FISA: READ ABOUT THE LAW BUSH HAS BROKEN

As the debate rages over whether or not Bush broke the law by authorizing unwarranted wiretaps, it's probably a good idea to get educated about the law itself. To that end, I've done a bit of research and you should, too--after all, I could be making this shit up. :)

OK--before I get started, I'm going to go a bit out of order. I had originally written this article in the order in which I did my research, but my last stop was FISA, itself, and I found a section that seems to nail Bush to the wall undeniably. The following comes from the text of the law, specifically, [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=jurisdiction&url=/uscode/html/uscode50a/usc_sec_50a_00002156----000-.html|TITLE 50, APPENDIX App., DEFENSE, ACT, TITLE VII § 2156] (sorry, I hope that makes sense!):

(b) The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have jurisdiction of violations of this Act {sections 2061 to 2171 of this Appendix} or any rule, regulation, order, or subpena thereunder, and of all civil actions under this Act {said sections} to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this Act {said sections} or any rule, regulation, order, or subpena thereunder.

What this seems to mean to mine, uneducated, eyes is that FISA covers any actions that occur on soil governed by American law. In other words, this is confirmation of what Senator Specter said on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday--that any domestic wiretapping has to go through the FISA courts.

This is it folks--no denying it--no dodging it. Bush's actions are once again breaking the law (ThePete.Com readers [http://thepete.com/bush-43-admin-lies-breaks-fed-law-again/|remember the last time]). That said, have a look a the rest of my post as I originally wrote it:

First off, I hit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act|the entry for FISA] at Wikipedia.Org. It's got some good stuff on FISA, including this littled diddy:

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information {2a}; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) {4} or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.

OOPS! Let's unpack that one before I get too holier than Bush. Basically, if I'm reading that right, it means that FISA says that the USG can tap any conversations it wants so long as NO AMERICANS ARE INVOLVED. Bush has said that the only time domestic wires were tapped was when one of the parties were AQ. That's illegal according to this section of FISA.

Here's another clip from the Wikipedia entry:

Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties {10a} and civil liabilities. {11a}

Well, THAT'S good--now it's just up to the Republicans to make the effort to do their jobs. However, I wonder what you do when the head cop of the nation (aka the Attorney General) is one of the guys breaking the law.

This next bit actually seems to promise jail time for anyone who breaks FISA. Check it out:

Both the subchapters covering physical searches and electronic surveillance provide for criminal and civil liability for violations of FISA.

Criminal sanctions follows violations of electronic surveillance by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under the color of law or through disclosing information known to have been obtained through unauthorized surveillance. The penalties for either act are fines up to $10,000, up to five years in jail, or both.{11}

To follow up, here's how Wikipedia.Org defines "color of law":

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal right to act but which is actually in violation. For example, a police officer who mistakenly arrests another without probable cause may have been acting under the color of law.

Sounds familiar don't it?

Damn--Bush in jail? How surreat would that be?

Another good resource is [http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html|the FISA FAQ] at EFF.Org. They've got a whole stack of answers to questions about FISA. What's really nice about their FAQ is that it was prepared back in late September of 2001--as if they knew after 911 people would be concerned about it.

So, this is where I decided to hit the Act, itself. You can check out FISA on your own by checking out [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html|the text of it] at Law.Cornell.Edu.