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ANDREW DUGGAN, EAMON MEEHAN, GABRIEL MEGAHEY, AND COLM MEEHAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
.
.
.
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith " , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.
In Keith, the government argued that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 et seq. ("Title III" , recognized the constitutional authority of the President to conduct domestic security surveillances without a warrant. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the legislative history made clear that Title III was not intended to legislate with respect to national security surveillances. The Court went on to hold that a warrant was required in Keith under the Fourth Amendment; but the implication of its discussion was that the warrant requirement is flexible and that different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment in light of the different purposes and practical considerations of domestic national security surveillances. 407 U.S. at 321-24. Thus, the Court observed
that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I find it much easier to believe that the GG, the ES & the PO are continuing to lie like crazy.
Whisp
Jun 2014
#3
Why should they release anything? Given that Mr. Snowden has charges pending in the federal docket,
msanthrope
Jun 2014
#12
I have no idea. I would not have released it. But his attorneys can release what they wish. nt
msanthrope
Jun 2014
#42
My target audience is the reality based community, not Snowden/Greenwald sycophants
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#19
LMFAO ...yea that. Lots of reality base going on there. Birds of a feather I guess.
L0oniX
Jun 2014
#81
Thanks for exposing yourself by deeming those who don't share your view as brown nosers...
MrMickeysMom
Jun 2014
#37
I hope we are all in a position within a few more years to embrace the good...
MrMickeysMom
Jun 2014
#78
The Libertarian right is on your and Snowdens side they love that this is a
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#87
"EFF to Court: There's No Doubt the Government Destroyed NSA Spying Evidence…"
MrMickeysMom
Jun 2014
#39
No, it's not. You, like Snowden, are practicing Constitutional law without training.
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#48
Snowden is like those idiots who send hatemail to DU for T/Sing them and talk about how
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#23
With much thanks to Iching Carpenter for this reminder and huge chunk of wisdom ...
Aerows
Jun 2014
#11
Nah SnowGlen didn't "like" what was goin on so they decided to bust airThang wide open... you know
uponit7771
Jun 2014
#24
He must have suckered the ACLU, and other civil liberties groups, free press organizations,
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2014
#29
If the answer to the first half of question one is "yes," then the rest is justified.
morningfog
Jun 2014
#40
According to this org map of NSA divisions, GC does NOT have a compliance and oversight division.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2014
#44
It's not a supreme court decision. It's dozens of appellate decisions that the Supreme Court
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#65
Sorry. The job of the appellate courts is to follow the precedents set out by the
JDPriestly
Jun 2014
#103
Funny. Feinstein & Rodgers agree that he is not a spy for Russia. Which is what Snowden was asserted
Luminous Animal
Jun 2014
#68
He said he was not a spy, he didn't say for whom... and yeah, the email thing is a open shut
uponit7771
Jun 2014
#72
On the edit, it's the "Russia" conversation where he said he wasn't a spy not the China one....
uponit7771
Jun 2014
#75
Brian Williams pressed Snowden to specify something the NSA had done that was illegal.
randome
Jun 2014
#83
I see the little Eddie "I am not a spy" Eddie/wouldn't lie-brigrade is here to defend their "hero"..
Cha
Jun 2014
#71
Conservatives love Snowdens allegations as they love anything that hurts Obama.
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#76
I wasn't linking myself to EarlG I was linking you to those who send him hatemail
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#101
"those who love Snowden and Greenwald are the ones angling for a spot on Conservative media" LMFAO
L0oniX
Jun 2014
#85
READ Greenwald's book, everyone. It disabuses the OP of all this arduous case building. nt
ancianita
Jun 2014
#104