Wait, everyone take a step back for a second. I'm reading the FISA Act of 1978...

[Gravitycollapse]

And the amended 2008 law and I cannot seem to find anywhere in the text that authorizes surveillance of a United States citizen within the actual United States.

I realize this text is very long and tedious. So maybe I'm missing it. Can someone point out to me where in the law there is authorization to surveil anyone within the United States?

http://intelligence.senate.gov/laws/pl110261.pdf

‘‘SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PER- SONS.

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney Gen- eral and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authoriza- tion, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence informa- tion.
‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)—
‘‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; ‘‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
‘‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; ‘‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United
States; and
‘‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

‘‘SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TAR- GETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
‘‘(a) JURISDICTION OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEIL- LANCE COURT.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisi- tion constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is con- ducted within the United States.
‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States while an order issued pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.

It's one thing to claim that the state is covertly surveilling. It's another to present legal evidence. I am not saying such evidence does not exist. But I'm having a hard time finding it.



On Edit: Let me clarify my intent here. My intent is not to solidify a preconceived narrative in support of state surveillance. I actually went looking to prove just the opposite. I was looking for evidence to back up the claim that there is publicly attainable documents making explicit the legality of surveillance of US citizens. I have so far been unable to accomplish that goal.


Update: I have reviewed the court document given to Verizon. This is the first document I've found that mandates the surveillance of United States citizens within the United States.

The document is here ----> http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order?guni=Article:in%20body%20link


This of course is assuming the document is not fake.

[randome]

1. You didn't read it out loud, did you?

Because I'm given to understand that opens a portal to Hell and all the undead politicians crawl forth into our realm.

Be prepared.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gravitycollapse]

2. Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice, Beatlejuice....

SHIIIIIIIIIIT

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Bumping this for the update.

[ohheckyeah]

7. A fake?

The government admitted to it.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578528181094177900.html

[OnyxCollie]

5. Thomas Nelson, a lawyer in Oregon,

was representing the Al Haramain charity, which had been accused of supporting terrorism.

During discovery he was sent a document, apparently by accident, that revealed the NSA wiretap.

He believes his office and home had been entered to try to recover it.

The government dropped the case rather than let the document be unsealed.

The Return of Black Bag Searches? Oregon Attorney on Why He Feels Federal Agents Broke into His Home and Office to Conduct Clandestine Searches
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/23/the_return_of_black_bag_searches

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. Nelson, you have a lawsuit that’s been filed against the N.S.A., where you allege that you’ve got clear evidence of intercepts. What can you tell us about that lawsuit and your decision to file it?

THOMAS NELSON: Certainly. The lawsuit alleges that the N.S.A. engaged in what we think are illegal intercepts or wiretaps of communications between two attorneys in Washington, D.C. and an individual in Saudi Arabia, who was at that time the director of an Oregon corporation called the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. And we, in our complaint, allege that those intercepts occurred between February — at least February — and May of 2004, and that the intercepts were, once they were obtained, were used by the government in a — if you will — a secret manner, now not so secret, but in a secret manner to harm the interests of the corporation and, of course, the attorneys who were talking to the director.

There’s two issues here. There’s, number one, the illegal intercepts. And there’s, number two, the attorney-client issue, because the communications that were occurring were between the an attorney, on the one hand — two attorneys, on the one hand, and a director of the corporation, on the other.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain exactly — I mean, this is very significant — the evidence that you have? Looking at a Christian Science Monitor piece, it says that of all the lawsuits that are suing the N.S.A., it looks like yours may provide the federal courts with the most detailed glimpse yet into the clandestine counterterrorism effort, and that’s because the biggest challenges for these cases, which have been filed in New York, Michigan and California, is that plaintiffs don’t have access to records of highly classified government surveillance activities and, therefore, can’t be sure they were personally subjected to covert phone-tapping or email reading by the U.S. government. But yours, the Oregon suit, may manage to leap over that imposing legal hurdle, because you’ve apparently seen these phone logs and other top-secret records that were inadvertently provided to you. How were they inadvertently provided?

THOMAS NELSON: Yeah, that’s something I really am very uncomfortable discussing, because we did file a document with the court when we filed our complaint, and the document was placed under seal, based on our request. We wanted to make sure that we didn’t cross any lines and we didn’t disadvantage our clients. But let me say this, Amy, that we have specified chapter and verse, time and place, involving intercepted communications between the attorneys and the client. How that — I think there’s been some coverage nationally regarding at least one aspect of that and some allegations, and if you want to go back, take a look at the Dave Ottoway report in the — I think it’s March 3 issue of the Washington Post, where he talks about his obtaining a document that, according to that article, was classified and how he had it for awhile, then the F.B.I. came and brought it back. I’m not saying that we have the same document, and I’m not saying we don’t. I’m just saying that there was a document out there that apparently had chapter and verse in it.

Our document or our material is, of course, under seal. The local paper, The Oregonian, has moved to open the — unseal the document, and the United States government has been opposing that, and I expect it will oppose it very vigorously. So, I can’t really get into the substance of that document.

[GiaGiovanni]

6. I would actually like to hear the answer to this

Someone gave me the link to a 1984 decision that supposedly changed the way the law was applied. Let me see if I can find it. It's on the long thread about Greenwald.