Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans

[RamboLiberal]

http://cqpolitics.com/cq.com/www.cq.com/public/20060131_homeland.html

“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.

Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

“MI may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.

[stepnw1f]

1. more bullsit

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Doesn't this violate posse comitatus?

:shrug:

[acmejack]

4. One would certainly think so!

But here in *world, who can be sure?

[MostlyLurks]

5. Probably not in a "letter of the law" kind of way.

As I understand it, Posse Comitatus prohibits the military from acting as a law enforcement agency within the US on US citizens. So basically, the military can't send in troops and start writing traffic tickets, investigating murders, etc.

Collecting surveillance and information would not seem to fall into that category - if they get a tip about a domestic (i.e. non-terrorist-related) crime and don't physically enforce the law that was broken, they're within the confines of PC. So if they got a tip, they couldn't arrest a suspect, but they could pass that tip on to the appropriate law enforcement personnel.

So it's probably not a tacit violation of the PC law, but it's certainly playing around the edges.

Keep in mind, this is my understanding of PC and I ain't got no fancy book-learning, so it's entirely possible, perhaps even probable, that I'm wrong.

Mostly

[ixion]

15. yes, it does, on every level of the defintion

it's pretty straight forward, and if there were any justice in the world, that bogus argument would not be allowed to stand.

[MostlyLurks]

21. Posse Comitatus allows

Again, I'm not a lawyer or in any way a PC expert, lay or otherwise. But there seems to be a pretty clear line that the military hasn't crossed: they cannot actively enforce the law. That's the gist of posse comitatus.

But there are two mitigating factors here:
1. By "receiving" intelligence, they are not actively enforcing the law. I think that's probably why they're very careful to make the disctinction between "receiving" intel, which is OK in their view, and "collecting" intel, which would be a problem. It would take them acting on intelligence in order to violate the letter of the PC law.

2. More to the point, statutes enacted in 1981 allow the military to "assist" civilian law enforcement (mostly in response to the "War on Drugs"). This includes use of facilities, intelligence and surveillance. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if this story becomes "big news", the administration will point to those 1981 statutes as proof positive that the military is within legal boundaries so long as they don't act unilaterally on information. They have to act in concert with a civilian law enforcement agency, but so long as they do, they're within the parameters of PC.

Now, that's all according to Wikipedia, so it may not be 100% reliable and that's why I started and am ending with a disclaimer stating that I could be wrong. But if the Wiki entry is reliable, there's a LOT of room for argument over whether this violates PC.

And please don't misunderstand - I'm not saying "Yippee! What a great idea!" I just don't think the PC argument is tenable with regard to this issue.

Mostly

Mostly

[daleo]

28. Receiving is collecting

As long as they save and file the information they are receiving, it is collecting, by any reasonable definition of the word.

A stamp collection would still be a stamp collection regardless of whether I went out and gathered the stamps myself or someone gave them to me. The "collecting" would be when I put them away somewhere for future perusal.

[MostlyLurks]

31. Maybe not in legal definition though.

From a simple "if it's a duck" standpoint, I agree with you that there's no real difference, in end result, between "collecting" and "receiving".

But I'd bet that from a legal standpoint there's some distinction that makes them different. My un-educated suspicion is that legally defined "collection" required active seeking (i.e. I go to the store and ask for stamps for my collection) where "receiving" implies passive reception (i.e. I get stamps as gifts from other parties). While the end result is a stamp collection, the data was built in different ways.

Again, that's just my suspicion as to the definition they're using. I'm not saying it's right. It's just my guess as to the parsing.

Mostly

[daleo]

36. Ultimately a judge would have to make the determination

Although judges have an amazing ability (at times) to come up with definitions that suit their prejudices or preferences.

Here is another example: A person gets child pornography emailed to him as spam. He saves it on his hard drive. Later, he is arrested and his computer is searched, and the material is discovered. I doubt if he could claim any real distinction between actively seeking this stuff out and just receiving it unsolicited, as long as he made efforts to keep the material in question.

[qazplm]

39. no that one is relatively easy

one would look at the file to see if it was saved but not looked at, or looked at and subsequently either saved OR not deleted.

In the former, you have a good shot at an acquittal and in the latter two you have a good shot at a conviction, so you can make/claim a real distinction and do so successfully.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. If true, then the military committed treason by not telling the Clinton

Administration of the Al Qaeda members they were spying on.

[Carni]

33. Didn't dipshit suspend that when the sniper was running around DC

I am sure he did for a time.

[Straight Shooter]

3. Wow. It surfaced Tuesday. After all this time.

No one ever said there was an "absolute" ban. That's what the argument is about. I don't know what they mean by "receiving." Is this similar to police "receiving" information from the public in terms of a fugitive?

The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.

“This in turn makes it harder to understand why the NSA domestic surveillance program departed from previous practice.”

[MostlyLurks]

9. "Receiving" versus "Collecting"

My guess would be that the difference between "receiving" and "collecting" is exactly as you've hinted at: they can't actively set up a spy network or apparatus in the US, but if somebody - individual or agency - comes to them with information, they are allowed to deal with it.

But the real question becomes "What would they do to handle it?" Assuming they get a tip that suspect X is about to blow something up, and that person is a US citizen, then their acting on the tip (doing anything other that passing the tip on to another authority or agency) would be a definite violation of posse comitatus because they're acting as a legal enforcement body against a US citizen.

Even if the suspect is NOT a US citizen but happens to be on US soil, there are legal reasons they really shouldn't do anything on their own and should instead involve the FBI or other law enforment agencies. If they acted, they'd do so as a military body and would, by definition, have the right to kill the suspect, no questions asked. And clearly that's a recipe for disaster and fascism. It's that very reason that posse comitatus was enacted - the military has no burden of proof when it acts, and that leads to a lot of accused people being killed outright with no trial.

The very idea that the military WANTS to get into this should be a concern - they have absolutely no need to do anything with "received information" other than pass it on to the FBI or local law enforcement. The blurring of the line between what's a "legal" course of action and what's a "military" course of action is one of the more frightening aspects of the current regime and a definite harbinger of potential ill winds to come.

Mostly

[Straight Shooter]

17. Definite harbinger of potential ill winds to come.

No kidding. Take a guess which people will be signing up in droves to go after their fellow citizens. x(

[LynnTheDem]

6. WHA...???!! When did posse comitatus die???

Why the fuck don't they just come on out and say it;

America is now an authoritarian state.

Fuck the pretense of "democracy" already.

[MostlyLurks]

10. All due respect, I think this isn't a violation of Posse Comitatus.

Please see post #5 for my reasons why. If I'm wrong, please explain, but I think, sadly, there's "wiggle room" on this for the military without tacitly violating PC. Which is not to say it's a good thing, but to point out that PC arguments may not hold up here.

Mostly

[htuttle]

14. Well, Hitler didn't technically break German law, either

If we have to argue the fine points of the law on whether the President can act like a totalitarian dictator, we're already screwed.

[MostlyLurks]

18. The whole point is that he didn't violate the law.

You can't say "he violated the law" and then say "that's not the point" if it's not clear he did. The point is what you make it: if you choose to argue this particular issue as a Posse Comitatis violation, then expect that you'll have to defend that position. And if you can't back that assertion, you automatically lose. That's framing - you're choosing to frame the issue as a PC one, and then choosing to cancel out your own frame with "that's not the point". You summarily lose the argument when you do that.

The point of this is not that it's a posse comitatus violation - at best, that's arguable. The point is that it's an incursion of the military into the law enforcement realm. The question shouldn't be "isn't that a violation of posse comitatus" (that argument in and of itself necessitates further explanation and is open to hair splitting which negates any quality or strength of the argument in the first place). The question should be "and how is the miliatry supposed to act on the information?" because that leads to what you're really interested in: do we really want the military storming through the streets on its way to kill a suspect? Is that really a good thing?" This clearly forces anybody arguing with you to explain WHY it's a good thing and also WHY it's not a job for law enforcement. It is a far stronger position to start from than "this is a PC violation" while still allowing you to argue using PC as a suporting idea.

Now I know, you're going to say "Well, the Republican spin machine will spin this however they want, so I'll say it however I damn well please". That's allowing the other side to paint their picture of you - it's something the righties never ever ever do. They never ley us take control of their image. And yet we seem perfectly happy to be defined by our poorly chosen words and arguments.

So there you go: you're right that the PC issue is hair-splitting. I agree. But the argument that this is a PC issue is weak and easily parried. There are larger, more easily defined and defended arguments to make.

Mostly

[htuttle]

19. I think we agree

There are larger, more easily defined and defended arguments to make than whether Bush 'technically' violated Posse Comitatus.

It's not like we 'need' to get him on an additional violation of the law anyway. He violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without a question -- he admits to it. His defense so far is that he was allowed to violate it.

The problem we have is that we seem to be powerless to do anything about it.

[samhsarah]

29. It would make the decision to stay or go a helluva lot easier, wouldn't it

we wouldn't have to hang around falsely hoping there is something left to fight for. that was very negative, I know, and I'm not usually this negative of a person, but it's just getting harder and harder every day.......

[woodsprite]

7. Did * have to renew Posse Comitatus? If so, did he issue a sign. stmt? nt

[MindPilot]

8. Right to Privacy amendment...

has to be a wide plank in the Dem party platform

[MostlyLurks]

11. I agree.

This is such a win-win for the Democrats. They cannot lose with this a major platform piece.

I've seen threads and replies mentioning a push for a privacy amendment several times since Alito became a done deal. Is there any reality to this - is anybody in the DNC pushing for this, is there any momentum for it? I wrote to the DNC a couple of days ago when someone first mentioned this, but I have no faith that any of those suggestions are actually read - is there any way to start pushing this up into the DNC hierarchy where it can become a reality?

Mostly

[redqueen]

22. That's a great idea.

Have you contacted the DNC?

Perhaps a thread in GD asking that everyone contact either the DNC or their Dem reps about pushing the issue might help?

[MostlyLurks]

23. I wrote to the DNC via their web site.

I've always heard that a real, snail mail letter will get the best response to Congressional reps, so I'd bet the same thing is true here.

Perhaps I will post a thread in GD and hope it garners some attention.

Mostly

[wordpix2]

24. Dems have to make clear: it's NOT OK to break law, not go thru court to

spy, as required by law.

[gratuitous]

12. Also, contrary to this corrupt administration's popular belief

It's up to the courts to interpret the law, not up to Stupidhead and his vague pronouncements. It's not up to the Army's top intelligence officer. It's not up to John Gibson or Chris Matthews. It's up to the courts to decide what the laws that Congress writes mean.

And when those laws are violated, it's up to Congress to impeach and try the Executive officers who are breaking the law.

[Demeter]

13. In Your Dreams and Mine

To get a little enforcement of those laws that actually still exist would be a blessing unforeseen. Come on, Fitz! Get the lead out!

[VegasWolf]

16. I'm proud to be a Murikan where at least I know I'm free!

:sarcasm:

[MrPrax]

20. Well...he's right

Last time I saw they had lots and lots of guns, so as with the tradition of any militaristic state, they are simply explaining reality.

I presume the air force and navy think the same way...add NSA, FBI, CIA, Justice, etc and you got a whole lot people insisting this is the 'reality' of what they were created for in the first place.

[RaRa]

25. Wow, all those wacko militia types are starting to look less

wacko in their paranoia. I have never felt such hatred for authority as I do now. I used to be such a good little girl in my beliefs. Look what you created Bushit.

[MrPrax]

26. Good for you...

These institutions have survived the Ages, virtually unscathed by democracy and freedom, and no fancy piece of paper sitting under plexiglass in a tourist attraction isn't going to change that...their sense of mission has to be denied and their citizenship must be re-asserted.

It's becomes pretty obvious that these institutions still have the remnants of their 'old' codes that will simply overtime 'crash' the system.


Rights only exist, if they are accepted...they cease at the moment a bullet is fired.

[gunsaximbo]

30. Why don't WE start spying on them?

and then post the results on the internet? Seriously! Why NOT?

[GoldenOldie]

32. The same Army Intelligence of AbuGharib fame???

[coalition_unwilling]

34. Yeah, that's my feeling also . . .

Last night I attended World Can't Wait demo in Los Angeles and observed an L.A.P.D. riot squad officer video-taping several of the demonstators. I have seen them (L.A.P.D.) video-taping demonstrations before, but for some reason, it really creeped me out last night.

I'm not very video-savvy and don't even have a video camera. But many of the demonstrators did, hence L.A.P.D. could not engage in provocations (assuming they might have been so inclined). But in showing my "Tired of Bush's Lies?" sign to several of afore-mentioned L.A.P.D. officers, I noticed that a few of the African-American and Latino-appearing officers seemed to look upon the signs sympathetically. (Several of them nodded in the affirmative, after reading "Tired of Bush's Lies?"). Needless to say, none of the Bull Connor, Simi Valley- esque officers (the majority I observed) nodded affirmatively.

[gunsaximbo]

40. My thought is fight fire with fire.

Actively start video taping all policemen record their conversations follow them all that bull shit. See How they like their rights being trampled on.

I'm Serious!

[coalition_unwilling]

43. I will broach the suggestion with my colleagues

[EST]

35. And now, may we start remembering why there was that

"legal fiction" of a wall between cia/fbi/pentagon/law enforcement?

Somehow, in the rush to embrace "post 911" thinking, the folks whose duty it was (as well as the power to do so) to resist this bounding fascism managed to forget that there are sometimes very good reasons to have enacted certain laws.

[laylah]

37. Lousy rooster-suckers! n/t

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

38. Since when does the word of a uniformed

monkey mean anything when it comes to "authority"

They clearly do NOT have this authority, and never have.

Now they may believe they do, and act on that, well, that is a different story.

But the say-so of a general means nothing in reality.

[tulsakatz]

41. it seems to me that the military.......

......deals with fighting a war and maintaining order once the war is over.

Isn't it the intelligence community like the CIA who are the ones in charge of collecting intelligence? So what would this guy know about it anyway?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

44. Well, the military has a legitimate need for

intelligence which goes beyond the requirements of civilian intelligence. True, the collection is the same, but the interpretation and use is different which sometimes in the past led to huge gaps left by civilian agencies when collecting military intel.

I am not saying there is no right of the military to gather intel.

I am only saying that when it is illegal, it is illegal.

And no amount of claims by the people in charge change that.

[Just Me]

42. No damnbody has the authority to spy on Americans: NOT EVEN THE PREZ!!!

:grr:

Apparently, we have numerous individuals guilty of committing a federal crime.
PRESS CHARGES, TRY 'EM, CONVICT THEM, THROW THEM IN PRISON FOR EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT!!!

:grr: