Another Shrub "Whoops!"

[fossten]

Here, Phil, eat this:

John McCain: Bush Right to Use NSA


Sen. John McCain disappointed Democrats on Capitol Hill on Sunday by defending the Bush administration's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor a limited number of domestic phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Saying that Sept. 11 "changed everything," McCain told ABC's "This Week": "The president, I think, has the right to do this."

"We all know that since Sept. 11 we have new challenges with enemies that exist within the United States of America - so the equation has changed."

McCain said that while the administration needs to explain why it didn't first seek approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he suggested that the Patriot Act might have superseded the 1978 FISA Act, allowing "additional powers for the president."

McCain said the fact that congressional leaders - including top Democrats - were consulted on the NSA authorization "is a very important part of this equation." He suggested that any congressional hearings into the Bush decision focus on that aspect.
"I'd like to hear from the leaders of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who, according to reports, we're briefed on this and agreed to it," he told "This Week." "They didn't raise any objection, apparently, to [whether] there was a, quote, violation of law."

Asked about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's claim that she "raised concerns" about granting the NSA new powers during one meeting with White House officials, McCain said: "I don't know about any meetings, but I certainly never heard complaints from anyone on either side of the aisle.

"When this process was being carried out I would imagine that the leaders of Congress would be very concerned about any violation of law as well," he said. "Apparently [those concerns have] not been raised until it was published in the New York Times."

McCain also warned that any congressional investigation should take care not to force additional disclosures from the White House that could help the enemy, saying: "I don't see anything wrong with congressional hearings but what kind of information are you going to put into the public arena that might help the al Qaida people in going undetected."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml

 

[fossten]

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants."

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."


One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

 

[MonsterMark]

A shining moment is upon us showcasing liberal hypocracy for all the world to see. If the Democrats think that this is a winning issue for them, go for it.

Step into the trap set by own hatred and watch the American people chop it off when the truth comes out.

Can't wait to see people go to jail over this. Compare this to the Plame Game. What a joke.

 

[barry2952]

I don't have a problem with the NSA using wiretaps. I do have a problem with them abusing the tool.

Am I to understand that the President has to give direct authorization and it has only been used 30 times, or has the permit to use unlimited wiretaps been renewed 30 times? That's unclear to me.

 

[97silverlsc]

The New York Times. The United States version of Al-Jezeera. Wonderful.

The NYT. A traitorist organization if I ever saw one.

Don't have to go any further than the top of this thread to see your crew attack the source, fossten. Keep deluding yourself. The wheels of justice move slowly, but we are finally starting to see just how much the Repugs have abused the monopoly they have on control of the house, senate and white house. Abramoff, along with Delay and Plamegate are just the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with the president using FISA, the problem is with how he used it. He circumvented the courts every(?) time which is what is the most disturbing about this revelation. The courts have a good record of approving the wiretap requests under this act, there was no reason to bypass the courts. They are allowed to start wiretaps immediately in cases of emergencies and apply for the warrant within 72 hours, but this was not done.

 

[97silverlsc]

Here, Phil, eat this:

John McCain: Bush Right to Use NSA


Sen. John McCain disappointed Democrats on Capitol Hill on Sunday by defending the Bush administration's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor a limited number of domestic phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Saying that Sept. 11 "changed everything," McCain told ABC's "This Week": "The president, I think, has the right to do this."

"We all know that since Sept. 11 we have new challenges with enemies that exist within the United States of America - so the equation has changed."

McCain said that while the administration needs to explain why it didn't first seek approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he suggested that the Patriot Act might have superseded the 1978 FISA Act, allowing "additional powers for the president."

McCain said the fact that congressional leaders - including top Democrats - were consulted on the NSA authorization "is a very important part of this equation." He suggested that any congressional hearings into the Bush decision focus on that aspect.
"I'd like to hear from the leaders of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who, according to reports, we're briefed on this and agreed to it," he told "This Week." "They didn't raise any objection, apparently, to [whether] there was a, quote, violation of law."

Asked about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's claim that she "raised concerns" about granting the NSA new powers during one meeting with White House officials, McCain said: "I don't know about any meetings, but I certainly never heard complaints from anyone on either side of the aisle.

"When this process was being carried out I would imagine that the leaders of Congress would be very concerned about any violation of law as well," he said. "Apparently [those concerns have] not been raised until it was published in the New York Times."

McCain also warned that any congressional investigation should take care not to force additional disclosures from the White House that could help the enemy, saying: "I don't see anything wrong with congressional hearings but what kind of information are you going to put into the public arena that might help the al Qaida people in going undetected."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/142705.shtml

YOU show YOUR Hypocrasy by Calling McCain a traitor in one thread and then using him to defend what Shrub has done in another!!

 

[fossten]

Don't have to go any further than the top of this thread to see your crew attack the source, fossten. Keep deluding yourself. The wheels of justice move slowly, but we are finally starting to see just how much the Repugs have abused the monopoly they have on control of the house, senate and white house. Abramoff, along with Delay and Plamegate are just the beginning.
There is nothing wrong with the president using FISA, the problem is with how he used it. He circumvented the courts every(?) time which is what is the most disturbing about this revelation. The courts have a good record of approving the wiretap requests under this act, there was no reason to bypass the courts. They are allowed to start wiretaps immediately in cases of emergencies and apply for the warrant within 72 hours, but this was not done.

Oh, yeah, thanks for reminding me. Speaking of Abramoff, how do you feel about the FACT that your LibDem leader Harry Reid accepted $66,000 in donations from Abramoff? Hmmm? I bet you don't want to hear about that scandal. Neither did Harry Reid, when he was confronted with it.

Reid won't be returning lobbyist contributions

Spokeswoman says senator sees no reason to return funds
By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU





WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will not return campaign contributions he received during the past five years from lobbyists and clients associated with Jack Abramoff, a Reid spokeswoman said Friday.

Federal officials are investigating whether Abramoff, a lobbyist, bilked millions of dollars from Indian gaming tribes.

Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats have been sharply critical of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who has close ties to Abramoff.

About two-thirds of Abramoff-related campaign funds were given to Republicans. But The Washington Post reported that Abramoff also cultivated Democrats, including Reid.

Reid received $6,500 from Abramoff's associates at the Greenberg Traurig law and lobbying firm from 1999 through 2004, The Washington Post reported Friday.

During the same period, Reid received $40,500 from Indian tribes that were Abramoff clients, the paper reported based on research of federal records.

Reid does not know Abramoff, Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said.

But Abramoff hired Eddie Ayoob, who was Reid's legislative counsel until 2002 and was assistant finance director on Reid's 1998 Senate campaign.

Ayoob held a fund-raising reception for Reid at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, according to The Washington Post.

Calls to Ayoob on Friday were not returned. Ayoob left Greenberg Traurig earlier this year to join Barnes & Thornburg, another Washington law firm.

Hafen said Ayoob has not done any fund-raising for Reid this year. But, she added, "there is no reason to expect that he will not continue to raise money."

Reid declined an interview request Friday. Hafen said he sees no reason to return the money.

"Indian tribes have the same opportunity as anyone else to participate in the political process," Hafen said. "There is no reason to even make that suggestion."

Federal investigators are examining millions of dollars that Abramoff collected from Indian tribes for lobbying and public relations work.

Reid received his contributions while serving on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. He gave up that assignment after he was elected minority leader late last year.

Ernie Stevens, Jr., chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association, said he does not think money from gaming tribes has made a big difference with Reid.

"We don't always agree with Senator Reid, but I think he has been consistent on Indian gaming issues, and I don't think the contributions have changed his posture on any of those issues," Stevens said. "This is all part of the political process and we have a right to participate."

 

[fossten]

YOU show YOUR Hypocrasy by Calling McCain a traitor in one thread and then using him to defend what Shrub has done in another!!

Wrong. Your template is to be against a PERSON or ENTITY, no matter what that PERSON or ENTITY does. That prevents you from ever agreeing with anything good that Bush does, and it also prevents you from criticizing your own leaders when they are wrong, which is 99% of the time.

My template is to be intellectually honest, which means to judge each behavior as a singular event, and comment honestly on whether or not I think it's right. That allows me to criticize my leaders and even agree with my opponents if they happen to be right. "Even a broken clock..."

Your template is the epitome of hypocrisy. Mine is simple intellectual honesty.

 

[MonsterMark]

I don't have a problem with the NSA using wiretaps. I do have a problem with them abusing the tool.

Am I to understand that the President has to give direct authorization and it has only been used 30 times, or has the permit to use unlimited wiretaps been renewed 30 times? That's unclear to me.

Since 9/11, Bush has authorized the taps 30 times. Each tap was reviewed after 45 days or so. How many taps were made, don't know. Supposed to be 5 years for each illegal tap, so maybe the Democrats can hang Bush for 2530 years, or something like that!

A warrant is only needed for state to state taps. All inter-continental communications, whether inbound or outbound have never been coverd under FISA but the lame blame media won't report the truth to the American public.

I am waiting for the names of the Congressman that were informed this was going on since 9/11 to come forward. I understand Rockerfeller was one of them. Should be interesting to see him act like he is outraged when he was one of the culpable ones.

 

[RB3]

No matter what the source of articles I post, you, bryan and calabrio will dismiss them because of that source. You all respond with articles from your own sources and view them as gospel. What is the point in discussing anything with a group who think that they have "won" the discussion by repeating over and over that my posts are invalid because of the source? I post articles of interest and op-eds that I agree with. I see no point in discussing with you the merits of those posts because you think that saying the source is invalid or verbally "bullying" posters creates a "win" for you. The way I see it, this administration has done great damage to this country. You can't or won't. I will continue to post articles and op-eds I find interesting as I know there are others who find them of interest as well. Don't like it? Don't read them and don't respond to them.

Here's a news flash for you...Your articles are dismissed not only because of the source, but because they are a) provably factually incorrect, or b) contain no facts, only rumor, innuendo, and opinion. The source is cited primarily because your sources in the past have time and again been fact challenged or attempted to pass off opinion as fact.

The articles posted in response to you contain actual facts, and are further supported by the logical arguments of the poster. Your arguments consist primarily of calling everyone else names.

I find it fascinating that you post "articles of interest and op-eds you agree with", because it is apparent that everything you post has one theme...America is to blame, America is wrong, America is evil. You embrace uncritically anything that indicts American business or American foreign policy and gleefully celebrate it.

You say "the administration has done great damage to this country." Really? Is this what you're talking about:

YOU and your crapservative contingent here claim that WMDs were NOT the real reason we went to Iraq, and that it was to "spread democracy" and all that other baloney.

Because if it is, I'll agree with you...the Bush administration has indeed damaged this country by "spreading democracy and all that other baloney," bringing hope to others and greater security at home. And I'll welcome some more of that "damage."

 

[fossten]

Here's a news flash for you...Your articles are dismissed not only because of the source, but because they are a) provably factually incorrect, or b) contain no facts, only rumor, innuendo, and opinion. The source is cited primarily because your sources in the past have time and again been fact challenged or attempted to pass off opinion as fact.

The articles posted in response to you contain actual facts, and are further supported by the logical arguments of the poster. Your arguments consist primarily of calling everyone else names.

I find it fascinating that you post "articles of interest and op-eds you agree with", because it is apparent that everything you post has one theme...America is to blame, America is wrong, America is evil. You embrace uncritically anything that indicts American business or American foreign policy and gleefully celebrate it.

You say "the administration has done great damage to this country." Really? Is this what you're talking about:



Because if it is, I'll agree with you...the Bush administration has indeed damaged this country by "spreading democracy and all that other baloney," bringing hope to others and greater security at home. And I'll welcome some more of that "damage."

:I

The real damage is being done to the liberal agenda of this country, which will hopefully repair the damage that the liberal agenda has actually done to this country.

 

[fossten]

No matter what the source of articles I post, you, bryan and calabrio will dismiss them because of that source. You all respond with articles from your own sources and view them as gospel. What is the point in discussing anything with a group who think that they have "won" the discussion by repeating over and over that my posts are invalid because of the source? I post articles of interest and op-eds that I agree with. I see no point in discussing with you the merits of those posts because you think that saying the source is invalid or verbally "bullying" posters creates a "win" for you. The way I see it, this administration has done great damage to this country. You can't or won't. I will continue to post articles and op-eds I find interesting as I know there are others who find them of interest as well. Don't like it? Don't read them and don't respond to them.

How about your OWN source, the New York Times???

N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on December 20, 2005 - 13:32.
Dear journalists of the New York Times,
Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications of the truth.

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''



Boy Phil, if I were you I'd be really tired of being *owned*

 

[97silverlsc]

How about your OWN source, the New York Times???

N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on December 20, 2005 - 13:32.
Dear journalists of the New York Times,
Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications of the truth.

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''



Boy Phil, if I were you I'd be really tired of being *owned*

YES, By the FISA act they are allowed to tap calls as long as one end of the call originates or terminates in a foreign country. The issue is that they did not follow procedure by getting the warrant to do so. They are allowed to initiate the taps immediately as long as they apply for a warrant within 72 hours of doing so. They DIDN'T do that. It is also coming out that some of the calls tapped were domestic in origin and termination. Try and sweep it all you want, It's still violation of the law by an administration that thinks it's above the law and can do whatever it wants. All your name calling won't change that fact, it just highlights how small your minds really are.

 

[97silverlsc]

Here's a news flash for you...Your articles are dismissed not only because of the source, but because they are a) provably factually incorrect, or b) contain no facts, only rumor, innuendo, and opinion. The source is cited primarily because your sources in the past have time and again been fact challenged or attempted to pass off opinion as fact.

The articles posted in response to you contain actual facts, and are further supported by the logical arguments of the poster.

In Summary, The Repug method of addressing a post is:
A: YOUR articles are wrong because they make (Choose one) Me, My Guy, My Party look bad, so your sources must be spreading lies and rumors.

B: My articles are always right because they come from: Fox News, Drudge or some other site of my choosing that I have decided is infallible.

C:And just to help prove the point, highlight all posts with personal attacks and sarcasm, questioning your intelligence and calling you names.

Think that about covers the techniques I've seen here. Problem is, doesn't make your case any stronger, only makes you seem more insecure. :N

 

[RB3]

In Summary, The Repug method of addressing a post is:
A: YOUR articles are wrong because they make (Choose one) Me, My Guy, My Party look bad, so your sources must be spreading lies and rumors.

No, they're wrong because they're spreading lies and rumors.

B: My articles are always right because they come from: Fox News, Drudge or some other site of my choosing that I have decided is infallible.

No, they're right because they're fact checked and supported with reason and logic by the poster.

C:And just to help prove the point, highlight all posts with personal attacks and sarcasm, questioning your intelligence and calling you names.

And, of course, you never employ name calling or sarcasm when addressing those Repugs.

Think that about covers the techniques I've seen here. Problem is, doesn't make your case any stronger, only makes you seem more insecure. :N

I agree, you've covered all your techniques.

 

[ToddG]

Here's a news flash for you...Your articles are dismissed not only because of the source, but because they are a) provably factually incorrect, or b) contain no facts, only rumor, innuendo, and opinion. The source is cited primarily because your sources in the past have time and again been fact challenged or attempted to pass off opinion as fact.

The articles posted in response to you contain actual facts, and are further supported by the logical arguments of the poster. Your arguments consist primarily of calling everyone else names.

I find it fascinating that you post "articles of interest and op-eds you agree with", because it is apparent that everything you post has one theme...America is to blame, America is wrong, America is evil. You embrace uncritically anything that indicts American business or American foreign policy and gleefully celebrate it.

You say "the administration has done great damage to this country." Really? Is this what you're talking about:



Because if it is, I'll agree with you...the Bush administration has indeed damaged this country by "spreading democracy and all that other baloney," bringing hope to others and greater security at home. And I'll welcome some more of that "damage."

Wow, RB, you could fill in for Limbaugh -- seriously! That's excellent, well done!

 

[fossten]

All the President's Spies
By Jed Babbin
Published 12/19/2005 12:09:32 AM


There are politically motivated criminals in our government who should be unmasked and punished to the fullest extent of the law. These people have leaked some of our most sensitive secrets and damaged our national security for no reason other than to discredit President Bush. Forget the Plame nonsense. That -- according to a CIA assessment -- caused no damage at all. No, I'm talking about the leaks of the secret CIA detention facilities in Europe and elsewhere where terrorist detainees are kept. I'm talking about the leak of a top-secret satellite program, apparently by three U.S. senators. And I'm talking about last week's New York Times report about the NSA's domestic intelligence gathering effort that's paying off handsomely. Or was, until the leakers told the Times.
Friday, in a report that the White House asked not be published because it could jeopardize ongoing anti-terrorist operations, the Times revealed that in 2001 the president authorized the National Security Agency to collect intelligence from conversations routed through the United States and possibly including people within the United States. And the media feeding frenzy aimed at declaring George W. Bush a criminal started all over again.

It's pretty clear that NSA's domestic intelligence gathering was -- and is -- legal. But before we get to that, we have to set the context for this debate correctly, which is more than the Times, the Washington Post, or any of the other politico-media will do. We need only two data points to accomplish that.

First, the last time a war was fought on American soil, the president then didn't merely authorize intelligence gathering within our borders, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anyone held in military custody [/B](even though we didn't yet have a base at Gitmo), and declared that anyone opposing the war would be tried and punished under martial law in military courts. Thank heaven that George Bush isn't as radical as Abraham Lincoln was when he signed that proclamation in September 1862. Or as radical as FDR was in interning Japanese citizens in World War II.

Second, the price of inaction in the war against terrorists is too high. We know, from Mansour Ijaz's accounts and from the admissions Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger has made in several interviews, that the Clinton administration turned down Sudan's repeated 1996 offers of bin Laden on a silver platter because its lawyers didn't believe we had enough evidence to indict him in a U.S. court. Instead of telling the lawyers to find a way to put OBL out of business, the Clintons took the easy way out their lawyers had provided and let bin Laden get away. Now, we have a president who apparently tells his lawyers what Andrew Carnegie once told his.

In what may be an apocryphal story, 19th century industrial baron Carnegie, in a long meeting with his planning staff, endured a few "you can't do that" objections from a new lawyer. Carnegie took the young man into the hall and fed him a dose of reality: "Young man, I don't pay you to tell me what I can't do. I pay you to tell me how I can do what I want to do." And that sums up President Bush's approach to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

FISA requires that intelligence gathering regarding conversations to which "U.S. persons" are a party can only be done pursuant to a search warrant issued (usually in secret) by the special FISA court, made up of sitting U.S. district court judges and located in the Department of Justice building in Washington.

Second, the FISA court issues warrants based on findings of probable cause, like other U.S. courts issuing criminal search warrants. There are too many situations -- like the one we were in before 9-11 -- in which too many possible terrorists are talking to each other and their helpers to sort them out one by one and get individual warrants. Which is why the law, and the regulations that implement it, allow the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court.

The regulations implementing FISA clarify the law's exceptions to the requirements for a FISA court warrant. U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive, dated July 27, 1993, is the primary regulation governing NSA's operations. It is a secret document. (We at TAS, unlike the NYT, never, ever, disclose government secrets that may damage national security. What follows is taken from a declassified version obtained from an open source.)

Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court is obtained; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."

USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."

So FISA itself and USSID 18 provide a lot of swinging room for what the president ordered. If the people subjected to the intelligence gathering weren't "U.S. persons," if Attorney General Gonzales made certain findings (which he did, according to several accounts) and if the NSA went ahead because it reasonably believed it would lose significant foreign intelligence if it held its hand, the operation is legal. Period. Everyone who is ranting and raving about illegality has neither the facts (most of which we don't know) or the law and regulations (which weigh heavily in favor of legality) on their side.

In his Saturday radio address, the president said that the NSA program he authorized has been reviewed over and over, and reauthorized by him more than three dozen times:

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.



Illegal? I don't think so. A good idea? No, a great idea. Many of the congressional Dems whining the loudest about the president breaking the law (such as Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Dem on the Armed Services Committee) were almost certainly among those who were briefed repeatedly on the program since it began in 2001. In short, the Dems' objections are as hollow as the people shouting them to the television cameras. Let Congress ask its questions, and answer some as well. (Such as why weren't they concerned about this when they were briefed on it four years ago?) But let the intelligence be gathered.

America has lived in the shadow of 9-11 for more than four years. Everyone expects more terrorist attacks on our shores, but none has yet occurred. One reason for that is probably the NSA domestic intelligence gathering program.

We can do a lot, and must do it all. Spying on aliens and some "U.S. persons" here in accordance with the law, asking our allies to spy on Americans overseas, sharing intelligence gathered abroad with law enforcement authorities here, and much more. Our Constitution and laws set broad bounds for intelligence gathering. We should do everything within those bounds. Everything.

 

[fossten]

December 21, 2005
Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling
by Scott Ott

(2005-12-21) — Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local, and state-to-state, phone calls.

“Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty,” said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD. “We’re still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and, Allah be praised, good public schools.”

The al Qaeda source said Democrats in Congress recommended the move after the The New York Times revealed that the National Security Administration listens in on communications between international terrorists and some U.S. residents.

The source said no matter where al Qaeda plants its U.S. headquarters, it will incorporate in tax-free Nevada.

 

[MonsterMark]

Whenever I quote Scott Ott, one must put up the "Satire Alert" sign. Some people believe everything they read in the news. :shifty:

 

[fossten]

Whenever I quote Scott Ott, one must put up the "Satire Alert" sign. Some people believe everything they read in the news. :shifty:

Ok, no prob. BTW, your avatar rocks.

 

[MonsterMark]

Ok, no prob. BTW, your avatar rocks.

I'm just kidding. It is just that what Scott writes is what should be said about the jack the left says and does. The guy nails them time and again. Truly a gifted satirist. One of my fav sites on the net. The people that comment on his threads are pretty funny too sometimes.

 

[TheDude]

December 21, 2005
Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling
by Scott Ott

Let's just hope it's a RED state whenever they finally decide........

 

[TheDude]

Wow, RB, you could fill in for Limbaugh -- seriously! That's excellent, well done!

That was just uncalled for, seriously, lay off the personal attacks, that one was just down right mean spirited.

 

[ToddG]

I'm just kidding. It is just that what Scott writes is what should be said about the jack the left says and does. The guy nails them time and again. Truly a gifted satirist. One of my fav sites on the net. The people that comment on his threads are pretty funny too sometimes.

Can you please post the link to his website? Thanks.

 

[MonsterMark]

Scrappleface.com