PROBABLE CAUSE vs REASONABLE BASIS - if the same then WHY bypass FISA?

[stop the bleeding]

this is the argument being made by * and is highlighted in today's WAPO article "White House Dismissed Sen. Dewine's(R) 2002 Surveillance Proposal"

Is this a valid question about probable cause VS reasonable basis - if they are the same then why bypass FISA?


"It's entirely inconsistent with their current position," said Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration who teaches law at Harvard University. "The only reason to do what they've been doing is because they wanted a lower standard than 'probable cause.' A member of Congress offered that to them, but they turned it down."

But Justice Department officials disagreed, saying the standard the department opposed in 2002 is legally different from the one used by the NSA.

"The FISA 'probable cause' standard is essentially the same as the 'reasonable basis' standard used in the terrorist surveillance program," said spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos, using the term for the NSA program the White House has adopted. "The 'reasonable suspicion' standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program."



If

[baldguy]

1. It's not the same.

"Probable cause" has a long accepted legal definition. "Reasonable basis" doesn't, so the Bushites can define it any way they want.

[Gman]

2. Mandatory Reading!

Here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/24/181225/664

[stop the bleeding]

4. I agree with you 100% but doesn't my point undermine their argument

even more. We know this won't pass the constitutional mustard but the WH is going to use it anyway. So I would like to see how the WH would respond if this question was asked. It kind of shoots holes in their argument.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. Because they are spying on their enemies

and ANYONE who is not with them is against them. They do not need to bypass FISA to get sufficient access to phone calls of true suspects. It is a load of BULL. And if our media were anything other than a propaganda machine for Bush and Co. those inconsistencies of fact and failings of logic would be addressed.

[jsamuel]

5. To spy on political opponents whenever you wish without a court order

[Boo Boo]

6. I think they bypassed FISA because they knew they couldn't get a warrant.

Much has been said about reasonable basis vs. probable cause, but those aren't the only criteria. Another bar to get over is that you must identify whom you are going to search, and what you are searching for. And it's not enough to say you're looking for something in particular, you have to show that the target of the search is likely to have it---the ol' reasonable suspicion. If you are going on a fishing expedition looking for suspicious activity by sifting through large amounts of data collected by the NSA, then you can't meet the most basic criteria.

So, I think the Admin didn't go to FISA for a search warrant, because they didn't need one. By that, I mean that they didn't have a specific target they wanted to search. They were doing the electronic equivalent of throwing up a roadblock and looking in every car that goes by. The Admin is trying to dodge the issue by giving the press rubber squeak toys to play with: FISA is too cumbersome and slow, etc. I think it's all bullshit.

They are doing their Total Information Awareness stuff and they don't want to fess up to that. They've been snarfing up all the telecommunications in the U.S. and looking for needles in the worlds biggest haystack. Along the way they've compiled a list of political (anti-war) groups by some means (I'm assuming as a byproduct of their NSA activities), which leaves them with some 'splainin' to do.

Right now they ain't 'splainin' nothin'. They're just blowing smoke.