<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FISA Surveillance Can Target Non-Spies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_n.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_n.html</link>
	<description>Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:03:51 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cecil Roper</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_n.html/comment-page-1#comment-634</link>
		<dc:creator>Cecil Roper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_non-spies.html#comment-634</guid>
		<description>Does this ruling now apply to reporters of the media??

&lt;i&gt;[Not explicitly, no.  And not unless they are engaged in a probable violation of the Espionage Act.  But the application of the Espionage Act has been expanded by this Court.  And the latest ruling seems to open a door that had not been opened before.  --SA]&lt;/i&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does this ruling now apply to reporters of the media??</p>
<p><i>[Not explicitly, no.  And not unless they are engaged in a probable violation of the Espionage Act.  But the application of the Espionage Act has been expanded by this Court.  And the latest ruling seems to open a door that had not been opened before.  --SA]</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keeley</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_n.html/comment-page-1#comment-633</link>
		<dc:creator>keeley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_non-spies.html#comment-633</guid>
		<description>We also linked this post.  Below is my reaction to your report...

Now can we please have the discussion about the current administration’s use of the NSA wiretapping to not only spy on the press and political operatives, but… ready… also on their own supporters.  Much of what has come out is almost run-of-the-mill at this point, the clincher will be the revelation that the White House via the NSA has been spying on their presumed allies at DC/international law firms, telecom cos, etc.  That, I think, is the only reason they wouldn’t have gotten FISA approval before, during, or even after the wiretapping had been conducted.  Allies of the administration could presumably keep a secret, but in this situation it seems even the allies were intentionally kept in the dark.

‘06 congress swings; ‘07 investigations and indictments; ‘08 Dem candidate brings an oversized box of band-aids, a dozen flowers, and gets down on one knee to say I’m sorry to the international community.  That is not weak, that is taking responsibility for an administration that will refuse to until their very last breath.

We have been on the attack since Sept 11, 2001 and it seems much of the rest of the world has been doing out police work to route future acts of terrorism.  Diplomacy, however, has gone eons backwards.  Saying sorry is a humbling experience, but Iranian and North Korean leaders wouldn’t take that as any sign of weakness.  If anything it would stregthen our standing in the international community and bring more force to our side.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We also linked this post.  Below is my reaction to your report&#8230;</p>
<p>Now can we please have the discussion about the current administration’s use of the NSA wiretapping to not only spy on the press and political operatives, but… ready… also on their own supporters.  Much of what has come out is almost run-of-the-mill at this point, the clincher will be the revelation that the White House via the NSA has been spying on their presumed allies at DC/international law firms, telecom cos, etc.  That, I think, is the only reason they wouldn’t have gotten FISA approval before, during, or even after the wiretapping had been conducted.  Allies of the administration could presumably keep a secret, but in this situation it seems even the allies were intentionally kept in the dark.</p>
<p>‘06 congress swings; ‘07 investigations and indictments; ‘08 Dem candidate brings an oversized box of band-aids, a dozen flowers, and gets down on one knee to say I’m sorry to the international community.  That is not weak, that is taking responsibility for an administration that will refuse to until their very last breath.</p>
<p>We have been on the attack since Sept 11, 2001 and it seems much of the rest of the world has been doing out police work to route future acts of terrorism.  Diplomacy, however, has gone eons backwards.  Saying sorry is a humbling experience, but Iranian and North Korean leaders wouldn’t take that as any sign of weakness.  If anything it would stregthen our standing in the international community and bring more force to our side.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ShadowMonkey</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_n.html/comment-page-1#comment-632</link>
		<dc:creator>ShadowMonkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/08/fisa_surveillance_can_target_non-spies.html#comment-632</guid>
		<description>Our thanks, again, Steven, for bringing this story to light.

This new interpretation of FISA is pretty disturbing, and seems a clear case of a judicial ruling made with the idea that this is what the Act _should_ cover, instead of what it actually _does_ cover as passed by Congress.

We&#039;ve put a blurb once again on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.shadowmonkey.net&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ShadowMonkey.net&lt;/a&gt; pointing to your story to help get some exposure for your fine reporting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our thanks, again, Steven, for bringing this story to light.</p>
<p>This new interpretation of FISA is pretty disturbing, and seems a clear case of a judicial ruling made with the idea that this is what the Act _should_ cover, instead of what it actually _does_ cover as passed by Congress.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve put a blurb once again on <a href="http://www.shadowmonkey.net" rel="nofollow">ShadowMonkey.net</a> pointing to your story to help get some exposure for your fine reporting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
