|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 ORDER² Itıs not true. Hereıs 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 Bushıs program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clintonıs 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 Carterıs 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 Echelonall 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 Agency "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? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
"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 Itıs not true. Hereıs 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 Bushıs program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clintonıs 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 Carterıs 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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 Itıs not true. Hereıs 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 Bushıs program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clintonıs 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 Carterıs 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
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? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Sure is slow around here
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New hand held device can slow down cars | Donald Munro | Racing | 3 | March 2nd 05 06:45 PM |
New hand held device can slow down cars | Donald Munro | Australia | 1 | March 2nd 05 06:45 PM |
Slow Feeble Benters ride Trikes - sweatshirt $49.99 | Johnny Giro | Recumbent Biking | 0 | February 1st 05 05:52 PM |
Slow leak--arrrrrgh! | Luigi de Guzman | General | 14 | July 24th 04 05:14 PM |
Too slow in Italy. How slow? | DaveB | Australia | 2 | February 28th 04 09:38 PM |