Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)/Archive 4

Talk about footnotes - this subsection to be archived

• simple

<ref>anything</ref>

• medium complexity

<ref>{{cite news |url= |title=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=}}</ref>

• complex

<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |author= |url= |title= |work= |publisher= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |url= |title= |format= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>WAS 4.250 13:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

An article with over 100 templated footnotes needs an easy guide for new editors adding fresh material who wish to cite sources. Most (not all) have been just putting an URL in line, rather than coping with footnotes. I would like to rename your "simple" to "untemplated," rename your "medium complexity" to "templated," and rename your "complex" to "completely templated," keep the (altered) comment below, and delete the section below it. Would you object to my doing this? My intention is retain a Footnote Guide when Talk is archived. Metarhyme 02:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with your objectives. Please do everything you just said (and maybe more) except renaming "simple" to "untemplated". Maybe "simple (and untemplated)"? Anyway, the point is an easy guide. Go for it (including archiving this comment, obviously). WAS 4.250 02:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise on "footnote" rather than "simple" or "untemplated"? Metarhyme 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. WAS 4.250 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anything" in the context of a citation has started to bother me. Perhaps "citation including url & source title" isn't simple enough there, so how about "source" instead of "anything"? Metarhyme 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "footnote"? One can put anything there. WAS 4.250 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

reference? Metarhyme 07:07, 12

good enough! WAS 4.250 07:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

March 2006 (UTC) Keep it simple footnote templates:

<ref>{{cite news |url= |title=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=}}</ref>

The "keep it simples" were derived from the following full templates, which also work:

<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |author= |url= |title= |work= |publisher= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |url= |title= |format= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref>

This template is obsolescent, but also works:

<ref>{{Press release reference |Organization= |Date= |Title= |URL=}}</ref>

Metarhyme 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi also admitted to being briefed

Should read:

California Democrat Nancy Pelosi acknowledged she was briefed. (24.136.71.67)

• changed - while protection is off you can DIY NPOV edits like that, anon. 207.172.134.175 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunication companies and disclosure of info

"Under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), telecommunication companies may only cooperated if a warrant is issued, which was not the case." - are we sure? 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b) defines various reasons why a communications provider might be able to voluntarily disclosure customer communications or records. Originally this was added by Title II of the Patriot Act, then it got repealed and replaced with more extensive legislation through the Homeland Security Act of 2002. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Er. Oops? FISA doesn't allow it, but the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) does. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Warner, democratic ex-governor of Virginia, has said the legal code needs to be combed out. I caught that on a recent C-SPAN "road to the white house" program. FISA's five years in the slammer is rumored to have had DoJ attorneys consulting with private counsel. Metarhyme 00:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

If all the footnotes were >ref<ed there would be over 100. Congressional opposition is inappropriately titled - Roberts on Intel is gung-ho for Hayden. "I don't rightly know," is inadequate guidance for reorganizing the material. Splash suggested moving legal to territory immediately seized by POV pushers. Talk got archived; some article length input would be welcome. Metarhyme 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The core action of the controversy seems to me to be a merry go round of Internet, bushies, spooks and reporters - all interconnected. All the rest is peripheral - suicide jihad warriers, courts, public, congress, constitution, and statue are all outside the interaction creating the controversy. If so, the article could shed legal analysis and Congress into a spin off and concentrate on how the Internet made the spooks adapt; and how the Press made the Administration react. The Post article one-ups the Times, providing technical detail. Congress is not going to repeal AUMF, let alone the National Defense Act of 1947, so they're stuck. The Administration knows it can't convince a Court that judges can't judge, so it won't go to court. It has its blank check in the AUMF and it's happy with it. Metarhyme 10:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, in lieu of additional dumps of secrets by the press, now the snail's pace action is protracted judicial and legislative events concerning the Program. Can NSA keep its database's size secret from the Intelligence committees? It will strive to do so. Will the DoJ release incriminating documents in Judge Kennedy's FOIA case? It will strive not to do so. Out of consideration for dial-up users, does any of this suggest a strategy for downsizing the article via spinoffs to anybody? Metarhyme 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very true that this article is way too long--cutting it down is its most urgent need. Wikipedia guidelines suggest that it should be about one quarter of its current length. It should be kept in mind that this is an encyclopedia article, intended to give an introductory overview of the subject. Not every argument made by either side needs to be included, nor does the whole of each argument that is included need to appear. I would urge anyone who thinks that they can show respect for each (or every) side's point of view to take a crack at cutting--it's not really a question of figuring out what should go, but of deciding what's the minimum that can stay. If there are any sections that can be spun off into a separate article, now would be a good time to do so. Nareek 01:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

show respect for each (or every) side's point of view is easier said than done. Before you, as WilliamThweatt says below, "commence to guttin'," please reconsider discussing what you want to whack. I hope that you are "anxious to oblige." If not, please discuss what you think should stay. Metarhyme 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The main reason Wikipedia has been as successful as it has is the wiki process--that is to say, a process where people discuss changes by making them. The wiki process can break down when you've got people trying to move the article in fundamentally different directions, which is why there's tags like the one at the top of this talk page. But discussing then changing is a markedly inferior way of editing compared to discussing by changing; if the people who have elected to work on this article don't have enough respect for each other's point of view to make the wiki work, that's to be regretted. It is a real challenge to improve an article without the wiki magic. Nareek 12:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that this article isn't inherently neutral. To me it seems to concern spying on secret government. It might be a Constitutional crisis. Due to its bulk and a great deal of effort it isn't marked as "NPOV disputed" at the moment. Chopping it in half and then doing that again and retaining the absence of the tag requires more than deleting the (in one's own view) repulsive 75%. When I suggested work to WilliamThweatt on a topic that dovetails with his point of view, which the article claims to cover but doesn't, he did not respond, maybe rightly thinking his work would be wasted. No one yet has been willing to edit war with screaming left Legality of warrantless surveillance, although I once forked in content. Referencing an NPOV article there in a summary here would trim this article 50%. Metarhyme 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents

Nareek, I'm not sure that our role is as a brief introduction. Consider what this journalism professional wrote regarding Sago Mine disaster, another article on which I am working:

"I continue to find myself amazed at how quickly things change in the media world. There is already a massive Wikipedia entry...As of this writing, there is also an extensive political analysis of the cause of the accident. Why does this matter? Because once the initial flurry of stories passes, this will be one of the lasting sources students will go to first for information about this event." (emphasis added) Dr. Ralph E. Hanson, WVU journalism prof. [1]

I would suggest, so that information and work is not lost, that the article be organized with reference to related sub-articles as necessary. As this is an emerging issue, we shouldn't be rash. Writing by editing is not efficient when it results in edit wars and reverts. --Beth Wellington 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How about Legality of NSA warrantless surveillance for starters? Metarhyme 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm not clear, Metarhyme, are you suggesting that the article Legality of warrantless surveillance be moved under the new title and edited to fix the POV problems?--Beth Wellington 16:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm suggesting that a nav template be created for a set of NSA warrantless articles, and that this nav box appear upper right on this article page and on a new "Legality of" initial spin off. NSA warrantless surveillance legality might work better - title to be agreed on but including "NSA" so as not to include all known and unknown government, private or in-between warrantless surveillance - limit it to this one Program. I'm not sure this is wiki proper, but I'd like to just ignore the existence of the POV fork, which condemns all warrantless surveillance without limiting itself with regard to who's doing it. Leave the POV fork to fate: Merge, BadJokes, AfD, eternal life, whatever. Metarhyme 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I downgraded talk from a controversial3 to a controversial2 template. The POV template on the article seems somewhat preemptive to me. If dispassionate supporters and opposers of NSA warrantless (or terrorist) surveillance agree that it is neutral, I think the template could go until there's another serious attack. Metarhyme 06:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if no one is keen for the removal of the POV template, it can live at the top of the article forever as far as I'm concerned. Heated opinions here. And here's one from yesteryear found in today's featured article Metarhyme 22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."^[2]

1. ^ Editorial (November 20, 1863). "President's speech". The Chicago Times.

I think the POV tag should go. The discussion is mostly centered on interpretations of various laws, and not an objection to pronounced POV errors in the article itself. It is not enough that the topic is highly controvertial. There has to be a consensus that the article deliberately lacks neutrality to justify the tag. In my judgement, it is NPOV because we are not pushing Original Research, we are presenting documented outside analysis from verifiable sources on both sides of the issue. Whomever wishes to retain the tag, can you please your summarize reasons here, and set forth what you think needs to be done to make the article NPOV, so that we can discuss and finally remove the tag. Thanks. --AladdinSE 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will agree the article, at first glance, reads a lot more neutral than it has in the past. However, POV is more than just pushing Original Research. POV is in the tone of the article, its in the connotations of the politically charged words that are used, its in the way opinions of analysts are given as facts in the case instead of mearly the opinions that they are, its in the way which arguments are chosen to be included (for example, picking the strongest argument from one side and picking the weakest argument from the other side), etc. Take for example the last sentence of the third paragraph: "Many lawmakers and legal scholars have contested both of these arguments." There have also been many lawmakers and constitutional scholars who agree with the White House's arguments, but that is left off here and, after reading this paragraph, one is left with the feeling that everybody's against the White House when that is not really the case. I think the tag should be retained for the time being.--WilliamThweatt 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Or you can make your edit to correct what you see as a slant and go from there. My point is, asking for the Tag while offering no edits or discussion gets us nowhere.--AladdinSE 23:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that point. However, endless edits, reverts, deletions and re-edits also gets us nowhere. If I were to do as you suggest and make my edits and correct what I see as slant, my first step would be to gut half-to-3/4 of this way-to-lengthy article. As another user here often correctly points out, due to the nature of this controversy, we actually know next to nothing about this program or the details surrounding it (and by we, I'm including half of Congress). If we were to print only verifiable facts that are worthy of an encycolpedia article, this page would probably be at most 5 paragraphs long. Instead we have endless citations of analysis by blogsters, media analysts and op-ed writers (with no legal/constitutional training) and soundbites from posturing politicians. This "article" is basically a blog, it's a daily "he-said,she-said" gossip column. So, are your comments above encouraging me to commence to guttin'? I'm anxious to oblige.--WilliamThweatt 01:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure

The bullet indicates that this issue is covered, but I don't see it. Congressional Research Service sized up the Program as covert information gathering, rather than as covert action which is really hush-hush. There is an opportunity here to set aside profound conviction and explain the different points of view regarding the topic of how publicising the existence of the Program damages national security, citing sources. Osama didn't know NSA was listening to his satellite phone until CIA shared that info with Saudi intelligence, according to Risen's book, at which point he stopped using it. In what ways does revelation of the Program provide assistance to the terrorists? Who says it doesn't really, and how do they explain that? Metarhyme 06:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

WilliamThweatt: Notice that your comments here are all about length and relevancy, not neutrality. Therefore, I submit that I was justified in removing the POV tag, because the discussion lately has not been about neutrality. This is the reason I restarted discussion in this Talk subsection. As for my 'green light' for you to start gutting, as you know I have no more authority in that respect than any other editor. Also, I do not quite agree with your assessment. The article is not mostly a "blog", and journalistic and politician analysis is very relevant; we cannot restrict comments solely to Jurists and legal/constitutional "experts". If you find any material that really is from a blog or personal website and the like, then yes I would support its removal. How about we go though them one by one? --AladdinSE 10:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NSA lead rewrite

"Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence," seems better than Hayden's inarticulate statement, but you furnished no source for your edit. Who said it - Gonzalez? The article uses a system that makes footnotes automagical. Most of them use templates:

<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |pages= |title= |date= |publisher= |url=}}</ref>

<ref>{{Press release reference |Organization= |Date= |Title= |URL=}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web |title= |work= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

Metarhyme 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added the reference on the NSA spying page as per your request. --Ryan Utt 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding the verification. I added that Gonzales said it December 19 and templated the references. I'm copying this to the article's Talk page. Metarhyme 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess he didn't say it 19 December 2006. Thanks for catching that. Metarhyme 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush issued a secret executive order which authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless phone-taps of persons who were believed to be linked to al-Qaeda or its affiliates (the complete details of this authorization are still not fully known). The NSA maintained wiretaps on international communications, including some international communications to citizens located within the United States.

Electronic ...(unchanged)... arguments.

Since the presidential authorization was classified, the program was concealed from public knowledge until December 2005, when the New York Times, which had somehow known about the program for approximately a year, first reported on it. Public knowledge of this program promptly led to a major national controversy over such issues as:

The above is a slightly rewritten lead. Since the Senate Justice Committee got Gonzales to state that the Program was started somewhere in a six week period in 2001, it is inaccurate to stay with 2002, even if it eventually turns out the secret eo wasn't issued until then. Instead, let's NPOV it started vaguely when Gonzales indicated it did. The second paragraph is lopsided with White House argument. I think that since Gonzales has a quote Specter or someone should get one, but I'm not sure about that, so I didn't change that paragraph. Comment? Metarhyme 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Mr. Billion 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I made the change. Metarhyme 06:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A "professional" editor made some changes without discussing them. Here is the lead now:

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush issued a secret executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless phone-taps of persons who might be linked to al-Qaeda or its affiliates. (The complete details of this authorization are still not fully known.) The NSA maintained wiretaps on international communications, including some international communications involving U.S. citizens and other people located within the United States.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bars electronic surveillance of persons within the U.S. without the approval of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Bush Administration maintains that such surveillance was implicitly authorized by the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001. "Our position is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on December 19, 2005.[1] Moreover, the White House has argued that FISA does not apply during wartime because they believe Congress does not have authority to interfere in the "means and methods of engaging the enemy."[2] Both of these arguments are controversial.

Since the presidential authorization was classified, the program was concealed from public knowledge until December 2005, when the New York Times, after learning about the program more than a year earlier, first reported on it.[3] Public knowledge of this program promptly led to a major national controversy over such issues as:

Metarhyme 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) The second paragraph seems to me to be a honey pot for POV pushing. The bullets mention the issues; exposition is bountifully present below the TOC. Let's just delete the second paragraph. Metarhyme 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Beth Wellington rearranged the lead, creating a FISA section for the (former) 2nd paragraph, moving the bulleted items into their own section, and inserting a CRS section above Congress. I moved the bullets back above the TOC and moved CRS below Congress. I left the second paragraph in its new FISA section just below the TOC. Metarhyme 06:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes rearranged

I embedded scope of program in News reporting, renamed from NYT reports. Other domestic programs are more scandalous - Gonzales indicated them by the way he characterized his testimony about The Program, however this is an article about The Program. Since the other programs seem to me to be akin to the terrorist attacks on the world trade center - the guys wouldn't give up until they got it - I compromised by shifting the section to the bottom of the article. There is no article on US domestic surveillance, although putting that in search pulls up plenty. Metarhyme 11:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Name change proposal

The official name given to this program is not "NSA warrantless surveillance," but rather it is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and the article surrounding this issue should reflect the official name of the program, rather than a name applied by third parties.

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" has also gained more common recognizability on the internet and throughout the media with "Terrorist Surveillance Program" receiving 218,000 hits on Google whereas "NSA warrantless surveillance" only recieves 12,300 hits.

I propose the name of this article be changed to "Terrorist Surveillance Program Controversy" -RWR8189 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE--Actually, this may not be the proper name. I went the NSA site and searched for the exact term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and got nothing! The article needs to be where people will be able to find it. I just googled "Bush + warrantless" and got 3,990,000 hits. I just googled ""Terrorist Surveillance Program" (a term which has been around for a longer period of time than the controversy and is more generic in that it refers to both the program and in some places to the controversy) and got only 327.000 hits. I think the controversy is about warrantless searches, domestic spying, etc., not about the program by name. IF the name is changed, you could changed it to "warrantless domestic surveillance controversy regarding the NSA Terrorist Surveillancd Program" or whatever the actual official name is.--Beth Wellington 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC) P.S. Since I couldn't find the program by name, I searched the NSA site for FISA and got this interesting outcome which is in direct conflict with the "program" [3]

Legal Protections for U.S. Persons in the U.S.

• Must Be for a Foreign Intelligence Purpose
• Probable Cause Standard Applies
• Must Be an Agent of a Foreign Power Spy, Terrorist, Saboteur or Someone Who Aides or Abets Them
• Requires a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) :Court Order

I second that. It is the official name. As I have tried to point out in the talk pages of other articles, the present name is better than "Domestic Spying" as it used to say in the GWB article, but it is still a term coined by third parties whose neutrality is in question. In keeping with Wikipedia's encycleopedic principles, the title of the article should match the official name of the program. I'm in favor of changing it to "Terrorist Surveillance Program Controversy". WilliamThweatt 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favor. NSA warrantless surveillance has a connotation that takes away from an unbiased independent description of what is going on. -- Jbamb

I must note that "Terrorist Surveillance Program Controversy" also suggests to me that it is employing spin. I oppose the move. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• This sounds reasonable. Terrorist Surveillance Program controversy would be the correct name according to the Manual of Style. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the MoS also talk about keeping POV words from the title? I haven't looked at it in a while. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to keep the article confined to the controversy over the NSA program, which has some openness in that its existence is admitted. I doubt that, with a single digit collection of suspects, its sole focus is terrorists, although that's the party line, as is terrorist surveillance as a name for it. Please see archived name change discussion for how it got its present name. Since your proposed name change is pushing POV, and greatly enlarges the scope of this bloated article, I oppose it. Metarhyme 06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The only NSA program that is being discussed in this article is the Terrorist Surveillance Program. To base the name of this article off of speculation that more undisclosed programs exist is POV, and possibly pushing your opinion as original research into the title.

My proposed name change pushes no POV, but in my opinion eliminates it. Describing the program as "warantless" in the title implies that the absense of a warrant makes this program inherently unlawful or out of the ordiniary, but this is a lesser point.

Wikipedia Naming Conventions state that in a controversial article we should look at what the official name of a subject is, and what name is most common. It has already been demonstrated that "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is much more common than "NSA warrantless surveillance" and that the former is the official name of the program, and that is how the NSA self-identifies the program. --RWR8189 08:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you make no mention of having examined name change as I requested, I will assume you did not. It is a descriptive name the article bore before the party started pushing "terrorist surveillance." I had no part in arriving at the article's name. Some other surveillance programs crept into this article a couple days ago and I pushed them down from the top to the bottom. I'd like to push them out. If you want to fork to Terrorist surveillance making the NSA program a bit player amongst a host of stuff, go ahead. Metarhyme 09:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find the discussion particularly relevent to the situation today. The official name of the program only became public after the discussion had ended.

As for the "other programs" I don't see why they are in this article to begin with. They have nothing to do with the NSA and most have nothing to do with the absense of a warrant. I say at most, those other programs mentioned should be in the "See Also" category.

You also did not address how the current title is in conflict with Wikipedia Naming Conventions --RWR8189 09:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to submit to mediation? The other programs were placed in the article by what I took to be a sweet earnest beltway brat who doesn't blank pages and templates her references. I lieu of the existence of Terrorist surveillance in which to place them, I relegated them to pending. NSA just called it The Program. The article concerning the controversy about its revelation ought not be called "Leaked: NSA program violates statue and Constitution." My position is that the article name is descriptive, that it's had its name for a while, and that the bushie line is to call it what you want. This pushes POV and should not be done. Metarhyme 10:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary: Fox News has adopted the Bush administration's terminology for its warrantless domestic spying program, calling it the "terrorist surveillance program." Quote: The term "terrorist surveillance program" appears to have originated with the right-wing news website NewsMax.com on December 22; operators of right-wing weblogs began to pick up the term on January 20, according to a timeline at the Think Progress blog." Fox follows Bush's lead, renames domestic spying program as "terrorist surveillance program"-- The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.134.175 (talk • contribs) .

I can see that some people are trying to spin the Presidents War Power as Commander in Chief and some are trying to spin the decision from the FISA Court of Review. Either this is due to partisanship or lack of understanding from never taking some upper level collegiate law classes. Bachs 07:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a sample of POV pushing from the other side. Look at his article, Legality of warrantless surveillance. You might want to fill that with Gonzales. Metarhyme 09:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme, with all due respect, you should be the last person to be lecturing people here about POV. With your constant use of terms like "bushie line", etc, you reveal your obviously left-leaning bias. Please don't take that the wrong way, I believe in the First Amendment and I strongly support your right to dissent and I respect your right to your own opinion (no matter how wrong and misguided it may (or may not) be). But this is not the proper forum to express that opinion. This is an encyclopedia.

Secondly, the fact that "NSA Terrorist Surveilance Program" is the official name given this program by the Administration doesn't make it POV. Just look at other government programs with articles here like New Deal, Public Works Administration, etc. These were also failed, controversial programs but are also listed under the proper names given them by their Administration. The name given a government program by the government agency that initiated/administers it is, by definition, the name of the program, and should clearly be the NPOV title of the article. In fact, any attempt to call it something other than the official name is POV.

Of course it would be perfectly acceptable to include in the body of the article a section describing how the proper name of the program was emphasized by the administration to counter the Left's more inflammatory rhetoric (or however you wish to NPOV word it). Or that the official name of the program is looked upon by some in the opposition movement as administration spin, etc. But the fact remains that "Terrorist Surveilance Program" is the official name and this article's title should be immediately changed to "NSA Terrorist Surveilance Prgram Controversy", a title which, by the way, is every bit as succinct and descriptive as the current one, just more accurate. It points out their is a "controversy" surrounding the government program called "Terrorist Surveilance Program" ran by the "NSA".

It's a matter of logic, fact and Naming Convention...not opinion or political bias. WilliamThweatt 16:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of spin. The central fact of the eavesdropping is that no warrants are obtained. That may be reasonable, it may not - it was sneaky and now is controversial. You want to delete that central fact, which makes the title less neutral. Your statement that it is not a matter of opinion or political bias is not factual. Note that warrantless domestic surveillance program is used by Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff to report that "The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program Monday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution." ABA: Bush Exceeds His Constitutional Powers. Metarhyme 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a minute and listen to yourself. I have so many things to say about your response but it is clear that you are arguing based on bias not logic. I don't want to change your bias, just the name of the article. I'm not going to waste time arguing with an ideologue. But I have to say this one thing in rebuttal: I don't want to "delete a central fact"...nowhere have I advocated anything close to that. Some of the surveillance in question was done without a warrant. That has been made public. You know very well I'm not saying we delete it from the article. I'm simply saying that the title needs to be changed to something like "NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Controversy", reflecting the official, governmental name of the program (by which it will be remembered in the history books) to conform with Naming Standards. If a minority of people still refer to it as "warrantless domestic surveillance", you can make a redirect to the newly named page. If you can't agree to this, submit it to mediation ASAP or I'm going to change it myself. I've made my points and I'm not going to repeat them over and over. So far, you are the only voice in opposition.WilliamThweatt 01:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely oppose this. "Terrorism" is a problematic word, and will not assist in the neutrality of the title. The surveillance was warrantless, and performed by the NSA. It was controversial. The title should stay as it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ta, thanks for weighing in. I have seen your posts on various articles here and I respect your use of logic as opposed to emotion. I have agreed with many of your posts. But, however loathe I am to disagree with you here, I have to say that your use of "Problematic" above is POV. Regardless of whether one believes a word (in this case "terrorist") is problematic, it is the official name of the program and this is how it will be forever remembered. (See axis of evil for comparison: very inflammitory and "problematic", yet it was the official term used by the administration). I can use your same logic: The program is called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and performed by the NSA. It was/is controversial. The title should be changed. You can explain about warrants, FISA, FISC, and the legal opinions and spin of the various parties in the body of the article.

As a quick aside, let's just get down to brass tacks and face it, the lack of warrants is a pretext, it hasn't even been ruled legal or illegal by any Court or Committee. The real controversy is that is was done. And that it was done by the Bush Administration. Even if a Secret Court had granted warrants to secretly surveil US Citizens, the Left would still be crying "after packing the Court, they're spying on us!!!". Take the 2000 election for a prime example. The Court Ruled GWB the winner and you have the Left still claiming Gore won the election. The program and GWB are the root of the controversy, not the lack of warrants. I am not an advocate for either the right or the left. I'm just as concerned with extremist right-wing facism/big-brotherism as I am with extremist left-wing socialism/communism. I just want non-biased, NPOV, LOGICAL entries.WilliamThweatt 02:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you find the name of the program to be problematic, you should petition the government, not deny the offical existance of the program's name. You should also review the Wikipedia Naming Conventions

• "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is more common so it should take precedent over the less common "NSA warantless surveillance"

• "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is the official title of the program by the federal government, and this name is self identified by the NSA. This is also what the government uses to describe the program.

• "NSA warantless surveillance" is essentially a term that exists only for the purposes of Wikipedia, and this is unacceptable and unenclycopedic. There is no consensus outside of Wikipedia where this name is in common use, whereas the official government name has generally been accepted by the media and by other public figures. It is against Wikipedia policy to essentially use a term for only Wikipedia purposes.

• I don't think there is much more to discuss about this. The current title is clearly in opposition to the Naming Conventions, and no one has disputed this. It seems the only opposition comes from those who oppose the government's ability to name its own programs, and they feel they are better suited to the task. --RWR8189 02:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that you must be confused. I'm not sure that anyone would be opposed to an article on the program itself. The problem is that there is probably almost no way to actually construct such an article now since the details of the program are almost non-existant or pure speculation. I say, go ahead and create articles on the program itself. That, however, does not address the fact that there is a story in and of itself created by the controversy surrounding the program itself. It's probably true that the program should be identified more clearly, but in reality, much of that information was not known until relatively recently. Also, are we certain that those are the real names and not merely the name someone wishes it were called? I honestly can't answer that question. In any event, on this point, you're clearly not correct. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you are confused, Mmmbeer. We are not advocating a seperate article here. We are talking about the "controversy" and our proposed new name includes "controversy" in the title. And it may be true that the information was not widely known until relatively recently, but now that it is known, we should change the article and/or title to incorporate what is known. Such is the nature of Wikipedia.WilliamThweatt 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I misread the entire parent's argument. However, I will again fall back on my in the alternative argument which points out that "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is hardly the name of the program and is simply a label created by partisan sources. A quick search of news.google.com reveals that (note this AP article[4]). As such, it's hardly a better name and, if anything, is neither more descriptive nor less POV. The title, as it is now, remains both. I think that it's a sad state of affairs when we have such rampant POV pushing on a very important topic. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 03:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• For an article name change which isn't accepted by all, the procedure is to format your (WilliamThweatt/RWR8189}-proposed move as specified at Wikipedia:Requested moves placing it in the top date section there. Then, again per Wikipedia:Requested moves, place a move template on the top of this Talk page. Discussion already exists, but ought to have favor and oppose sections. Metarhyme 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As Mmmbeer notes, "terrorist surveillance program" is not the name of the program. From the official White House site, quoting Bush's Kansas State speech: "It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program." [5] Given that it's not an official name, but simply a label that Bush prefers, is it a good, NPOV label? No, because A) the vast majority of the people surveilled are not terrorists, and B) the controversy is not about surveilling terrorists--which is a big part of the NSA's job--but about surveilling people in the U.S. without a warrant. Wikipedia's article title should reflect what the controversy is about. Nareek 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the term is not particularly relevent. The fact remains that the United States federal government now describes the official name of this program as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." We do not get to pass judgement on the ability of the federal government to name its own programs.

This also does not address the common usage issue, go Google it for yourself. "Terrorist Surveillance Program" gets more hits by nearly a factor of 20 compared to "NSA warrantless surveillance." This isn't a small gulf.

The rest of your post is POV, you have no way of definitively knowing details of the Terrorist Surveillance Program that have not been released to the public. --RWR8189 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. government does not seem to use the "terrorist surveillance program" as an official title--see this Department of Justice document, which uses the phrase with lower-case letters: [6]

If you Google "terrorist surveillance program", many of the top hits are articles taking issue with Bush's phrase as misleading. Nareek 18:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you Google "Failure" and hit the get lucky button you get a bio of G.W. Bush - Google has a long history of playing political games with the results... I can quote several articles on this as well. The name needs to be changed. Bachs 18:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

google hits	name	who's there
13,300,000	Terrorist Surveillance Program	Scott McClellan takes top president Bush 2nd
967,000	NSA warrantless surveillance	Wikipedia takes top 2
569,000	NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program controversy	Wikipedia takes top 2

Googlers may consider the title to be partisan. Thomas R. Eddlem's Bush’s 'Probably Not a Terrorist Surveillance Program' is in 7th place, googling "Terrorist Surveillance Program." That author claims American citizens are law abiding, which I think is an unhistorical view. Metarhyme 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Time for a quickpoll? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Typing in NSA "Terrorist Surveillance Program" on Google gets 120,000 hits. Clearly there are more than a couple of people calling it that. - Syberghost 17:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I still maintain that all the hostility to this name change is rooted in partisan bias and personal POV problems that blinded people to obviously guidelines laid down in the naming conventions, and I will revisit the issue in several months as it becomes more and more clear that this is the official and single most commonly used name for the program. --RWR8189 00:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Support or Oppose Name Change

• Support

– {:This move is requested to make the name of this article consistent with the Wikipedia Naming Conventions

The official name given to this program as given by the United States federal government is not "NSA warrantless surveillance," but rather it is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and the article surrounding this issue and the controversy should reflect the official name of the program, rather than a name applied by third parties.

It has always been the case that the government is able to name its own programs, see: New Deal, Public Works Administration, etc. These were also failed, controversial programs but are also listed under the proper names given them by their Administration. The name given a government program by the government agency that initiated/administers it is, by definition, the name of the program, and should clearly be the NPOV title of the article. In fact, any attempt to call it something other than the official name is POV.

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" is by far the more commonly used term for the program, and recieves 229,000 hits on Google, whereas "NSA warrantless surveillance" recieves only 12,200 hits on Google. Also the official name for the program has come into common usage in throughout much of the media, and is the only uniform name that has been applied to the controversial program.} — RWR8189 17:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this move. The word "terrorist" is unnecessary POV, in my view, and this is just giving in to spin. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But isn't our policy to use the official name where possible? Granted, in this case the scope of wiretaps might extend beyond just the NSA (isn't the Pentagon involved as well?), but if not, the change seems to be appropriate. I hope it's at least a redirect already. -- nae'blis _(talk) 13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: proposed name is less clear and is neither the official name of the program nor the most commonly used. Jonathunder 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Who do I believe, you or my lying eyes? The proposed title is more common than the current, and it is the official name the federal government gives the program. --RWR8189 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree the title should be changed, but I do not agree with the new name. The issue is not just about hunting foreign terrorists - it is about privacy and the misuse of power. This administration now wants to expand, and has used their new-found authority to use it to chase non-terrorists - common criminals. The misuse of power already happened in the 60's and 70's by the very same people who claim they need additional authority. 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MChiBro (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - The program is from the NSA. And what is controversial is the lack of warrants. The purpose of the program really has nothing to do with the controversy, so the name is correct. -Jcbarr 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not an appropriate forum for POV pushing. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 20:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support with one caveat: "NSA" should be included in the new title. "NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program Controversy". It's blatantly NPOV. It is both the official name, and the most commonly used (see above) and most likely the way it will be remembered in the history books. Explain the details of the controversy in the body of the article not in the title. Otherwise, why not name it "The George W. Bush Approved NSA Warrantless Domestic Surveillance of Terrorist or US Citizens with Suspected Terrorist Links Without Approval From Congress or FISA Court Controversy of 2005". --WilliamThweatt 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That was a careless mistake on my part, and I amended the proposal to include "NSA" in the title.--RWR8189 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is not the official name of the program, it is confusing in terms of why there is a controversy, and it has been widely criticized outside of Wikipedia for being a misleading and tendentious label--i.e., POV. The present name seems fully NPOV to me. Surely everyone can agree that there was surveillance conducted by the NSA without warrants, and that this was controversial? Nareek 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the reasons are self evident. Bachs 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It is the name of the program. You don't need to describe the controversy in the title. That's what the article's for. -- 2nd Piston Honda 04:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose fine as it is, terrorism is a problematic word anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mirror Vax 07:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The unique and controversial aspect of the program is the warrantless behavior, not the "terrorist surveillance". Furthermore, as documented by the NYTimes and WAPost, Many innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism have been the subject of surveillance. --Ryan Utt 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Naming it anything other than what it is called by the government runs the risk of being POV. Using the proper name of the program is the way to ensure an unbiased title. -- Jbamb 16:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. If you don't like the name complain in the discussion. It's named what it's named. -- Syberghost 16:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Many people have argued "It's [Bush's spying program is] named what it's named." But this isn't so clear cut. Originally press reports used a different label. Bush switched labels after-the-fact, apparently for the sake of PR. So why should Bush's label, an invention of Bush's propaganda wing, be given precedence over other labels? --Ryan Utt 19:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since nobody calls it NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program controversy the Wikipedia naming conventions do not support a change to that name. Since the Program has no proper name, saying it does is wrong. Metarhyme 16:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean "nobody with your views" calls it that, or "nobody that you read" calls it that, or "nobody that you get your talking-points from suggests you call it that". Please do some non-biased research and you'll find that not only do people call it that, but that it is, in fact, the most common name.--WilliamThweatt 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See the table above. The proposed name fetches less at google than either of the others. In a comment above you suspected this was all about Bush. I just discovered Greenwald who says, "Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon." My own view is that if the people's virtue precludes democracy, and the people's manners precludes monarchy, Bush is a better autocrat than most - the form of government assures incompetance, however. Metarhyme 20:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is more right-wing spin such as Homicide Bomber a while back. --StuffOfInterest 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You calling it "spin" amounts to original research, which is not allowed. If you can find a credible, neutral source that identifies the governmental name of the program as "spin", then explain that aspect in the article, not the title of the article.--WilliamThweatt 17:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there buddy, your labeling his discussion-page comments as "unallowed" constitutes Original Research. If you can find a credible, neutral source that identifies StuffOfInterest's comments as Original Research, then we can allow such categorizations on our talk page. Otherwise such opinions should be kept to yourself. --Ryan Utt 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't browbeat other editors here. In calling the proposed title "spin", he is expressing his opinion as to whether it meets WP's NPOV policy, and this kind of discussion most certainly is allowed. Jonathunder 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:TIGERS, WP:Civility, WP:AGF. Nomen Nescio 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ladies and Gentleman. It was an admittedly lame attempt at hyperbole/sourcasm for effect. It wasn't meant to "browbeat" anybody. Of course his comments are allowed in the discussion area. The point was whether the Administration's name of the program may be considered "spin" 1)is original research and should not be considered when naming an article and 2) has nothing to do with WP's NPOV policy regarding the title of an article. The term "Axis of Evil" was big-time spin, yet we have that as an article title. It's called what it's called. If some regard what the program's called as "spin", that needs to be explained in the article.--WilliamThweatt 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed name works better. The point of view concerns are just silly. Peter Grey 18:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Terrorist" label gives preferential treatment to the administration's spin; that would be endorsing propaganda. "NSA Warrantless surveillance program" is much closer in line with what one hears and reads in news media. --AladdinSE 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps we should consider changing the names of articles such as New Deal and Great Society since they do little more than endorse propaganda and give preferential treatment to the Roosevelt and Johnson administrations respectively? --RWR8189 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying Aladdin is that the Bush administration is guilty until proven innocent. Is that a correct assessment? -- 2nd Piston Honda 09:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that those articles don't have competing names, nor are they known by a more popular word usage. And no, incorrect assessment. We are talking about most widely used and applicable name, not guilt or innocence.--AladdinSE 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, it has already been shown that a multitude of non-terrorists are being monitored. To call it terrorist surveillance is not only a misnomer, it would lend an air of legality to what clearly amounts to an impeachable offense. Nomen Nescio 10:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (I have been asked by User:Metarhyme to put my comment here, as it would not count where it was originally placed.) Actually, this may not be the proper name. I went the NSA site and searched for the exact term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and got nothing. The article needs to be where people will be able to find it. When I first wrote this last night, at 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC), I googled "Bush + warrantless" and got 3,990,000 hits. I googled ""Terrorist Surveillance Program" (a term which has been around for a longer period of time than the controversy and is more generic in that it refers to both the program and in some places to the controversy) and got only 327.000 hits. Today, using a computer at the public library, for some reason the search is only 1,790,000 to 226,000. I don't understand the difference, but the trend remains the same. I think the controversy is about warrantless searches, domestic spying, etc., not about the program by name. IF the name is changed, you could changed it to "warrantless domestic surveillance controversy regarding the NSA Terrorist Surveillancd Program" or whatever the actual official name is. And by the way, since I couldn't find the program by name, I searched the NSA site for FISA and got this interesting outcome which is in direct conflict with the "program". [7] Legal Protections for U.S. Persons in the U.S.
• Must Be for a Foreign Intelligence Purpose
• Probable Cause Standard Applies
• Must Be an Agent of a Foreign Power Spy, Terrorist, Saboteur or Someone Who Aides or Abets Them
• Requires a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) :Court Order--Beth Wellington 21:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The White House is hardly disintrested in this issue! There is no reason to take their terminology as NPOV. In fact, Bush et al started pushing for new name ('terrorist surveillance program') as recently as the end of January (see http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11026705/?displaymode=1006). PJ 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a lie until it is taken to be the truth (see Big Lie)." It was one of Hitler's primary rules, according to this quote from an OSS report: "His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." Note that GWB accepted blame for Katrina response, which in not in compliance with one primary rule. Argument here that Terrorist Surveillance is the "official name" of the Program seems to be obviously fully compliant with the Goebbels technique. Metarhyme 02:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you already vote?

Either way, your history lesson ignores the Wikipedia Naming Conventions. Regardless of how or why, the federal government has named this program the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" whether you agree or disagree with the decision of the federal government is irrelevent. It is also the single most popularly used term to describe the controversy. Everyone that is resistant to this name is letting their own biases and partisanship blind them to really very simple rules laid down in the naming conventions. --RWR8189 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose NSA Domestic Spying Program is much more accurate.——Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.46.202 (talk • contribs) date

• Oppose (1) The warrantless surveillance program was simply called the Program from its inception in 2001 through January 2006, when President Bush referred to its as "a terrorist surveillance program." Thus, for the majority of its existence, it was not named the Terrorist Surveillance Program; (2) The White House does not, to this day, refer to it as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (i.e. as a capitalized title of a program). [8]; (3) Numerous news reports have described a program that is larger and more wide-ranging than the "terrorist surveillance program" described by the president. See e.g. Dec. 24, 2005, NY Times, Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau [9]; Dec. 25, 2005, LA Times, U.S. Spying is Much Wider, Some Suspect by Joseph Menn and Josh Meyer; Jan. 3, 2006, Slate, Tinker, Tailor, Miner, Spy: Why the NSA's snooping is unprecedented in scale and scope by Shane Harris and Tim Naftali [10]. Thus the controversey that this article addresses is larger than a controversy over the legality of the "terrorist surveillance prgram" described by the administration; (4) the dispute about what to call the Program is a part of the controversy. While Domestic Spying Program is POV, it gets a lot more google hits than Terrorist Surveillance Program, which is also POV.[11].

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major points of the controversey

The lead summarizes the major points of the controversey as such:

• The legality of the warrantless wiretaps involving U.S. persons.
• The efficiency of the program, and the legality of the NSA's handing-out the information to the FBI.[3]
• Constitutional issues concerning the authority of Congress and the President's authority as Commander in Chief.
• The possibility this program violates Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
• The American citizens' right to privacy.
• The legality of the New York Times disclosure, and the potential implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure of this highly-classified program.

Can you pick out which five are actually major issues related to the disclosure and which one is an administration talking point? Even if we cover the last issue in the article (and I think we should) it should not be stated as analogous to the other five issues or presented in such a way. Savidan 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Contending points of view need to be presented in a balanced way. It is like the 4th Ammendment's "reasonable" - quarrel your way through it. There are three concerns with citizen rights in the list, one balance of powers, one modified functional concern, and the one you don't want which ought to be two, both of real concern to many people. How about this? Metarhyme 09:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers.
• The effectiveness of the program.
• Legality of warrantless wiretaps on U.S. persons and citizens' right to privacy.
• The legality of the publication of highly-classified information.
• Implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure.

Better, but it still seems to constitute revisionist history. There was a lot of controversey about the legality of the program in the mainstream news media, the general public, etc. By contrast, the legality of the disclosure recieved very little controversey. Being NPOV does not mean that we repeat what the liberals say half of the time and what the conservatives say the other half of the time. We do not have an obligation to publish administration talkig points side by side with the controversey they are attempting to rebutt. Savidan 15:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's history just yet. "Why not just tell the Truth" (right or left) probably isn't finished attacking the article either. Publication of H bomb specs taken from LANL would find the courts upholding prior restraint I think. I've inserted "scope and" into the second item. The first item is now playing out behind closed doors, but chatter can be heard. You agree that the third point is not the sole issue? Would the government never jail a reporter or leak source? Well, I see that each item has traction. Let's see your list. Metarhyme 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Ah, I attempted to insert "scope and" into the second point but it didn't stay there. Please shuffle and reword to suit an NPOV take on bulleting the controversy - your approach may be the one that sticks. Metarhyme 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Legality of warrantless wiretaps on U.S. persons and citizens' right to privacy.
• Constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers.
• The effectiveness and scope of the program.
• The legality of the publication of highly-classified information.
• Implications for U.S. national security arising from the disclosure.

Would it be OK to replace the existing bullets with the five above? Metarhyme 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Attempting adjustment of points. Metarhyme 00:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hearing no further dissent, I have replaced the bulleted points. Congress is oozing along, so I updated that section. Also Judge Kennedy setting a deadline for DoJ in the FOIA case. The Georgetown U outfit which is part of the foia action he's judging dug up Rumsfeld and Bush the elder losing their argument for inherent presidential powers to cover telecom intelligence surveillance under president Ford in '78 - Ford wanted a law. I put that in History. Metarhyme 11:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal section

One problem is that many of the people debating/posting edits have no legal training in constitutional law or case law. The ignorance of some of what I have seen is a real problem. Both the Supreme Court and the FISA Court of Review have stated in few uncertain terms what constitutes a reasonable warrantless search and when/how that search may be used as evidence in a criminal court. Bachs 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

IANAL. Lots of law professors disagree. What is your version of the Truth? Metarhyme 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme - I can find you a professor, in fact many, who insist that 9/11 was a part of a vast Jewish conspiracy too, so what. Iran has a bunch of PhD's such as the new President of Iran that say the holocost never happened. Just because you can find a PhD. who denies something doesnt make it so. You are trying to justify PoV.

A simple review of the case law shows that both the FISA Court of Review and the Supreme Court have not moved to limit the presidents total authority to engage in Warrantless searches for foreign intelligence. In fact the case from the FISA Court of Review that says the president has this authority is listed in the article here. Perhaps you should read the article in its entirety and the case which is linked. There is a reason why no court has every even attempted to slap on injuction on the NSA to stop this activity which has gone on for decades.

One of the men who taught me Constitutional Law is Henry J. Abraham, who is perhaps the most famed historian and author about the Supreme Court. Famed Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, even "borrowed" 51 pages from one of Abraham's books in his own writings. Google Abraham to see for yourself.

On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes… and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA traitor Aldrich Ames without a warrant. Bachs 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I placed the exerpt from In re sealed case there. NPOV is of interest to me. The guys who sweated over the legal section can be found in the earlier two archives. They may not be too busy to respond to reasoned arguments about their work. Must I name them or can you find them? Metarhyme 18:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the overtly incorrect assertions in the discussion editors might want to look at the following interpretations: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37].

Why using Clinton is incorrect and a distraction: [38][39][40][41].

Misrepresentation of facts and history: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49].

Cause for impeachment: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Nomen Nescio 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's all pinko POV pushing. This article must be socked to the pledge:

I pledge allegiance to my Bush,

and to the order which he creates:

"conservatives" triumphant,

with spying and lying to all.

Possibly Legality of warrantless surveillance needs your attention. Metarhyme 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion pieces from dailykos etc are not evidence, Jaime Gorelicks testimony to the senate intelligence committee is. With all due respect spare us the partisan kool-aide Bachs 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed the numerous pieces by legal scholars. But then again, cherry picking information and ad hominem attacks have become all the rage the past five years.-- Nomen Nescio 10:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Warrantless Searches

Removed President Ford section under History of Warrantless searches - REASON there was no warrantless search in this incident at all. Rather it was talk about the Ford Adminstrations decision to support legislation in congress that would require a warrant for domestic to domestic searches even for foriegn intelligence reasons. This version and of the legislation never became law. Since this was not about a warrantless search that happened but rather President Fords support for a piece of legislation that never became law it is very questionable weather or not it belongs in this section.

Perhaps this part could be put back in if rewritten, but it contained spelling errors and lacked clarity. Also it creates a new debate - because such a proposed law would be unconstitutional because Congress cannot amend constutional presidential war powers as commander in chief by majority vote. Bachs 21:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Warrantless Searches is available - want to start the article? Metarhyme 23:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In March of 1976, during the Ford administration, White House counsel Philip Buchen and attorney general Edward Levi neutralized "adamant opposition" from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and CIA director George H. W. Bush to obtaining a federal statue for foreign intelligence telecommunications surveillance. Rather than legislation, the CIA and DOD heads wanted reliance on the inherent authority of the President. President Ford felt that the pros and cons for relying on inherent powers were outweighed by the pros and cons for obtaining a law.

That's the contribution you deleted. I fixed the "attroney" typo. Is it too long? Is it too short? Metarhyme 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC) If you continue to not respond, I will insert this more accurate section into History:

The "potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency for operations such as SHAMROCK (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973)" helped persuade president Gerald Ford in 1976 to seek surveillance legislation, which was ultimately enacted as FISA in 1978.

"National Security Archive at George Washington University". Wiretap Debate Déjà Vu. Retrieved February 4, 2006.

Metarhyme 19:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Another partisan "spin"

Of course, this is yet another silly source, but I had to share it with you:

Civil liberties organisations expressed outrage yesterday after it was reported that the database of terrorist suspects kept by the US authorities now holds 325,000 names, a fourfold increase in two and a half years.[61]

Nomen Nescio 00:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The size of NSA's database is drawing staff complaints - they're not sure how they'll be able to continue to store it all. Sorry I can't reference that without going back through a lot of stuff. If those names were produced by the Program, then it's highly processed final output. Since the Courts and Congress would view NSA's thing from which data is mined as a potential instrument of political control, which it is, operational details need to be kept hidden. The enemy is the demoncrats and republican crypto-demoncrats. Metarhyme 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing lead

I put in some mostly minor changes into the lead. The biggest substantive change is the removal of the idea that FISA explicitly allows itself to be overruled by another law. To the contrary, FISA uses the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" several times, indicating that Congrees envisioned it to be its last word on the subject. The White House, of course, disagrees that it is the last word, but that should be presented as the White House's position.

(FISA also explicitly mentions what happens under a declaration of war--the president gets 15 days of exemption from the law. Perhaps that should be mentioned?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nareek (talk • contribs)

Rather than revert, which would have been easier, I moved the title 50 Chapter 36 link to outside links, giving it two there, and templated the Dec 16 Risen-Lichtblau article copyvio link into a footnote. NYT wants to charge for access to the article. Your left leaning website claims fair use; the GOP has a similar copyvio footnote to a Chicago Tribune opinion. It's kind of tricky getting this article NPOV. You may not be satisfied with your changes, which I retained. Please go up to the section where lead changes are discussed and look for agreement there, before adjusting the lean of the top of the article. Metarhyme 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

2 points in response to that, Nareek: 1) I believe your interpretation of "notwithstanding any other law" is wrong...no law is the LAST word on a subject. Otherwise, Congress could never pass a law that makes FISA (or any other law) null and void...and that's just not the case. Congress can ALWAYS override current law. 2) In FISA - TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1809 > a1 [62] it states A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally —(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute The phrase "except as authorized by statute" is one of the main points detailed in the Administration's white paper about this issue describing this to mean that One is guilty of violating FISA unless they are authorized by law...and the Administration argues that the post 9/11 AUF is just such a statute (law). Jeravicious 06:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

...and the Administration argues that the post 9/11 AUF is just such a statute (law). You must have noticed that to those outside the Bush administration this is seen as nonsense. The fact there is an investigation proves not everybody agrees with that assertion. In addition, after Congress explicitly denounced such an action, it would be difficult to understand why they would allow it under this very vague description. Nomen Nescio 11:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The legislative history of 1809 shows that Congress understood that any such future changes would have to involve an action more obviously constituting an amendment or repeal of the statute. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (contemplating an “amendment to this act . . . during a wartime emergency”); see also Posadas v. National City Bank of N.Y., 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936). (“[t]he cardinal rule is that repeals by implication are not favored.”). An implied repeal will “only be found where provisions in two statutes are in ‘irreconcilable conflict,’ or where the latter Act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and ‘is clearly intended as a substitute.’” Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254, 273 (2003). Moreover, the legislative history shows that the defense to criminal libaility in 1809 upon which the Administration's AUMF argument depends envisioned a court order under the statute. H.R. Rep. No. 95-1283, pt. I, at 96 (“the bill provides an affirmative defense to . . . [an] investigative officer who engages in [electronic surveillance] . . . pursuant to a search warrant or court order”) (emphasis added); id. (“One of the important purposes of this bill is to afford security to intelligence personnel so that if they act in accordance with the statute and the court order, they will be insulated from liability.”) (emphasis added); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 951720, at 33. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.20.206 (talk • contribs)

Wiretapping

Documents cited in federal court by a defunct Islamic charity may provide the first detailed evidence of U.S. residents being spied upon by President Bush's secret eavesdropping program, according to the organization's lawsuit and a source familiar with the case.[63]-- Nomen Nescio 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic "charity" seems to be requesting cash in exchange for returning transcripts the "charity" director was given of NSA warrantless surveillance by (it looks like) the FBI. Since in other cases, the government is pretending to be still looking for documents, it might be willing to pay to keep actual transcripts (the FBI?) released secret. If this is usable, what the Post article gives me is:

The first suit involving documented NSA warrantless surveillance seems to have been filed February 28, 2006 (somewhere). U.S. Government investigation indicated that Chechen rebels and Osama bin Laden received al-Haramain Islamic Foundation funding, and their funds were impounded. Suliman al-Buthe operated the nonprofit out of Ashland, Ore., and moved to Saudi Arabia by 2004. In May 2004 the U.S. government gave al-Buthe copies of intercepted conversations and e-mails between himself (in Saudi Arabia) and attorneys Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor (in the Washington D.C. area). Tom Nelson, al-Haramain's attorney, who filed the suit, won't confirm or deny anything, asking that all be done in private and under seal. Metarhyme 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will add it to the article in this manner in the litigation section:

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

On March 2, 2006 The Washington Post reported that the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation sued the U.S. government on February 28, 2006 in federal court over conversations intercepted without warrants. An anonymous source told the Post that the government had, by mistake, provided classified documentation of March and April 2004 NSA intercepts to the litigant in May of 2004. The lawyer for the plaintiff, who would not answer reporters' questions, asked the judge to accept and review sealed documents. -- Metarhyme 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Senate deal

Roberts got the White House to agree to oversight by a subcommittee of Senate Intel in exchange for the full committee's not prying into the history of the Program. Unless the Senate votes against the agreement, it would resolve the issue of Congressional oversight. If cutting the judiciary out bothers the Courts, eventually they will say. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll fix the committe misspellings next update. Metarhyme 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Center for National Security Studies and The Constitution Project

The argument reported by this friend of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court section is premised on the type of surveillance being done as being entirely suitable for warrants from the court. The Post article, Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects, reveals that this is not so, and appeared well before the CNNS-TCP brief went to FISC. If the argument were entirely sound, the statements in this section would be neutral, but since the premise doesn't take the reality of a data mining operation into account, I think this section does not reflect a neutral point of view. It also probably belongs in the FISC section above the court cases section where it was placed. It would be kind of nice if someone looked at the brief and at the Post article to see if I'm correct about the premise. Metarhyme 09:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)