Sure is slow around here

In article , Me wrote:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic soul
(and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it. Why?
Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
involved in that line of work:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html


Bull****!......

You ******s could not give a crap about Clinton etal. Doing the exact same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

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

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERŠ² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
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.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
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.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermo
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner, Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s 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 EchelonŠall of it done without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyŠ
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/m...owndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article , Me
wrote:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic
soul
(and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it.
Why?
Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
involved in that line of work:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html


Bull****!......

You ******s could not give a crap about Clinton etal. Doing the exact
same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

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

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way
that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET
SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERS² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
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.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will
not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United
States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time
ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside
of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
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.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which
a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermo
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner,
Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs
warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did
the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s 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 EchelonSall of it done
without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named
Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were
targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this
before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations
regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyS
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether
directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are
agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant
has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass
the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the
law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/m...owndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Thanks for setting the record here straight.

On 12/24/05 5:28 PM, in article
et, "B. Lafferty"
wrote:


"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article , Me
wrote:

On 12/24/05 4:01 PM, in article
, "Howard Kveck"
wrote:

Well, Steve, the intitial report came about because some patriotic
soul
(and I'm not being ironic or sarcastic there) in the NSA leaked it.
Why?
Because they knew it was illegal. More info is slowly coming to light
because of people like them, thankfully. Some opinions on it by people
involved in that line of work:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002032.html


Bull****!......

You ******s could not give a crap about Clinton etal. Doing the exact
same
thing...

http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

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

Sorry Steve, but what Clinton did was *not* the same thing. The only way
that
you and your sources can make it appear to be so is by plainly and simply
misquoting the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

_______________________________________________
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless
Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims ³CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET
SEARCH ON
AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDERS² It¹s not true. Here¹s the breakdown

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: ³The Attorney General is authorized to approve
physical searches, without a court order²

What Clinton actually signed:

-----------
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.
-----------

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will
not
involve ³the premises, information, material, or property of a United
States
person.² That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush¹s program is that, for the first time
ever,
allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside
of the
United States. Clinton¹s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: ³Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence
information without a court order.²

What Carter¹s executive order actually says:

-----------
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.
-----------

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the
surveillance will not contain ³the contents of any communication to which
a
United States person is a party.² So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
_______________________________________________

Furthermo
_______________________________________________

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/

The Echelon Myth

Prominent right-wing bloggers including Michelle Malkin, the Corner,
Wizbang
and Free Republic are pushing the argument that President Bushs
warrantless
domestic spying program isnt news because the Clinton administration did
the
same thing.

The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:

During the 1990s 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 EchelonSall of it done
without
a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

That's flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named
Echelon,
complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were
targeted, a
FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this
before
Congress on 4/12/00:

"I'm here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations
regarding
Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the
National Security AgencyS
"There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously
adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether
directly
or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are
agents of
a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their
conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant
has been
obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass
the
FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the
communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the
law
and breaking it.
_______________________________________________

Andrea Mitchell actually does her job for a change:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/m...owndec2105.wmv

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Thanks for setting the record here straight.



It will never end.......
Since your "progressive" (aka socialist) website says so....... It MUST be
true.

In article . net,
"B. Lafferty" wrote:


Thanks for setting the record here straight.

You know, it does bug me when I see a bunch of talking points getting
propagated that are based on out and out lies and manipulations of reality. The
old saw about "repeating something often enough and it becomes the truth" is
S.O.P. for this administration, and has been. The media bears a huge
responsibility in this, as they are so afraid of getting called for "liberal
bias" that they regularly do stories with two "sides", where one is factual and
the other is bull****. That's balance?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article , Me wrote:

It will never end.......
Since your "progressive" (aka socialist) website says so....... It MUST be
true.

You're right, Steve. As long as *your* sources play their dishonest games, it
*is* up to someone to come along and set the record straight. Apparently facts
don't matter to you if they interfere with your ideologically driven version of
reality. I mean, the fact that my "socialist" website source quotes ***the
actual law in question*** and points out where your guys have distorted it to
make their point doesn't mean anything, right? Do you gain satisfaction from
believing that you're correct, even when the means of proof are lies?


Where it all started:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2...a-to-defend.ht
ml

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung wrote:
wrote:

Either you're up kinda early or kinda late.

This data mining is 24-hour stuff, you know. Ever
since the POTUS realized that French people and
Middle Easterners deliberately stay awake while
Americans are sleeping, the Defenders of Freedom
are in a Heightened State of Sleep Deprivation.

Well, let's see know: I'm over here in Yurop, you're over there in the US
of A, and here's an electronic message that mentions Osama Bin Laden.
Hmmm. In case that wasn't enough, this ought to do it: Blessent mon coeur
d'une langueur monotone.

Longtemps, je me suis couché de bonne heure.

In a way, it would be amazing if they weren't doing this
data-mining ****. In some sense it's only an extension of
the same **** Amazon does when they present you a
custom page based on all the crap you bought or
clicked on, and who they know you know if you bought
a gift for somebody, and so on. I'm sure credit card
companies do the same thing, and I'd probably trust the
NSA more than Citibank. The problem is the people in
charge of the NSA and what they do with the information;
like the way that the Nixon-era IRS let political operatives
into its files. This program might explain why they went
Code Red when there were questions about John Bolton
looking at people's intercepts.

So it's not amazing to me that they're doing this (although
there is some irony in sophisticated data mining when the
FBI's computer system lets agents look up "flight," or
"school," but not "flight AND school."). It's amazing to me
that they can't cook up a way to sell it to Congress and the
public; rather they feel they can just keep it secret, and when
it gets out, they justify it by saying the President has the
authority to authorize what the President wants. Or as
Nixon said to David Frost, "When the President does it, that
means it is not illegal."

Ben
RBR Principal Component Analyst

Me wrote:

Bull****!......






For an example of how to construct a well-reasoned, cerebral,
persuasive missive expounding upon one's political views in off-topic
rbr threads, one need not look any further than the highly illuminating
elucidations of rbr's own Fat Steve.




happy holidays,


K. Gringioni.

In article om,
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote:

Me wrote:

Bull****!......






For an example of how to construct a well-reasoned, cerebral,
persuasive missive expounding upon one's political views in off-topic
rbr threads, one need not look any further than the highly illuminating
elucidations of rbr's own Fat Steve.




happy holidays,


K. Gringioni.

Well, it was succinct.

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

wrote:

Ben
RBR Minister of Data Mining


I've just overdosed on irony.

wrote:
This data mining is 24-hour stuff, you know. Ever
since the POTUS realized that French people and
Middle Easterners deliberately stay awake while
Americans are sleeping, the Defenders of Freedom
are in a Heightened State of Sleep Deprivation.

Bush is planning on doing doing RAAM on his mountain bike?