^ They can already just start tapping the phones, then they have to get a warrant within 3 days, legally. What they did was start tapping the phones, and never got a warrant.

12/20/2005 5:28:51 PM

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.

12/20/2005 5:31:44 PM

ah. That is currious. Did they never say why 3 days was not enough or that the permission couldn't be given within 3 days in a manner upholding the security? It makes me wonder about the whole process.

12/20/2005 5:32:10 PM

No. They haven't said why they needed to go around the courts at all. And not a shrill word from TGD will be able to deny it.

12/20/2005 6:32:55 PM

Quote :

"So basically, a warrentless wire tap is legal if those being monitored are not US citizens or permanent resident aliens. Where is there proof that US citizens were wire tapped by the NSA? The article that starts the "More spying on us" thread only seems to mention persons in the United States, not United States persons. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?ei=5094&en=0a4739ca3ab6d63b&hp=&ex=1134709200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=login

Quote :

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States ... Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States ­ including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners ­ is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation. "

Quote :

"Has the AG not provided this written oath? I don't know--I haven't seen anything that says yes he did or no he did not."

If he did, he lied under oath, because that story says they were spying on americans.

Quote :

"If the government is only intercepting calls between known/suspected terrorists and where at least one end of the communciation is outside of the US, I'd say that odds are pretty good that the intercepted calls would not involve a United States person."

see above

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ,']

12/20/2005 6:47:18 PM

This debate is so much fun...

Quote :

"December 20, 2005, 9:46 a.m. Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches Does anyone remember that? In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own. "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," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers." In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus." The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary. — Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ---]

12/20/2005 7:14:31 PM

Way to buttress the case:

Quote :

"Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court."

Quote :

"In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court..."

...rendering the actions of Bush's NSA program illegal. Thanks. I thought the National Review might be able to put up a better defense than "OMF CLINTON!!1"

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:24 PM. Reason : author of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, eh?]

12/20/2005 7:19:19 PM

Not even considering the point gamecat makes, i'm losing serious respect for you, tgd. WHO THE FUCK CARES IF CLINTON DID IT? Try him, too! You act like someone is going to say "oh, well then, it's ok if clinton did it."

Clinton was a power hungry asshole too. every president we've ever had (at least, all the ones I know much about) was corrupt. that's what power does to a person. And, when they get corrupt, you should shut them the fuck down. We missed clinton on that, but we got him for lying about the blowjobs. great. Now we see bush may have done something illegal, and we might have real proof of it, so let's get him next.

i'm so god damn tired of this partisan shit. I wasn't politically active (and I was a teenager) when clinton was in office, but I guarantee, I wouldn't have liked his presidency either if I was in the mindset I am now.

The fact of the matter is, They got clinton, AND clinton's not president anymore. Bush is, and he's abused his power.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:20 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 7:20:29 PM

Does anyone have this Executive Order? If the Executive Order is based on a Congressional resolution, isn't it somewhat pointless to look at that Section 1802 statute?

At this point though, it still boils down to:
1) GWB v. NYT -- Basically he said, she said.
2) The fact that the NYT, you and I may dislike the Patriot Act and warrantless "spying" on US citizens, that in and of itself doesn't make it illegal.

Quote :

""oh, well then, it's ok if clinton did it.""

No, but this would certainly show that the type of thinking that lead to recent warrantless eavesdropping has been around for awhile--apparently at least since Regan's time. It's not some new insidious plot recently cooked by the root of all evil, "Penis" Cheney.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:50 PM. Reason : add]

12/20/2005 7:44:25 PM

I wonder if Kristol & TGD's Reality Filter will let this through:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Quote :

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

12/20/2005 7:57:37 PM

omg flip flop!

yeah i posted that earlier... maybe in another thread. it doesn't matter, man, we're fucked.

and anyway, it's not bush vs. anyone. he's admitted to doing it, he just says it wasn't illegal

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Saturday acknowledged he signed a secret order after the September 11, 2001, attacks to allow the surveillance of people in the United States. In a rare live radio address, Bush defended the practice as a "vital tool" in defending the United States against another such attack"

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=fundLaunches&storyID=2005-12-17T152926Z_01_MOL748915_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-NSA.xml

btw

Quote :

"Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority.""

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-20T184133Z_01_EIC066527_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&archived=False

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 8:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 8:05:00 PM

Quote :

"Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches"

Irrelevant. The law is the law.

12/20/2005 10:00:21 PM

He broke the law, admitted to it and should be punished.

12/20/2005 10:54:47 PM

clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it
clinton did it

12/20/2005 10:56:21 PM

turns out, CLINTON DIDN'T DO IT. He did alot of nasty shit, but apparently, not this:

*ahem*

Here's what clinton signed
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

Quote :

"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?

* the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.
* and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.

carter:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

Quote :

"1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."

Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:

* the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
* there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.

Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/21/8157/6595

12/21/2005 9:06:21 AM

You guys are so adorable, so wrapped up in your raging Bush Hatred that anything I post mentioning Clinton must clearly be for a "But OMF Clinton did it and you didn't bitch then!!1" line of argument. Carry on

12/21/2005 9:09:45 AM

oh please, you're just mad that clinton didn't do it

btw
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000685.html

Quote :

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John D. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."

oh, and who needs small government? Not posner!

Quote :

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information. Collecting such information is of a piece with data-mining projects such as Able Danger."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001053.html

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 9:16 AM. Reason : m']

12/21/2005 9:14:00 AM

Quote :

""Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.""

That was in reference to the Patriot Act. The wiretapping that the government did was affiliated with a different act or program involving the NSA, not under the Patriot Act. Now, that does not justify anything, and the statement next to current activities looks sketchy and like Bush backed into a well, but it is in reference to two seperate issues.

12/21/2005 9:33:06 AM

would agree with you, except that the first sentence negates your point

Quote :

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order"

The speech was about the patriot act, but he doesn't say "when you hear the united states government talking about wiretapping based on the patriot act." He says any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap

12/21/2005 9:37:50 AM

Quote :

"He broke the law, admitted to it"

No, he didn't admit to breaking the law. Granted, he hasn't specified which law he used to conduct the wiretaps, but he has not admitted to breaking the law.

12/21/2005 10:35:43 AM

He admitted to doing something which a huge amount of people consider breaking the law.

12/21/2005 10:43:42 AM

consider breaking the law != actually breaking the law

12/21/2005 11:00:39 AM

Wow.

You just blew my goddamn mind.

12/21/2005 11:11:46 AM

Yeah, well maybe now you understand how OJ and Michael Jackson were found not guilty.

12/21/2005 11:18:37 AM

He made Thriller, man.

THRILLER.

12/21/2005 11:25:24 AM

Quote :

"TGD: You guys are so adorable, so wrapped up in your raging Bush Hatred that anything I post mentioning Clinton must clearly be for a "But OMF Clinton did it and you didn't bitch then!!1" line of argument."

As if you presented it any differently?

12/21/2005 2:07:32 PM

Here's the video of Bush lying

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/bushapril202004notaking.wmv



[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 2:44 PM. Reason : he's pretty good at it.]

12/21/2005 2:44:11 PM

Quote :

"Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells. "The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121900211.html

"we didn't want to do it. we're lazy. either that, or we just don't give a fuck."

Realize this is about the RETROACTIVE warrants. The ones they are supposed to get AFTER the spying takes place. There's no argument that it would prevent them from being able to do what they needed to do in time or anything else, because they get these warrants AFTER doing the spying. they didn't even do THAT, and it appears they didn't do it because they're too lazy to care about the rights of their citizens.

[Edited on December 21, 2005 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2005 2:53:40 PM

12/21/2005 2:59:44 PM

Quote :

"their citizens."

nice.

12/21/2005 3:06:20 PM

Quote :

"Gamecat: As if you presented it any differently?"

Considering I didn't do much "presenting" at all...

Are you using those new Incredible Patent-Pending Gamecat Super Crystal Balls again?

12/21/2005 3:34:08 PM

Posting without presenting now? This must be one of those semantic games again.

Apparently the FISA judges graduated from the Gamecat School of Law. They want the President to explain himself, too. Must be a bunch of crazy L3ftists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_2.html

Quote :

"Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, December 22, 2005; Page A01 The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources. Several members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said in interviews that they want to know why the administration believed secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails of U.S. citizens without court authorization was legal. Some of the judges said they are particularly concerned that information gleaned from the president's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to gain authorized wiretaps from their court. U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, expects officials from NSA and the Justice Department to explain the warrantless spying. (AP) "The questions are obvious," said U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?" Such comments underscored the continuing questions among judges about the program, which most of them learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times. On Monday, one of 10 FISA judges, federal Judge James Robertson, submitted his resignation -- in protest of the president's action, according to two sources familiar with his decision. He will maintain his position on the U.S. District Court here. Other judges contacted yesterday said they do not plan to resign but are seeking more information about the president's initiative. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who also sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, told fellow FISA court members by e-mail Monday that she is arranging for them to convene in Washington, preferably early next month, for a secret briefing on the program, several judges confirmed yesterday. Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members. The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court. The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. In explaining the program, Bush has made the distinction between detecting threats and plots and monitoring likely, known targets, as FISA would allow. Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way. One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it. "For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up." The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites. "There is a difference between detecting, so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to note the distinction between the two," Bush said Monday. But he added: "If there is a need based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States." U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, expects officials from NSA and the Justice Department to explain the warrantless spying. (AP) The American Civil Liberties Union formally requested yesterday that Gonzales appoint an outside special counsel to investigate and prosecute any criminal acts and violations of laws as a result of the spying effort. Also yesterday, John D. Negroponte, Bush's director of national intelligence, sent an e-mail to the entire intelligence community defending the program. The politically tinged memo referred to the disclosure as "egregious" and called the program a vital, constitutionally valid tool in the war against al Qaeda. Benson said it is too soon for him to judge whether the surveillance program was legal until he hears directly from the government. "I need to know more about it to decide whether it was so distasteful," Benson said. "But I wonder: If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? They've said it's faster [to bypass FISA], but they have emergency authority under FISA, so I don't know." As it launched the dramatic change in domestic surveillance policy, the administration chose to secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview yesterday that his information about the program has been largely limited to press accounts over the past several days. "Why didn't it go through FISA," Kazen asked. "I think those are valid questions. The president at first said he didn't want to talk about it. Now he says, 'You're darn right I did it, and it's completely legal.' I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal. I want to hear those arguments." Judge Michael J. Davis of Minnesota said he, too, wants to be sure the secret program did not produce unreliable or legally suspect information that was then used to obtain FISA warrants. "I share the other judges' concerns," he said. But Judge Malcolm Howard of eastern North Carolina said he tends to think the terrorist threat to the United States is so grave that the president should use every tool available and every ounce of executive power to combat it. "I am not overly concerned" about the surveillance program, he said, but "I would welcome hearing more specifics.""

12/22/2005 12:13:29 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: Posting without presenting now? This must be one of those semantic games again."

Not really, now that I know about the Incredible Patent-Pending Gamecat Super Crystal Balls it makes sense. I post a Clinton story with the smallest of snippets, and your scrying abilities foretell that said smallest of snippets was clearly presenting the story with a "But OMF Clinton did it and you didn't bitch then!!1" angle.

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Apparently the FISA judges graduated from the Gamecat School of Law. They want the President to explain himself, too. Must be a bunch of crazy L3ftists. ... I gather he's got lawyers telling him this is legal."

You realize judges are just lawyers with black robes right? So with this latest revelation of yours, explain to me again how your position is proven simply by virtue of shrilly repeating something ad nauseum?

12/22/2005 12:36:07 AM

^ Are you trying to say that because no one here is a lawyer, we aren't allowed to have an opinion on this?

12/22/2005 12:38:30 AM

[no], I'm saying the opinions of Gamecat's lawyers aren't inherently more valid than W's lawyers just b/c they happen to wear different clothing.

12/22/2005 1:27:35 AM

That's a valid point.

But, I haven't seen anything cited on the Bush side in the media that really supports his position. The closest thing that i've read about that would support bush is the congressional resolution after 9/11 for Bush to use "any reasonable force necessary" to fight terrorism, and it seems, to me, a stretch that what was done falls under that. Of course, because it wasn't explicit enough, it's up to a judge to now decide what that means.

Other than that, on just an ideological level, spying on American citizens without a warrant, when a warrant was easily obtainable (according to the media), is suspicious and wrong.

[Edited on December 22, 2005 at 1:42 AM. Reason : in case it isn't clear, that's all my personal, non-professional, BS opinion]

12/22/2005 1:39:30 AM

So the situation people prefer is this:

Tap wire
Get information
Get court order or not
Keep information regardless

instead of this:

Tap wire
Get information
Keep information without getting court order.

Am I understanding this correctly?

12/22/2005 12:18:53 PM

^ yep

12/22/2005 8:23:15 PM

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/bushapril202004notaking.wmv

/thread

12/22/2005 8:45:59 PM

12/22/2005 9:46:05 PM

Aahahahahahahahaahhaah

12/22/2005 10:43:37 PM

^^ kudos sir.

12/23/2005 4:46:40 PM

Quote :

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Bush 2004

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

1/3/2006 12:39:39 PM

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/bush_not_making_this_up.htm

Quote :

"Bush: 'I'm Not Making This Up' Plaintive president pleads case for war, wiretapping Village Voice | January 5, 2006 by James Ridgeway WASHINGTON, D.C.—No doubt reassuring millions of Americans, President Bush yesterday defended his program of legally dubious wiretapping at home and strategically dubious regime change abroad for fighting terrorists by insisting he isn't in la-la land. Terrorists want to use Iraq as a home base, Bush told reporters on Wednesday. He then added: "I'm not making this up." So now you know: This time it's for real. "

LOL

1/12/2006 12:00:10 PM

Quote :

"Ex-official warned against testifying on NSA programs By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 12, 2006 The National Security Agency has warned a former intelligence officer that he should not testify to Congress about accusations of illegal activity at NSA because of the secrecy of the programs involved. Renee Seymour, director of NSA special access programs stated in a Jan. 9 letter to Russ Tice that he should not testify about secret electronic intelligence programs because members and staff of the House and Senate intelligence committees do not have the proper security clearances for the secret intelligence. Miss Seymour stated that Mr. Tice has "every right" to speak to Congress and that NSA has "no intent to infringe your rights." However, she stated that the programs Mr. Tice took part in were so secret that "neither the staff nor the members of the [House intelligence committee] or [Senate intelligence committee] are cleared to receive the information covered by the special access programs, or SAPs." "The SAPs to which you refer are controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD) and ... neither the staffs nor the members ... are cleared to receive the intelligence covered by the SAPs," Miss Seymour stated. Special access programs are the most sensitive U.S. intelligence and weapons programs and are exempt from many oversight mechanisms used to check other intelligence agencies. Miss Seymour also said that Mr. Tice, who was dismissed in May, failed to notify either the Pentagon or NSA of the improper behavior that he is charging. As a result, she stated that Mr. Tice must first give statements to the Defense Department and NSA inspectors general before he provides any classified information to Congress from the SAPs. Miss Seymour also said Mr. Tice must first "obtain and follow direction" from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, through the inspectors general on the proper procedures for contacting the congressional oversight committees. Mr. Tice said he was not part of the classified NSA program disclosed by the New York Times last month that intercepted telephone, e-mail and other communications involving U.S. citizens without a warrant from a special court. However, he told ABC News on Tuesday that he was a source for the New York Times. "As far as I'm concerned, as long as I don't say anything that's classified, I'm not worried," he said. "We need to clean up the intelligence community. We've had abuses, and they need to be addressed." Mr. Tice last month asked to testify to the House and Senate intelligence oversight panels regarding what he called "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" that occurred while he was a technical intelligence specialist with NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. He provided no details of the programs. However, Mr. Tice worked on special access programs related to electronic intelligence gathering while working for the NSA and DIA, where he took part in space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite control, telemetry, sensors, and special capability systems. Email | Print | Subscribe"

1/12/2006 12:58:45 PM