President Bush in today's radio address, emphasis and annotations [in brackets] mine.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.[1] Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.[2]
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.[3] Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad.[4] Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.[5] The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days.[6] 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.[7] 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.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general.[8] Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.[9] Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.[10]
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
Now, this is a very direct statement. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Bush is angry — livid, chair-throwing angry — about this revelation, especially since the Times said in so many words that they withheld publication for a year because publication could harm national security. This raises the interesting question, what changed? If it would harm national security on 1 December, what made it publishable on 16 December?
It would appear that the Times is admitting that they released this information, knowing it would damage national security.
18 USC 793 (emphasis mine):
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
That's the Espionage Act. Ten years. Expect a criminal investigation, and it's not going to require a referral from NSA — although I understand NSA has already made one.
Notes: Bush is saying —
- This is important. These are not communications internal to the US.
- It's based on other intelligence, establishing that the person involved is connected to a terrorist network. I'm not a lawyer (and that caveat should be read in all of this) but it appears to me that 50 USC 1801 (b)(2)(C) defines anyone who is believed to be part of a terrorist network is an "agent of a foreign power" under the act, and not a "US person".
- He's explicitly saying this revealed "sources and methods"...
- ... and that the sources and methods are the ones that the 9/11 Commission criticized the intelligence community for not having.
- It was legal and within Bush's power.
- This was done and reviewed periodically every 45 days.50 USC 1802 says:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year.... - This defines them as "terrorists" under 50 USC 1801(c).
- It was reviewed by the government's lawyers.
- Congress was notified as required under 50 USC 1808.
- "Minimization" procedures required under 50 USC 1801(h) were in place and performed.
I don't think any claim that this was "illegal" will stand up to scrutiny.
Discussion: For some time, one of the topics of interest on this blog has been the question of what is happening with these leaks. It looks to me like this is a sign that the Bush administration has (finally?) decided to act. I think this is the opening shot of a "pushback" that may well involve criminal prosecution of both reporters and members of the intelligence community, and very possibly a Tom-Clancy-esque revelation of leaks from within the Senate.
It's going to be very very interesting indeed.
Updates:
- Jeff Goldstein has an excellent post up.
- Make that two excellent posts.
- 2005-Dec-17 12:43:27 — corrected a typo (1801 vice 1800) and a link atrocity from Blogger.
- Silent Running points out Executive order 12333 as well.
- Mark Levin has some interesting points.
- RightWingNutHouse (Gods, I wish they'd picked another name for the blog):
First, for the President to use the term “improperly provided” regarding a leak involving the National Security Agency is a monumental understatement. The NSA has extraordinarily strict rules about things like leaks. In short, if you’re an employee and you get caught leaking, you go to jail for a very long time.
Very much my experience with the NSA, by the way. - Tom McGuire asks some interesting questions too.
- Captain Ed weighs in, and points out that ...
- The Washinngton Post wonders about the timing too.
- Just continuing to beat this moribund ungulate, Baldilocks has some good words too.
Later update, 2005-Dec-18 15:08:46: In Stop the Bleating says:
Drop the specious arguments that the warrantless eavesdropping ordered by Bush somehow complies with FISA or some other federal statute. It doesn't. If it did, the White House would have issued a detailed explanation first thing Friday morning and would be repeating it loudly, ad nauseum.
But actually if you look at Bush's radio address, I think that's exactly what he did. I'm trying to track down legislative history, but §1801(a) defines people engaged in international terrorism as a "foreign power" and "agents of a foreign power". §1802 points to 1801(a)(1-3) in defining the exception, but I'm willing to bet that when that section was written, (1-3) were all there was of (a) ... and that a court would find that the intent of §1802 was to include all "agents of a foreign power" under §1801(a).
"USA v bin Laden" defined foreign terrorists as "agents of a foreign power" referring merely to (a)(1-2), so there's precedent to think that §1802 applies anyway.
As I show above, I think the radio address was exactly an argument that §1802 applies.
(This update, by the way, is a slight modification of a comment I left there.)
Okay, as I said I was planning to, I've closed comments on this now. Further comments can be applied to the post above.
348 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 348 of 348If Christmas, season of sob stories, has turned me into Scrooge,
I recognize the Dickensian counterpart of Paul Hewson - who calls himself "Bono" -
as Mrs. Jellyby in "Bleak House." Harping incessantly on her adopted village of Borrioboola-Gha "on the left bank of the River Niger,"
Mrs. Jellyby tries to save the Africans by financing them in coffee growing and encouraging schemes "to turn pianoforte legs and establish an export trade," all the while badgering people for money.
It seems to have been Africa's fate to become a theater of empty talk and public gestures. But the impression that Africa is fatally troubled and can be saved only by outside help - not to mention celebrities and charity concerts - is a destructive and misleading conceit.
Aren't some of these posts Greek?
"nature is sending a warning."
---
I've had some of those,
usual semi-adolescent response.
We pays our money...
Theroux is a heavyweight, Doug--are were you just therouxing up?
Jeez--Alexandra is nearby--I'm gonna go freshen up--
\;-)
When Malawi's minister of education was accused of stealing millions of dollars from the education budget in 2000, and the Zambian president was charged with stealing from the treasury, and Nigeria squandered its oil wealth, what happened? The simplifiers of Africa's problems kept calling for debt relief and more aid. I got a dusty reception lecturing at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation when I pointed out the successes of responsible policies in Botswana, compared with the kleptomania of its neighbors. Donors enable embezzlement by turning a blind eye to bad governance, rigged elections and the deeper reasons these countries are failing.
Mr. Gates has said candidly that he wants to rid himself of his burden of billions. Bono is one of his trusted advisers. Mr. Gates wants to send computers to Africa - an unproductive not to say insane idea. I would offer pencils and paper, mops and brooms: the schools I have seen in Malawi need them badly. I would not send more teachers. I would expect Malawians themselves to stay and teach. There ought to be an insistence in the form of a bond, or a solemn promise, for Africans trained in medicine and education at the state's expense to work in their own countries.
"just therouxing up?"
---
As usual.
actually, sub-saharan Africa is beginning to report some very good economic trends. Look into this BDS-blinded under-report.
Speaking of heavyweights:
Here's a Mexico Piece by a Hollywood Heavy:
---
Postcards From the Edge
Mama Mexicana
By CARRIE FISHER
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/travel/tmagazine/20T-ACAPULCO.html?ex=1148187600&en=8fa7ae2bd9b1c080&ei=5087&mkt=travelphoto
Doug--the thing is, you might *need* a few strokes--for your overall health's sake.
Hey, that's Princess Leia!
Debbie Reynolds with the Olympic champion Bob Mathias
---
We can feel young, again.
12:00 PM
You don't know how true and timely that is.
That WAS the family history,
so I told the doc to forget my
heart, since that's what I did.
...at least it's a quicker way to go, I guess.
God seems to hold all the aces.
Africa has no real shortage of capable people - or even of money. The patronizing attention of donors has done violence to Africa's belief in itself, but even in the absence of responsible leadership, Africans themselves have proven how resilient they can be - something they never get credit for. Again, Ireland may be the model for an answer. After centuries of wishing themselves onto other countries, the Irish found that education, rational government, people staying put, and simple diligence could turn Ireland from an economic basket case into a prosperous nation. In a word - are you listening, Mr. Hewson? - the Irish have proved that there is something to be said for staying home.
I think he suffered cardiac arrest.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Much more here. Plus, "Frog-marched to the hoosegow?"
And Sen. John Cornyn is criticizing the Times rather harshly. In a later post, Tom Maguire finds some other members of Congress "annoyingly hypocritical," and observes:
News flash - we are still a representative democracy, despite the evident unwillingness of our opposition party to bestir itself. If this secret program was so outrageous, the Senate and House Democrats who had been briefed on it should have spoken up. Instead, we get profiles in courage as, per the Times, Reid, Rockefeller, and others are unavailable for comment.
Doug--others, please enjoy a *spectacular* rant over @ RogerSimon's "Panic in Wheedle Park"--Yesharoon, near the bottom.
"yeshooroon"--my bad.
Doug--Alexandra is on your 'the future is in the young' theme (don't look too long on the illo--it's disturbing).
Peter, yes--my deep ambition, to be "Count von Bud, Defender of Dripping Springs"!
1:10 PM I saw that.
Sometimes a shake of the head is my only response to the "leaders" of the Catholic Church.
...think I'll learn more about Lessig.
Thank you Alexanxdra. And may I say, with heartfelt respect, "hubba hubba"?
(Gods, I hate to admit that I actually have "little Latin and less Greek" and that the content over there was greeked in for playing with the template.)
So the Greeks played with little Templates too?
---
Buddy misspelled "Yeshooroon" then copied and pasted it here just to confuse the easily distractable like me.
---
...trying to make sense of that "greeked" stuff didn't help either.
Doug: "Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one."
Epictetus has an answer for everything.
well, I hardly ever do that paste-between-sites, but what the hey, it fit.
But, anyhoo, isn't ancient Roman just re-alpha-beta-tized Greek? isn't there a Greco-Roman that can be read by both--much like Spanish/Portugese, Dutch/German, Flemish.Waloon, and Doug/English?
Powerline,
JOHN adds:
Critics of the NSA's actions will always assume that the NSA's interception of messages to known terrorists overseas is illegal. I have not yet seen anyone make a legal argument as to why that would be true. Further to Paul's point, Hugh Hewitt writes on "Presidential Power and the Surveillance of Foreign Powers Conspiring with United States Citizens":
"Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government.
The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to do so.
"Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president's executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority."
doug english:
Truepeers had some cool putdown of someone else that I thought applied quite well to good old myself.
Think I still have it somewhere.
Just PART of it applies, I hope!
---
Anonymous, if your "point" was about unintended consequences and irony it was well hidden. But then you are probably one of those pomo chaps/esses who can't express himherself without subtle irony, as if your method of thinking and speaking were a truth in itself. But as the CHinese Daoists already learned millennia ago, the way that can be spoken of is not the true or eternal way.
Which is no excuse not to have faith, quite the opposite. So you're glad but you'll hold off singing praises? What a life! Little if any faith! If everyone thinks like this, I'll guarantee you that things will turn bad in the next few months and we'll have nothing to sing about.
"any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers."
Ok, you got your exempt media, but what about the rest of us re:
McBane Feinsold?
Little Boys, little templates, your the one that brought up the Catholic Church.
My fav lies above, however, the one about the elasticised Che Outfits.
ex-dems pick of the week:
markg8 said...
"Let me spell the law out for you clearly.
Courtesy of a commentator at Political Animal:"
---
I'll be sure to straighten out Hewitt for him.
doug - to a relativist, all legal opinions are equal of course.
Lets ignore the Relevant it the Rheum.
Missed that Seneca:
That must be it:
He compensates with a long one those destined for a short one.
Life in the Gulag:
"Spying on Americans"
That is the title of the paper's lead editorial today.
-Powerline
"IN TOTAL SECRET"
"Still, FISA has been the law of the land for 2 1/2 decades.
To disrupt it so fundamentally, in total secret and without seeking legislative authorization, shows a profound disregard for Congress and the laws it passes."
"...treating Democrats as you do shows a profound disrespect for Democrats!"
Thank you. Finally.
Unbeknownst to most of us (and inspired, perhaps, by iran's cool new president), the WaPo's editors have shipped the American people to some place in Western Europe where their basic premise - that the actions of the country's chief minister are determined by parliament might (and i say might) make some sense.
Otherwise, we would still have a "president" with powers derived from a "Constitution," the contours of which would be determined by a "Supreme Court." Moreover, presidential power in this regard would still be as free from restriction as it was the last time the supremes had an opportunity to restrict it.
Of course, now that there is no longer a "USA," or a "Washington, DC," why do we need a "WaPo"?
I suppose you can't blame people for not wanting to fight for something that doesn't exist. Fine point, there, ex.
Hey yeah, If you don't believe in it, why fight for it.
...all us Vets of the 6-70's remember that.
---
Atlas Shrugs Peaceloving Palestinians Dancing In the Streets ... VIDEO HERE Celebrating Sharon Stroke UGH
They are dancing in the streets in Hamastan.
Handing out candy to the children.
Shooting their guns in the air (a favorite Palio celebratory gesture) Animals..........
Go ahead, Spielberg, kiss their ass, you self hating shmuck.
She's so hard to follow.
she's referring to "Munich", Spielberg's new flick about "root causes".
But, Atlas--he did two others "pro" fighting back.
She's so hard to follow.
I think she'd be kinda fun to follow.
But, anyhoo, isn't ancient Roman just re-alpha-beta-tized Greek? isn't there a Greco-Roman that can be read by both--much like Spanish/Portugese, Dutch/German, Flemish.Waloon, and Doug/English?
No, classical Greek is quite distinct. it was used by the Romans much as we use Latin: as a pretentious display of erudition.
Well, as I use Latin, anyway.
"Weenie, weekee."
300th?
"Greeking":
"Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.
The standard chunk of Lorem Ipsum used since the 1500s is reproduced below for those interested. Sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 from "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" by Cicero are also reproduced in their exact original form, accompanied by English versions from the 1914 translation by H. Rackham."
Rick: Yup.
Kinda cheating with Buddy posting sentence fragments, but I'll take it.
fragmen ?
And just where did you get that piece of info Buck?
Buddy, 5:34 PM
Boy, ol' Mika has a different opinion.
Check out bottom of Belmont Club
"Well, as I use Latin, anyway."
---
Yeah,
I was gonna say, sometimes when I can't express some exquisite thought just right in English,
I revert to some Latin that feels comfortable.
...Sorry to learn that is off-putting to some.
"Weenie, weekee, partes, tweekie"
Boy, it's kinda hard to take a cognomen like "buck turgidson" seriously. Always strikes me as compensation, somehow.
Surely you know it's the George C. Scott character from "Dr. Strangelove"--eh?
fascinating latin reverie, BTW.
Surely you know it's the George C. Scott character from "Dr. Strangelove"--eh?
Is that supposed to be a reason to take it more seriously?
Slack Flaccidson
turgid and perverse, turgid and perverse.
I think that's from Shakespeare somewhere.
Hey turgid, you're being SPIED on. GASP. HORRORS.
Oh. Wait. Have you communicated with a terrorist overseas lately?
Nevermind.
Go tell it on the mountain: Bush hates me, he really really hates me!
Mark...for the Luvva gawd...he does have the power in exigent emergency--as the strong evidence of terrorist activity (people, buildings, resort hotels, ships, trains being blown to pieces) surely IS.
The Quakers?
First, this a result of a Pentagon threat-assessment mandate which, if it did not include organized domestic activism would open a huge opportunity for the real bad guys.
Second, it is inactive, and under review as an overstep by the Pentagon itself. Suppose the Atta boys had been hiding in the group--they operated nearby--wouldn't you want someone on (*ahem*) *your* side to take a look?
Are you aware of how much look-the-other-way similar surveillance was done on German-Americans during WWI and II, and during the Cold War on communist activity? And that we won those wars? And that had we not, mark-ass-garrity would be screwed?
So where'd my last two posts go Seneca?
I wouldn't know, but at a guess, you are no more competent as a computer user than you are at argument, and you screwed them up. One thing I'm certain of is that no one deleted them, because if we've have deleted them, there's be a little italicized note that says "Comment deleted by the owner of the blog."
Let me recap. It's not within the President's authority to order the NSA to spy on US persons without a warrant from the FISA Court. Period. That's breaking US law.
Let me recap: You're mistaken, and I've cited the statutory argument. Argument by assertion isn't very convincing; why don't you try something else?
Turns out, by the way, that this isn't the first time this has been done --- Clinton and Janet Reno did it in 1997 (see that "USA v UBL" case) and Carter did it in 1979. US Signals Intelligence Directive 18, section 4 (dated 27 JUL 1993) also describes the conditions under which it's authorized:
Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS oxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx not be intentionally intercepted. [1 line redacted.]
a. With the approval of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the conditions outlined in Annex A of this USSID.
b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:
(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
(a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
(b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]
(c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).
(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and
(3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.
(The redactions are from the declassification process, I'm quoting it from the cryptome version.)
and Brezhnev--more likely the one signing YOUR paycheck, somewhere way back up the ladder.
heh heh...my new tactic for BDS rants. Respond-in-kind.
Seneca, every time I post after you, I feel like a yapping Terrier. Where's Doug, to make my stuff look half-smart?
hey, Mark--where'd my car keys go?
Ha! good one, Mark--you turd.
But--my "complaint" about "arguing with air" was not an after-the-fact, as you imply.
It was in re some name-calling, to which Seneca replied that he *would* delete such comments should they continue.
To which I tried to lighten the exchange via speculating how silly one side of an argument would look, if the other side disappeared.
I have yet to see anywhere that that has occurred. Can you point me?
at any rate, geez--that's a divorce court tactic, to use every communication to throw the other side into defending itself on the content & intent.
AKA "arguing-in-bad-faith"--which is a defined fallacy of logic, within the study of philosophy.
No, but I've also never seen everything that doesn't exist.
Are you missing some posts that will show up via context? At least provide that circumstantial evidence, if nothing else.
This is sort of a philosophical question--is it okay to smear, or not?
I mean, Seneca starts breaking out as a genuine distinctive voice, and suddenly he's being accused of precisely the sort of nefarious secrecy that is the Bush scandal du jour.
You a smart guy, Mark--simply reproduce the lost posts, note via asterisk the posts between which you meant for them to appear, and add them at the bottom of the thread. Voila.
Not that you'd do any deliberate mal-accusing, but that a prolonged exhibition of reflexive paranoia can't help but invalidate the string of "ahA!"s.
Mark, so far as I know, we've never deleted any of your posts. I've warned you a couuple of times, and you've pulled back from whatever behavior I was complaining about.
Tell you what; I'm going to delete something innocuous and let's see what it looks like.
Okay, Mark, I just removed Buddy's 0945 comment. As you can see, it says "has been removed by a blog administrator." This is a feature of the Blogger software over which we've got no control.
I don't know what your problem is, but it's not that we've removed anything.
Anyway I disagree with you that the executive has the perogative to change or break our laws. If he wants to change the law he should go to congress and ask them to rewrite it. The current law has an emergency provision in it that allows for the AG to get a warrant after the wiretap is in place as the example in one of my deleted posts pointed out.
It's just you keep saying that and, as I've pointed out, there's a clear path under the FISA statute, it's discussed in the signals intelligence code, and it's been used by other administrations.
Simply asserting that the law doesn't say that isn't an argument --- well, except in a Monty Python sort of sense.
And from the context, it's very easy for me to reconstruct the deleted post (which pointed out that a second version can be better--theoretically allowing a rise to an Oliver Wendell Holmes-ish level). To make the point via litotes, harumph.
Seneca--you're talking to the advocate of a nation-wide voting machine-rigging conspiracy, remember.
Or if he's smarter than that old agitprop saw, maybe it's forward-defense against ever being deleted for any offense whatsoever.
Clinton Used NSA for Economic Espionage .
During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.
As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order.
"Buddy has even complained about it in the past because it makes him look crazy to be arguing with someone who isn't there"
---
That's just how it *appears,* in fact, I have a secret presence inside his skull.
There was a Flares poster
named Garrity
Who was sure he'd been cut
for vulgarity.
But he hadn't been cut--
which made him the butt
of all of this
loutish hilarity.
The Scandal that wasn't there:
. ECHELON AND NOW .
[Mark R. Levin]
Under the ECHELON program, the NSA and certain foreign intelligence agencies throw an extremely wide net over virtually all electronic communications world-wide. There are no warrants.
No probable cause requirements.
No FISA court.
And information is intercepted that is communicated solely between U.S. citizens within the U.S., which may not be the purpose of the program but, nonetheless, is a consequence of the program.
ECHELON has been around for some time.
The media and members of Congress didn't accuse Bill Clinton, under whose administration the program apparently moved into full swing, of "domestic spying" or violating the Constitution.
Is ECHELON constitutional?
Congress hasn't defunded it.
So, it seems to me this entire current debate, unleashed by the New York Times last week, about expanding the NSA's eavesdropping authority (exactly what is expanded and how, we still aren't certain) is, well, disconnected from reality.
Doug--your 11:04--I made you think that.
You're making me look crazy!
Perhaps Mark has flashbacks to an early experience with that 2 mirrors on opposite walls setup, where your little head is within your littler head, which is...
I got that messed up there:
At no time is your little head within a *littler* head.
What was the all time Belmont record?
Four Hundred and something?
Doug--more on that, from the New York Sun, just a few days ago--catch Kerry & Durbin strong-arming a redact of the guts of a public report.
"Dorgan Covers Up For Clinton"
By R. EMMETT TYRRELL JR.
December 15, 2005
I linked to it a few days ago--on this site--who gave you permission to ignore my link? The world wonders.
When it comes to choosing heads, I doff littler.
Har,
PETER is now inside MY HEAD!
---
The president's press conference .
I didn't get a chance to see it, but Ankle Biting Pundits has a blow-by-blow account.
Judging by that account, as well as Michelle Malkin's, it seems like the president did an excellent job. More than just being back in the battle, he's taking the offensive.
The MSM and the Democrats have over-reached and Bush is throwing it back at them.
Soon they will be complaining that he is questioning their patriotism, but Bush is phrasing things carefully enough that this dodge isn't likely to work.
- Powerline
"PETER is now inside MY HEAD!"
Geez, Doug, get a ROOM!
Honesty in the "New Media"
Mr. Reynolds fails to mention Limbaugh pointed to this in the first hour of his program!
Instapundit.com Title:
DOES THIS PHOTO mean that Valerie Plame is starting a blog? She's wearing pajamas!
...and *I* made Buddy not put in a New York Sun LINK.
In that pic, beleaugered Truth Teller Wilson looks like he's about to shed a tear over there fate at the hands of the
BUSHITLER CABAL.
Buddy made me misspell that word:
I would have chosen an easier one,
But you know him.
Look at that Fate, over there.
Doug
Now I figured out why I do that trick that 'Peers outlined.
(He said it was somebody else, but I know who he was THINKING about.)
...confuse 'em w/gibberish, then make a quick exit out the back of their heads.
'search within results' for NYSun Dec 15 update. I lost the URL., tho it IS on this site somewhere.
Hey, that's a neat way to find all sorts of stuff.
What if I could put THAT inside my head?
"I lost it..."
Heh,
I HID it!
Doug, try gibberish--it may come out "lucid".
Hisrebbig, dicul?
I guess Mark is lying down somewhere, cucumber slices over eyes, wet rag on forehead, punching the air like Nicholson in the hallway, walking toward dolly-back camera, in the top of act III of "The Shining".
Yeshooroon has spoken again!
That would be a perpetual-motion machine, definitely a freak of nature.
I thought Peter already posted a picture of that
"Freak of Nature."
find the Sun, Doug?
Free the 120 pages!
We need the laws in case you get back in power, mark. And did you have anything to do with me losing my hundred bucks on the colts going undefeated? I made the bet 5 minutes before gametime--where were you and what were you doing at that time?
But, to be less flip--tell Mr. Feingold that it is the laws which *create* the power.
Shouldn't this be fairly obvious?
Oh btw like Feingold says, why do we need the Patriot Act? Bush thinks he has the autthority to do anything he wants. Why do we need laws at all?
In part because Bush doesn't believe that, it's just Feingold preening for the legacy media. And in part because ECHELON intercepts and the like can't be used as evidence, and until the patriot Act couldn't be shared with FBI or other law enforcement agencies; it would "taint" anyone who had access. That's the famous "Chinese Wall."
Chinese Wall security policies are interesting --- it turns security policy modeling from a finite state problem to a Turing-equivalent problem.
BTWm, guys, I'm going to do a follow-on post tonight with the ECHELON, USSIC 18, and some associated stuff. When I do, I think I'll close comments on this one, it's getting a LONG load time and pretty far down the blog anyway.
okay--I'm off it--thanks for the heads up.
yes, the "agenda media" draw the preening--none of these partners-in-fraudulence are doing each other any favors.
Who was he wiretapping that he couldn't trust the FISA court to approve a warrant 500 times a year?
Doesn't that make you wonder?
As I'll detail tonight, I'm hardly the only one who thingks there's a statutory argument here.
But I'm curious: where'd you get this "500 times a year"? I've seen people mention numbers much smaller than that for all four years.
Got a source?
But let's, for the moment, take this as a good number: that would suggest that there have been captured 500 suspected al Qaeda people, in all of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, who had any kind of information that might translate into signals intelligence collection that might involve a "US person" and which swould stale quickly, say within hours.
It seems like we've captured that many "al Qaeda third in command"s in the last year. Does that seem so unlikely?
Well, the joke's on you, mark--that was the $100 I'd promised to the Old Communist Retirement Fund.
Wow, talk about a mountain of labor to bring forth a mouse--so some field press agent got carried away with the operation? Or different departments rank their particular adversaries differently? The message of your looong post is that you're running on fumes these days.
Roger's the first to acknowlege his lefty past--the difference between you and him is, he wized up, and yo' ass is still wandering the wilderness.
Mark, I was actually pretty well aware that we hadn't captured 500 third-in-commands. SDorry that the humorous intent was too subtle for you.
But you're not thinking very clearly on the issue of 500 active intercepts, though: say you captured 20 alQ guys, and each of them has 25 phone numbers in their little black book; that's 500 people, each of whom might potentially be a "US person".
If anything, 500 is ana amazingly small number: to get that low, they must be taking some pretty firm steps to limit the amount of intercepting they can do.
Okay, fine, Mark--you've made your point. You'd rather gamble on other people's lives than surrender a point so fine that the law is right but wrong, or wrong but right, depending on your political view, but in any case it's right to the guy enforcing it, but wrong to you.
Congrats--you have arrived at what is called "politics" and the reason we have *two* political parties.
Maybe someday yours will win White House again and you can NOT use the powers of the exec to put up the maximum protection against 911-type events.
Good luck with that, we'll all need it.
Aren't we going to go for the Belmont Record?
Belmont Stakes:
The Betting Never Stops.
It's a race against the Roman's thumb-down.
So Buddy,
You mean when the Dems are back in office they can go back to using this intel and IRS records against political opponents, again.
Sounds good to me, gets no complaints from Mark, either.
Does Seneca know I'm 399?
If reality TV had any balls, THEY'D have Naval Battles.
---
Oh, for the days.
Opps, I was going to leave the big 4-0-0 for some other Christian.
My big bad.
No, he's an AmerIndian/Jewish Buddhist, if ya can believe that!
So he just plays like a Trojan?
Now if Rummy was up there with him, they could give em the old 1-2.
Oooom
(I don't know how to spell Om)
Peter, LOL...more dry lime....
What's your point? because you don't have all the records, and guess that there aren't any enemy about, you want to overturn the judgement of the executive branch of the US Government--and all it's thousands of genius IQ lawyers and military chiefs and terrorism analysts, and go naked awhile just to see if you had guessed right?
RUSH: We've been playing a little game here, Stump the Staff, during the break at the top of the hour.
I asked them a little history question. I know my history, and I think not enough people do, particularly in the news media.
I know my history, and I asked them one simple question.
"Who said, 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact?'"
And they guessed. What did you say? Truman, FDR, Kennedy. Those are the three guesses. Nope. "Who said, 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact?'"
It was Abraham Lincoln.
Let me give you just a little Civil War history. During the Civil War, there was a group called the Copperheads.
Now, the Copperheads have a modern equivalent today, the peace movement of the Democratic Party, or basically the Democratic Party. They were called the Copperheads back then. A former Ohio congressman, a man by the name of Clement Vallandigham called the prosecution of the Civil War wicked and cruel and he suggested that Lincoln and the Republican Party were using the Civil War to establish a dictatorship.
Troops of the 115th Ohio Volunteer Infantry seized Clement Vallandigham from his home in Dayton.
A military commission tried him for treasonable utterances and turned him over to the confederate army.
Jefferson Davis didn't want Vallandigham any more than Lincoln did and eventually shipped him off to Canada from where he managed to slip back into the United States. Abraham Lincoln lamented, "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert?"
Why, this conjures up all kinds of fun things!
Grabbing Dingy Harry, putting him on trial, and expelling him to the remote regions of Pakistan where Al-Qaeda is holing up.
That's interesting to contemplate.
Abraham Lincoln did it. I don't know how he ever got a monument.
The Democrats must have been looking the other way.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact," Abraham Lincoln.
This is exactly how the Democrats would like it to read today. It is a suicide pact. We must extend constitutional rights to enemy combatants, according to the left, according to Senator McCain.
Does Mark live in this world?
Buddy,
Jokes on you:
ALL the cell phones, and ALL the laptops were instantly wiped clean by a Secret Al Q technology as soon as our guys touched them.
"and go naked awhile just to see if you had guessed right? "
---
Hey, why the hell not?
Vallandigham died after accidentally shooting himself while handling his revolver, so I guess HE didn't go around naked.
As fur as i'm concerned, if soldiers can go duck bombs and bullets to keep this country safe, the rest of us can by god give GWB the benefit of the doubt on one of the most lame-braned hair-splits I believe I could imagine in my wildest dreams, if I didn't see it happening before my eyes.
Want to check me out, Mr. President? Where would like me to report, sir? Want my records? Here ya go. What else, sir?
Well last year 1700+ legally went thru the court. The Times says 500 illegal taps are operational at any given time and may have reached into the thousands since the program began soon after 9/11.
Mark, are you arguing it's 500 a year or 500 at a time or what? (Oh, and you still need to look up "petitio principii" --- I don't think there are ANY "illegal" intercepts going on here.)
That doesn't seem like an amazingly small number to me but one is too much.
Because you're innumerate, or because you have a very low threshold of outrage, or because you think it means scoring points on Bush?
The highest elected official in the land shouldn't take it upon himself to secretly break the law. Even if he thinks he's not breaking the law it looks real bad.
Hmmm. So you think it looks real bad if you don't break the law if someone else thinks you do?
excellento lincoln history, doug.
"--- I don't think there are ANY "illegal" intercepts going on here"
---
Yes, but,
They say Bush kept a BIG Secret from them, even though he met with them 12 times, so what matters is what they say:
Saying it's "secret'" and saying it's "illegal" means
it's
secret and illegal.
Get it?
The copperheads' main beef wrt Civil War was fear of job competition from freedmen. Moral equivalent of today's economic isolationists, whose static sensibiliity allows no concern but the selfish.
Too bad the Dems not only rewrite history, but increasingly,
the present.
Did you read W's Bolivia piece yet?
His 3:13 PM comment has some amazing stats.
No, thanks for the tip--I can't keep up anymore. Hope he lashes what Soros has been doing there.
About rewriting--(Dem) Moynihan's great "A right to one's own opinion is not a right to one's own facts"...or something like that.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
What I don't get is who is he wiretapping and why? It's not like we've seen a lot of arrests here since 9/11. The Lackawanna 6, that goofball truck driver from OH who thought he could take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. The trial they had to drop in Detroit when Ashcroft's boys in DC got in a fight with the local fed prosecutor. Jose Padilla. How many others?
This is one of those places where a little back of the envelope calculation could be useful. I've heard that there are around 600 people in Gitmo. Now, we don't give just any aQ guy a free ride; they've got to be people that someone, at some point, thought was relatively high value. If, on average, each of those people give us 10 names, that would be 6000 associates.
If each of those people gave us 5 new names (there would be some duplication, after all), that's 30,000 associates. Since FISA talks about any possible "US person" being someone for whom a FISA warrant might be needed, simply putting each person's name and phone number on an automated "watch list" would qualify. So, right there we're talking about not 500 or a couple thousand, but 30,000 potential intercepts.
That, observe, is just following one step of association, suggests we never look for any secondary connections, and don't follow any further leads.
You know what? I bet KsM didn't keep all his notes on a laptop to handle 10 phone numbers.
It's just a failure of thought and imagination on your part, I'm afraid.
I don't buy the contention there's thousands of Al Qaeda activists in this country or thousands we've captured abroad with US phone numbers in their little black books.
Foolishly.
If there were there would have been raids and or arrests and we would have heard about it because they trumpet every arrest like they just got Zarqawi's or Bin Laden's main man anyway.
Because you think that every arrest of every al Qaeda person gets that much press?
If so, then you must know the names of all the inmates at Gitmo, right? They must have been publicized.
I think a country of 280 million should be able to connect all the dots without a single improper inquiry.
If not,
Why Not?
...the more suspicious it will be said to look, by vested partisans BDSers, who are about half careerist poseurs and half authentic nutjobs, and who in-toto amount to the hard-core 20% who turned against motherhood, America, and apple pie when Bush said he was for 'em.
"The more he fights this, the worse it's gonna be for him cuz the more he fights it the more suspicious it looks"
---
To you.
But to you, "secret" and "illegal" have different meanings.
And, as has been pointed out, little ability (OR Desire?) to SCALE numbers in a country the size of the USA.
Why did Carnivore exist during Clinton?
Yeah, I know, 'cause he was corrupt, at least that was his interest.
(Why doesn't mark care about THOSE 100's of thousands of intercepts?)
But the REAL reason we needed it was because although the FBI could get phone taps, the mafia and others became aware that the work around was the internet.
Should we have just ceded that ground to the crooks and terrorists also?
inconsistencies, what about Plame? As has been pointed out everywhere, NYT's leak was far, far more damaging to the national interest, yet NYT has been leading the fight to hang the Plame leaker.
Whats the connection? BDS.
Post a Comment