I called Senator Pat Roberts today.

[Scout1071]

I would like to say that I couldn't believe my eyes when I read the quote below, but we all know what all know that he is not a man of truth, honor and dignity. Here's the snip:

"Bush gets key backing on spy policy
By MATT STEARNS
The Star’s Washington Correspondent

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration found a key ally on Capitol Hill Monday as it broadened its aggressive defense of a recently revealed domestic spying program that used warrantless surveillance.
Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “believes the program is consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution,” Sarah Little, Roberts’ spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
Roberts, in his first public remarks on the electronic surveillance program, indicated he has known about the program since he took over the committee in 2003. He said he believes the administration has taken proper safeguards to preserve Americans’ civil liberties and is in talks with Senate leaders on what additional oversight steps Congress should take, Little said."

And the link: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/13445932.htm

I was so pissed off upon reading that statement that I picked up the phone for a little clarification. I called the quoted Sarah Little's office (Sarah Ross Little - [phone] for anyone else who's interested) and asked the gentleman who answered the phone exactly what specific law and part of the Constitution was Pat Roberts citing? He referred to a case of THE US VS. TRONG? Anyway, he spelled it very quickly for me and it was about that time that the boss walked in my office and gave me the hand signals for come see me when you get off the phone, so I wrapped it up. It was possibly spelled "Truong". Anyway, I've done a couple of google searches with different spellings and can't find a thing. Anyone familiar with the case they cited?

And, of course I told him I thought that nobody has ever done a poorer job representing the State of Kansas than Pat Roberts. That I'd always been proud to be a native Kansan until the last several years where he has allowed us to look like fools and supported (or help devised) an illegal war, that facts of which will see the light of day sooner than later.

He said he'd pass along my comments to the Senator. Feel free to share your thoughts with him as well.

[atommom]

1. I wasn't surprised to see him supporting the administration on this one.

He has been enabling their crimes, and stonewalling investigations of those crimes, for years. Pure evil. :mad: We desperately need to get him out of office, but I'm afraid that won't happen for a very long time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I wrote him today Scout

I swear between him and that holy roller Brownback I am about ready to scream. Dole and Kassebaum were Republicans and they weren't nearly as bad. I even campaigned for Kassebaum the first time she ran for Senate. And I voted for Dole a couple times. I wasn't crazy about him but he wasn't a nutcase like Brownback or a butt kisser like Roberts.

I told Roberts that I am outraged by bush and his dictator attitude and I want an immediate investigation into this latest admission of spying on us without a warrant. It was a short letter but I was too mad to make it very long.

[Scout1071]

3. Never in my life did I think I'd long for the days of Bob Dole.....n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I didn't agree with Dole a lot of the time but

he is an honorable man. And he served Kansas well.

[liberalhistorian]

35. Yes, and I don't think he'd

be supporting this kind of thing at all were he still a senator. And he'd have the personal courage to buck his party and stand up against it also.

[atommom]

4. I wrote him too, even though I expect another infuriating letter back

in reply. It's like trying to reason with a rabid dog.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. He's better than Brownback when it comes to answering letters

He answers. Brownback usually doesn't.

[atommom]

37. I think the last time Brownback answered me was when I wrote

about church/state separation. His reply was such a concentrated load of fundie bullshit that my house stank for days.

So, yes, I do keep writing both of them. But I never get a response that makes me happy.

[TomClash]

5. Welcome to Fascism nt

[JoZbean]

6. The case you speak of is U.S. v. Truong

[Scout1071]

12. Do you have any more info on the case? n/t

[cureautismnow]

18. Here's a bit from fas.org:

1. The Decision in Truong.

The first significant judicial decision issued after FISA, United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), actually applied pre-FISA standards to review warrantless electronic surveillance conducted before the statute's enactment. See id. at 914 n.4, 915. The court in Truong upheld the use of warrantless electronic surveillance, concluding that "the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence * * * that a uniform warrant requirement would unduly frustrate the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities." Id. at 913. The court identified three reasons for that conclusion: "the need of the executive branch for flexibility, its practical experience, and its constitutional competence" as the "pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs." id. at 914.

The court in Truong held that "the executive branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when the surveillance is conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." 629 F.2d at 915. By "foreign intelligence reasons," the court meant reasons other than conducting a criminal investigation or prosecution. Thus, the court upheld the electronic surveillance in question because its purpose "was to determine Truong's source or sources for government documents" so that the U.S. government could stanch the flow of classified information to the government of Vietnam. Id. at 916. The court held, however, that warrantless surveillance was not permitted "once surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation," or "when the government is primarily attempting to form the basis for a criminal prosecution." Id. at 915.1

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html

[Mabus]

7. It's probably a FISA case

and so the opinion isn't published anywhere you or I could find it.

I'm a little rusty on my constitutional law but at the core of this question it is the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seizures by governmental agents/agencies. I don't recall any case with a similar name that covers exceptions to searches. Here's a nice little run down complete with case names. Nothing similar pops up. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/410/410lect14.htm

[Scout1071]

10. So, this was precedent was set in a secret court and the basis of their

case for secretly wiretapping and otherwise violating the rights of US Citizens? Sounds like utter bullshit to me.

He also said that in every single case that the conversations that were wiretapped were always between someone in the US and someone outside the US. I asked why that was legal and said that I make International calls often...does that mean that I can be recorded? He said "no"...only terrorists. WTF?

[Mabus]

13. It sounds like utter BS

the so-called case supporting it. He probably pulled it out of his butt (as Franken says) like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

They make up stuff as the go along, I have no reason to doubt this is any different. Who have they identified as terrorists? How come their listening didn't stop the bombings in Spain or England? Why hasn't it stopped insurgents in Iraq? Because they aren't (ab)using this ability for reasonable or rational purposes. We've returned to the era of cointel

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. So when people call one of the many now outsourced call centers...

That technically meets the requirements for being wiretapped, and subject to continued surveillance?

This BushCo. Cabal should not be given any benefit of doubt.

[Mabus]

22. The case was pre-FISA

See my other post in this thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5652909&mesg_id=5653293

[Scout1071]

23. Great call KS Wyatt.

Howdy neighbor!

:hi:

[cureautismnow]

11. As far as I can tell, Truong Dinh Hung was not an American citizen.

He was Vietnamese, so the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to him anyway. Please correct me if I am wrong!

[Scout1071]

14. Do you have a link for any info on Truong Dinh Hung?

[Mabus]

17. from findlaw

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=439&invol=1326

[Mabus]

15. His case dealt with bail

flight risk and community ties not search and seizure/invasion of privacy except to the extent that incarceration is a seizure of a person. Correct me if I'm wrong but this case isn't relevant.

[Scout1071]

19. Great work Mabus! I'm hoping we can keep digging. If this is the correct

case they are referencing, I'm most certainly going to be calling back in the morning.

[Mabus]

21. Truong Dinh Hung was pre-FISA

and therefore one of the reasons that FISA was implemented. That's my opinion. They can't use it as a precedent because a safeguard (FISA) was created after this case.

[Scout1071]

25. Mabus.....I could kiss you.

I cannot wait to call them back in the morning.

[cureautismnow]

26. That's a 1978 Case. I think Roberts might be referring to the 1980 case.

More here:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/usbattle91903aclu.pdf

Thus, in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 915 (4th Cir.,
1980), the Fourth Circuit recognized a foreign intelligence exception to ordinary Fourth
Amendment requirements but strictly limited the exception to cases in which “the
surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons.” See also id. at 916
(“The exception applies only to foreign powers, their agents, and their collaborators.
Moreover, even these actors receive the protection of the warrant requirement if the
government is primarily attempting to put together a criminal prosecution.”).15 The Court
explained its reasoning:
nce surveillance becomes primarily a criminal investigation, the courts are
entirely competent to make the usual probable cause determination, and . . .
individual privacy interests come to the fore and government foreign policy
concerns recede when the government is primarily attempting to form the
basis for a criminal prosecution.
Id. at 915. Other Circuits that acknowledged a foreign intelligence exception before FISA’s
enactment adopted similar reasoning. See, e.g., United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 606
(3d Cir. 1974) (“Since the primary purpose of these searches is to secure foreign intelligence
information, a judge, when reviewing a particular search must, above all, be assured that this
was in fact its primary purpose and that the accumulation of evidence of criminal activity
was incidental.”), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418,
426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960 (1974); id. at 427 (Goldberg, J., concurring).
Importantly, each of these cases involved surveillance conducted before FISA was
enacted – that is, before there was any statutory basis for a primary purpose restriction. Thus
the basis for the restriction was found not in the statute but in the constitution. The Fourth
Circuit made this abundantly clear:
he executive can proceed without a warrant only if it is attempting
primarily to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign powers and their
assistants. We think that the unique role of the executive in foreign affairs
and the separation of powers will not permit this court to allow the executive
less on the facts of this case, but we are also convinced that the Fourth
Amendment will not permit us to grant the executive branch more.
Truong, 629 F.2d at 916 (emphasis added).
15 While Truong was not decided until 1980, it involved surveillance that took place
before FISA’s enactment in 1978. See Truong, 629 F.2d at 915 n.4.

[Scout1071]

27. So, in layman's terms?

If I'm reading this right, it still says they have to go through the courts.

:shrug:

[Mabus]

28. here's an excerpt from a recent report

The origin of what the government refers to as the false dichotomy between foreign
intelligence information that is evidence of foreign intelligence crimes and that which is not
appears to have been a Fourth Circuit case decided in 1980. United States v. Truong Dinh
15
Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). That case, however, involved an electronic surveillance
carried out prior to the passage of FISA and predicated on the President’s executive power.
In approving the district court’s exclusion of evidence obtained through a warrantless
surveillance subsequent to the point in time when the government’s investigation became
“primarily” driven by law enforcement objectives, the court held that the Executive Branch
should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the
surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted
‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”

see case at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/fisa111802opn.pdf

Sorry, have company must go get alcohol.

[Scout1071]

29. Pre-FISA is the key. Enjoy Mabus. Having a glass of wine myself. nt

[cureautismnow]

32. Good Spot. The key word here is "Foreign."

"The court held that the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators.”

Sorry, Pat ol' boy, you'll have to keep digging for something else that allows your wannabe King to spy on U.S. citizens sans a court order and to destroy the very document you swore to defend. This ain't it, pal. :rofl:

[Scout1071]

40. Wait a minute - wasn't FISA passed and implemented in 1978? n/t

[Scout1071]

42. Mabus, Dub, Will? Still wondering why this case is called "pre-FISA"

in that summary when it looks like the case was decided in 1980, while FISA was enacted in 1978.

The key is still that Truong was not an American citizen, but trying to clear up this FISA biz before I call the Senator's office again.

Thanks in advance!

[Mabus]

43. When was he originally arrested?

You have to remember that most cases take time (often years) to travel through the courts. So an appellate court may hear a case in 1995 that was originally tried in your local district court several years earlier. In between the time a person is arrested and the appeals are heard by the appellate court there can be changes in the law but because the arrest took place before the legislation went into effect the defendant isn't always bound to the law currently on the books. Instead they are ajudicated under the law that was in effect at the time the crime was committed. It happens. One common scenario is when a defendant skips the state. When I was in legal aid we had a client that had been arrested on a DUI charge in the late 80's, she skipped the state before her court date and was picked up in another state where she ended up serving hard time. When she had served her time she was extradited back to Kansas to be tried and sentenced for the DUI (along with some other crimes around the state). Because she was arrested before the new state law mandating 48 hours incarceration went into effect all she got was a fine. We had to go dig out some old statutes to find out exactly what the penalties were when she was originally arrested not when she was going to court.

In otherwords, they can't arrest you and then convict or hold you to legal standards that were not in place at the time. They can't retroactively apply penalties or charge you under laws that didn't exist when an act, which is later determined to be a crime, was committed. There are, of course, exceptions to this. For example, you could probably go after a sentence reduction if, after you had been convicted, it was determined that the penalty was too egregious for the crime and had been otherwise reduced legislatively.

[cureautismnow]

30. As a Layman, I say you're correct for American citizens

IMHO, Truong was not an American citizen guaranteed 4th Amendment rights. Thus, this case is irrelevant to what Bush-boy claims to possess - the right to spy on American citizens without obtaining warrants. The 4th Amendment is the Law of the Land. The only way to legally spy on U.S. citizens sans a court order is to repeal the 4th Amendment.

[Scout1071]

31. Feckin' brilliant. I've been taking notes and will give Senator Roberts

another call in the morn.

Thanks for your help Dub.

[cureautismnow]

33. My pleasure. While you're at it, ask Mr. Roberts...

...if he was just joking when he took the oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." :rofl:

[Scout1071]

34. I am very seriously going to ask that question. I already made a little

notation on my notes. I don't want to get rattled and want to have the facts about this case in front of me. But, it does amuse me. Sometimes they get me a little rattled, but I will just keep asking questions until they force an answer like US vs. Truong. Then, I come home and get the facts. Call them back.

What can I say? I enjoy it. I want them to know that we are watching them too. I plan to send all of this information to the Kansas City Star and ask them why they aren't asking these questions of Senator Roberts.

[radio4progressives]

20. Google turned this up, is this case?

it's a pdf file - http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510640.pdf

seems to be a drug sales and consipiracy case (ecstasy)in the state of Mississippi, appealing on the bases of violation of the defendants 6th amendent right to a trial by jury.

surveilance was involved in this case but didn't read this word for word. skimming through i don't see wire tap surveilance but i might have missed it. on the other hand, this might not be the case in reference.

[cureautismnow]

24. I think that's the wrong Trung.

It talks about Trung Troung. I'm pretty sure Roberts is talking about Truong Dinh Hung. Search on 1980.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Some background on Roberts

This morning's front page of the Washington Post carried a story entitled, "Inquiry Faults Intelligence on Iraq." The story described statements by the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The first two paragraphs read as follows:

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing a blistering report on prewar intelligence on Iraq that is critical of CIA Director George J. Tenet and other intelligence officials for overstating the weapons and terrorism case against Saddam Hussein, according to congressional officials.

The committee staff was surprised by the amount of circumstantial evidence and single-source or disputed information used to write key intelligence documents -- in particular the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate -- summarizing Iraq's capabilities and intentions.

The committee is chaired by Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas. Some background on Senator Roberts is noteworthy. On June 26, I did an interview with 27-year CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern on a wide array of issues. That interview can be found here. The discussion turned, at one point, to Senator Roberts. From the interview:

Take Pat Roberts, the Republican Senator from Kansas, who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. When the Niger forgery was unearthed and when Colin Powell admitted, well shucks, it was a forgery, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on that committee, went to Pat Roberts and said they really needed the FBI to take a look at this. After all, this was known to be a forgery and was still used on Congressmen and Senators. We?d better get the Bureau in on this. Pat Roberts said no, that would be inappropriate. So Rockefeller drafted his own letter, and went back to Roberts and said he was going to send the letter to FBI Director Mueller, and asked if Roberts would sign on to it. Roberts said no, that would be inappropriate.

What the FBI Director eventually got was a letter from one Minority member saying pretty please, would you maybe take a look at what happened here, because we think there may have been some skullduggery. The answer he got from the Bureau was a brush-off. Why do I mention all that? This is the same Pat Roberts who is going to lead the investigation into what happened with this issue.

There is a lot that could be said about Pat Roberts. I remember way back last fall when people were being briefed, CIA and others were briefing Congressmen and Senators about the weapons of mass destruction. These press folks were hanging around outside the briefing room, and when the Senators came out, one of the press asked Senator Roberts how the evidence on weapons of mass destruction was. Roberts said, oh, it was very persuasive, very persuasive.

The press guy asked Roberts to tell him more about that. Roberts said, "Truck A was observed to be going under Shed B, where Process C is believed to be taking place." The press guy asked him if he found that persuasive, and Pat Roberts said, "Oh, these intelligence folks, they have these techniques down so well, so yeah, this is very persuasive." And the correspondent said thank you very much, Senator.

So, if you've got a Senator who is that inclined to believe that kind of intelligence, you've got someone who will do the administration's bidding. On the House side, of course, you've got Porter Goss, who is a CIA alumnus. Porter Goss' main contribution last year to the joint committee investigating 9/11 was to sic the FBI on members of that committee, at the direction of who? Dick Cheney. Goss admits this. He got a call from Dick Cheney, and he was "chagrined" in Goss' word that he was upbraided by Dick Cheney for leaks coming out of the committee. He then persuaded the innocent Bob Graham to go with him to the FBI and ask the Bureau to investigate the members of that committee. Polygraphs and everything were involved. That's the first time something like that has ever happened.

Be aware, of course, that Congress has its own investigative agencies, its own ways of investigating things like that. So without any regard for the separation of powers, here Goss says Cheney is bearing down on me, so let's get the FBI in here. In this case, ironically enough, the FBI jumped right in with Ashcroft whipping it along. They didn't come up with much, but the precedent was just terrible.

All I'm saying is that you?ve got Porter Goss on the House side, you've got Pat Roberts on the Senate side, you've got John Warner who's a piece with Pat Roberts. I'm very reluctant to be so unequivocal, but in this case I can say nothing is going to come out of those hearings but a lot of smoke.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/102503A.shtml

[atommom]

38. Yes, the only way to get to the bottom of this is to remove him

entirely from the proceedings. Don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon. :evilfrown:

[Scout1071]

39. I know.....shocking. This man's actions in office have been shameful

and deplorable. I wrote him prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and I've written him several times since. I never get a response. I cannot wait to call that ass clown back in the morning to discuss the US vs. Truong case as their big precedence and justification.

[Scout1071]

41. Kicking for the morning crowd in case anyone else wants to give him a buzz

this morning.