Truthout's Accidental Truth
Left wing truthout has breathlessly issued a press release claiming they have a document proving that President Bush authorized NSA wiretaps prior to 9/11/01.
And what does that declassified document (PDF) reveal? Just the bottom half of the cover page alone reveals quite a bit:
The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.
December, 2000, but deriving from NSA Manual 123 Dated February 24, 1998. Who was President during these dates?
William Jefferson Clinton (January 20, 1993 - January 20, 2001). When was Bush inaugurated?
January 20, 2001. Without even going past the cover sheet, it appears that the NSA programs covered by this particular document date to Bill Clinton's second term, from three years before Bush took office. I'll have to finish reading the document at a later time, but this seems to be hardly the smoking gun that truthout claims.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:57 PM
Comments
1
Nice catch. It helps to actually read these documents before screaming AH HA BUSH LIED!!!
Posted by: See-Dubya at January 13, 2006 05:28 PM (sCZnt)
2
I think you're on the right track, but just one clarification: The "derived from" on the front page refers to the document giving instructions on the classification level of this (and other) documents (NSA/CSS Manual 123). It tells the reader what the reference used to determine the classification of the document in question, and does not necessarily refer to the contents of that particular document.
Posted by: Will Collier at January 13, 2006 05:32 PM (JosDu)
3
Boy, that was an illegible comment. Let me try again:
"Derived from" on the cover page refers to the classification guide used to determine what level the document is classified at, not to the date the particular contents of this document were created. It may or may not have any bearing on the policies listed within; we can't know without seeing both documents.
That better?
"Derived from" on the cover page refers to the classification guide used to determine what level the document is classified at, not to the date the particular contents of this document were created. It may or may not have any bearing on the policies listed within; we can't know without seeing both documents.
That better?
Posted by: Will Collier at January 13, 2006 05:35 PM (JosDu)
4
Sorry, guys...you should read the document (and understand the issue) before drawing incorrect conclusions. The NSA has been in existence since the 50's. The breadth of their wiretapping powers has broadened only recently. The point isn't the one you are making. Clinton complied with the wiretapping laws and used the proper courts to get permission before wiretapping. The Shrub didn't. The document clearly states (if you had bothered to read it) that the NSA will follow the existing laws when wiretapping American citizens. The Shrub ignored those laws. That's called breaking the law. No President is above the law. Get it?
I know "ignorance is bliss"... but it's still--ignorance. Try reading the material and understanding the issues before celebrating your "aha!" moment.
I know "ignorance is bliss"... but it's still--ignorance. Try reading the material and understanding the issues before celebrating your "aha!" moment.
Posted by: Unknown Candidate at January 13, 2006 05:43 PM (8U0QP)
5
Almost right... based on the little sliver offered, the title page appears to be from December 2000, when Bill Clinton was the lamest of lame ducks (post-election, pre-Bush-inauguration). The 1998 reference is the book that tells you why this document is classified. Think of it as "I wrote this in 2000 using the rules defined in 1998".
Posted by: tom at January 13, 2006 05:52 PM (NXhAs)
6
Wow...you're really clever, calling President Bush "The Shrub."
This president was authorized to prosecute actions against terror by Congress. He exercised legitimate executive power, with congressional approval, and some malcontent leaked this to the press. The only law that was broken was the leaking of classified info.
This president was authorized to prosecute actions against terror by Congress. He exercised legitimate executive power, with congressional approval, and some malcontent leaked this to the press. The only law that was broken was the leaking of classified info.
Posted by: Known Quantity at January 13, 2006 05:54 PM (Gm8iP)
7
Note the discussion about the outsourcing of NSA IT Services under Section U (Groundbreaker) which relates to January 2000. Nearly all of the discussion within this document pertains to pre-Bush era.
Whats most amazing is that the NSA had a 3 1/2 day network outage. Could you imaging a private company with the NSA’s budget experiencing such an attrocity.
Whats most amazing is that the NSA had a 3 1/2 day network outage. Could you imaging a private company with the NSA’s budget experiencing such an attrocity.
Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at January 13, 2006 06:06 PM (NTVio)
8
Well....I read the PDF and it does not appear that there is any information in there about warrantless surveilance. It does reference the EO of 1981 and FISA and takes pains to announce (several times) that NSA observes 4th amendment rights.
Although "truthout" references this declassified paper in its claim that Bush authorized pre 9/11 surveilance, it doesn't cite a particular section. It apparantly is relying on unnamed "sources" of Slate and Risen. There is no "there" there.
Although "truthout" references this declassified paper in its claim that Bush authorized pre 9/11 surveilance, it doesn't cite a particular section. It apparantly is relying on unnamed "sources" of Slate and Risen. There is no "there" there.
Posted by: rls at January 13, 2006 06:11 PM (Lh7Vt)
9
Even more startling is the demographics of the agency:
19% eligible for early retirement
54% with 10-20 years of service
What is not so amazing, during the dot.com run up, you can see how their IT/Scientific staff fled the agency, note the chart on page 34 and look at that steep rise in resignations. Many of the resigned workers turned around and worked as contractors for the NSA for far more money in the private sector.
It's easy to see why the NSA agency has been off its game pre-9/11 most of its talent had fled for higher paying private sector jobs.
19% eligible for early retirement
54% with 10-20 years of service
What is not so amazing, during the dot.com run up, you can see how their IT/Scientific staff fled the agency, note the chart on page 34 and look at that steep rise in resignations. Many of the resigned workers turned around and worked as contractors for the NSA for far more money in the private sector.
It's easy to see why the NSA agency has been off its game pre-9/11 most of its talent had fled for higher paying private sector jobs.
Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at January 13, 2006 06:12 PM (NTVio)
10
I read the document also. It is quite clearly (even from the title) a briefing document to be used during the transition of power from one administration to the next. Nothing about wireless taps. It does talk about following the 4th Amendment, but it also talks about needing to adapt procedures and processes due to the explosion of communications from digital sources. Not much there. AHA.
Posted by: Specter at January 13, 2006 06:25 PM (ybfXM)
11
Clinton got around FISA by outsourcing his wiretaps to the British. Once they were done, they just gave us the transcripts.
Posted by: Mark at January 13, 2006 06:45 PM (ftO1D)
12
The wiretaps did not violate the 4th Amendment. The United States, as a sovereign, has a right to inspect things entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests. It’s called the ‘border search exception’ and has been defended in court many times. Think of the wiretaps as voice traffic going through a customs inspection.
Posted by: Preechr at January 13, 2006 07:45 PM (iMiWM)
13
I have to conclude sometimes that many of those who drop in here from the Left side of oblivion must be brain dead. Despite all that has been written about the NSA process of Intelligence surveillance and its mission, the mentally challenged continue to refer to NSA's 'wiretapping.' Are you totally dense beyond recovery?
NSA does not do wiretaps. It never has and never will, and there is no mention of it anywhere in the referenced PDF file.
The time that document was published is easy to determine. It was after the beginning of FY 2001 (October 2000), and that was stll before Bush entered the White House!!!!
NSA does not do wiretaps. It never has and never will, and there is no mention of it anywhere in the referenced PDF file.
The time that document was published is easy to determine. It was after the beginning of FY 2001 (October 2000), and that was stll before Bush entered the White House!!!!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 08:00 PM (AaKND)
14
"The point isn't the one you are making. Clinton complied with the wiretapping laws and used the proper courts to get permission before wiretapping. The Shrub didn't."
"The Shrub ignored those laws."
Got anymore lies to tell us, Mr. Unknown?
"The Shrub ignored those laws."
Got anymore lies to tell us, Mr. Unknown?
Posted by: Known Candidate at January 13, 2006 08:11 PM (ugski)
15
No matter what explanation the lefties come up with for that document, what's their explanation for this?
Posted by: bullwinkle at January 13, 2006 08:41 PM (mFhpu)
16
Known Candidate:
Are you having some problem understanding the English Language? Fog clouding your vision? The Bush tasks are not involving "wiretaps,"Pookie! Can't you get that through your thick skull?
Contrary to what you noted about Clinton, he did conduct warrantless surveillance on many, many, many American citizens, and he did bug Aldrich Ames' home and did have government officials break in without warrants - and Ames, too, was an American citizen.
Clinton also had the FBI bug suites in hotel rooms occupied by foreign representatives to the World Trade Organization conference on the West Coast. That is illegal even with a warrant, as any place occupied by a foreign dignitary is considered by law, diplomatically protected.
Chew on that a while, Pookie!
Are you having some problem understanding the English Language? Fog clouding your vision? The Bush tasks are not involving "wiretaps,"Pookie! Can't you get that through your thick skull?
Contrary to what you noted about Clinton, he did conduct warrantless surveillance on many, many, many American citizens, and he did bug Aldrich Ames' home and did have government officials break in without warrants - and Ames, too, was an American citizen.
Clinton also had the FBI bug suites in hotel rooms occupied by foreign representatives to the World Trade Organization conference on the West Coast. That is illegal even with a warrant, as any place occupied by a foreign dignitary is considered by law, diplomatically protected.
Chew on that a while, Pookie!
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 13, 2006 10:45 PM (AaKND)
17
Thanks! Linked!
Posted by: Dan tdaxp at January 14, 2006 02:23 AM (fL1IO)
18
The references to Clinton are a smokescreen. The most important question here is not who did what when, but whether it is acceptable for this to be happening at all.
If there is no judicial oversight, there is no way for us to know who is being 'wiretapped'. As I understand it, that is primarily why FISA was created.
The President who wiretapped indiscriminately was a criminal, using the information for his own political purposes. How do we know that is not happening now, when there is no judicial oversight because it's just too damn inconvenient? Are we supposed to have blind faith in our leaders' innate honesty and goodness? Or do we expect our leaders to follow the laws that have been established to prevent abuses and protect our rights as citizens?
This is not and should not be turned into a partisan issue.
If there is no judicial oversight, there is no way for us to know who is being 'wiretapped'. As I understand it, that is primarily why FISA was created.
The President who wiretapped indiscriminately was a criminal, using the information for his own political purposes. How do we know that is not happening now, when there is no judicial oversight because it's just too damn inconvenient? Are we supposed to have blind faith in our leaders' innate honesty and goodness? Or do we expect our leaders to follow the laws that have been established to prevent abuses and protect our rights as citizens?
This is not and should not be turned into a partisan issue.
Posted by: Victoria at January 14, 2006 07:38 AM (PaNoT)
19
Who is Clinton? From what the Surrender Monkeys tell me, Bush has always been President. Surely, this is a plot to make Clinton look bad by Rove.
If that sounds sarcastic, it is actually based on what the Dems say on chat boards.
If that sounds sarcastic, it is actually based on what the Dems say on chat boards.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 08:12 AM (V5vwb)
20
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Posted by: Educated, Thinking Progressive at January 14, 2006 10:29 AM (ueaq7)
21
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Thanks for injecting some more humor here. It is always welcomed.
Hmmmm. Looks like Victoria is afflicted with the same malady as Russell Tice - Psychotic Paranoia. Yes, Victoria, George Bush is really concerned with your diet and sex life and alcohol consunption and your new meth lab. Or maybe he is trying to communicate with you like the Lady Loon claims David Letterman is doing.
That is not partisan either. Both George and David are just evil cousins.
Do you really trust anyone, Victoria?
Thanks for injecting some more humor here. It is always welcomed.
Hmmmm. Looks like Victoria is afflicted with the same malady as Russell Tice - Psychotic Paranoia. Yes, Victoria, George Bush is really concerned with your diet and sex life and alcohol consunption and your new meth lab. Or maybe he is trying to communicate with you like the Lady Loon claims David Letterman is doing.
That is not partisan either. Both George and David are just evil cousins.
Do you really trust anyone, Victoria?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 11:27 AM (AaKND)
22
Retired Spy:
Thank you for enlightening me. I suppose I've been a victim of that shared psychosis of our collective unconscious--Watergate. And, somehow, my fears turned from attacks on all American's freedom to disagree with the president (not to mention freedom of press and right to privacy) to paranoia that my own crazed deviancy would be discovered. After all, only deviants with something to hide fear the power of the great and benevolent Bush. Everyone else desires to be subject to his all-powerful whims, right?
The word that's coming to mind here is 'sheep'.
Thank you for enlightening me. I suppose I've been a victim of that shared psychosis of our collective unconscious--Watergate. And, somehow, my fears turned from attacks on all American's freedom to disagree with the president (not to mention freedom of press and right to privacy) to paranoia that my own crazed deviancy would be discovered. After all, only deviants with something to hide fear the power of the great and benevolent Bush. Everyone else desires to be subject to his all-powerful whims, right?
The word that's coming to mind here is 'sheep'.
Posted by: Victoria at January 14, 2006 12:08 PM (PaNoT)
23
Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and "libruls."
Standard deflecto-lib. Cannot stay on topic, always has to go for the BDS.
Standard deflecto-lib. Cannot stay on topic, always has to go for the BDS.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 12:22 PM (TFSHk)
24
The word that's coming to mind here is 'sheep'.
Sure, Victoria, all Republicans are just sheep who are blindly following the Shepherd Bush. Or is that Hitler Shepherd Bush? No matter. Any way ya look at it, it's evil.
And how do you describe your own lock-step following of the radical Democrats and the Daily KOS? Do I hear some bah, bah, bah in the background?
By the way, what are those Bush 'whims' to which you refer? Are you saying that the NSA should not be attempting to root out terrorists inside and outside the United States? Looks like you are in the minority, doesn't it?
Are your neighbors aware that you don't care if there are terrorist cells in your neighborhood as long as no one monitors your phone calls?
News Flash! No one cares what you talk about on the phone or to whom - unless you have connections to al Qaeda or some other anti-American terrorist group. There are not enough Intelligence analysts in the entire government to waste time spying on you or other Americans without just cause. You are really not that important to have the U.S. Government worry about you. The principal Intelligence interests are elsewhere. Are you having a hard time comprehending that?
Sure, Victoria, all Republicans are just sheep who are blindly following the Shepherd Bush. Or is that Hitler Shepherd Bush? No matter. Any way ya look at it, it's evil.
And how do you describe your own lock-step following of the radical Democrats and the Daily KOS? Do I hear some bah, bah, bah in the background?
By the way, what are those Bush 'whims' to which you refer? Are you saying that the NSA should not be attempting to root out terrorists inside and outside the United States? Looks like you are in the minority, doesn't it?
Are your neighbors aware that you don't care if there are terrorist cells in your neighborhood as long as no one monitors your phone calls?
News Flash! No one cares what you talk about on the phone or to whom - unless you have connections to al Qaeda or some other anti-American terrorist group. There are not enough Intelligence analysts in the entire government to waste time spying on you or other Americans without just cause. You are really not that important to have the U.S. Government worry about you. The principal Intelligence interests are elsewhere. Are you having a hard time comprehending that?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 01:10 PM (AaKND)
25
"Nice try, but Bush is still Evil. Bush still equals Hiter. So let's talk about Bush being a dictator rationally instead of showing your hatred of Democrats and 'libruls.'"
Will Bush still be evil, still equal Hitler, and still be a dictator on January 20th, 2009?
Will Bush still be evil, still equal Hitler, and still be a dictator on January 20th, 2009?
Posted by: Porky at January 14, 2006 01:12 PM (T9Ogm)
26
the nsa unfortunately does whatever it want it can shock people to death with their satellites and kill people incidentally mr bush passed a law stating the the cia has the legal right to kill anybody that they think is an enemy in the name of its stupid bullshit national security privelide to kill any us citizen in the name of national security and their invisible mossad cia ect operatives i read usually never get caught is that way they keep tapping my phone because i know the truth.
Posted by: BOB at January 14, 2006 02:47 PM (QCLlJ)
27
I hate to tell you BOB, but they also replaced your decaf with the "leaded" variety...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at January 14, 2006 02:50 PM (0fZB6)
28
Do you understand punctuation, capitalization, basic English?
I am interested in those death satellites. Sounds cool. Start with Howard Dean, then Fat Ted, Nance Pelosi, etc.
Keep it up, Moonbeam, er, BOB! My Reynolds Wrap stock just keeps going up.
I am interested in those death satellites. Sounds cool. Start with Howard Dean, then Fat Ted, Nance Pelosi, etc.
Keep it up, Moonbeam, er, BOB! My Reynolds Wrap stock just keeps going up.
Posted by: William Teach at January 14, 2006 02:51 PM (TFSHk)
29
This is really a keeper, CY ...
the nsa unfortunately does whatever it want it can shock people to death with their satellites and kill people incidentally mr bush passed a law stating the the cia has the legal right to kill anybody that they think is an enemy in the name of its stupid bullshit national security privelide to kill any us citizen in the name of national security and their invisible mossad cia ect operatives i read usually never get caught is that way they keep tapping my phone because i know the truth.
This 'Bob guy' uses an email handle of 'thesnakespaceship.' Far out, maaaaan! Must have been some snake venom injected to nunb the brain.
A relative, perhaps, of Russell Tice?
the nsa unfortunately does whatever it want it can shock people to death with their satellites and kill people incidentally mr bush passed a law stating the the cia has the legal right to kill anybody that they think is an enemy in the name of its stupid bullshit national security privelide to kill any us citizen in the name of national security and their invisible mossad cia ect operatives i read usually never get caught is that way they keep tapping my phone because i know the truth.
This 'Bob guy' uses an email handle of 'thesnakespaceship.' Far out, maaaaan! Must have been some snake venom injected to nunb the brain.
A relative, perhaps, of Russell Tice?
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 14, 2006 02:59 PM (AaKND)
30
So, Retired Spy, you reveal that you are not a master of fine distinctions.
1) I am not concerned about being spied on personally (It's becoming tedious to repeat myself on this point), 2) Bush has the ability to catch terrorists using the existing FISA court. There is no honest reason for him to avoid judicial oversight (Again, tedious to repeat), 3) My opinions are based on the facts of the case and history, both of which you seem to be ignorant of. Amazingly so, if your handle is accurate.
Incidentally, I have never read the DailyKos. If my opinions sound similar, it is undoubtedly due to the twin phenomenons of critical thinking and rational thought. I know it looks like magic to you that those who use these tools could arrive at similar opinions, but it's actually about as ordinary and necessary as breathing. It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them. Although, I must admit, bludgeoning someone is more fun than engaging in genuine debate of the issues.
BTW, I'm not impressed with the Red Scare tactics you employ. I suppose your beliefs are based on what other people think of your patriotism, right? And you're afraid to disagree because that would be un-American?
You don't really expect to influence my opinion with that tripe, do you? I suppose a child responds to that kind of intimidation on the playground, and we know that the sheep respond to it when it comes from the White House, but it's not an effective debate tactic. It's unfortunate, because I am open-minded and would be willing to have a legitimate argument with you about this topic, but it doesn't seem to be within your abilities. So I wish you well in your reign over the sheep and the lemmings.
1) I am not concerned about being spied on personally (It's becoming tedious to repeat myself on this point), 2) Bush has the ability to catch terrorists using the existing FISA court. There is no honest reason for him to avoid judicial oversight (Again, tedious to repeat), 3) My opinions are based on the facts of the case and history, both of which you seem to be ignorant of. Amazingly so, if your handle is accurate.
Incidentally, I have never read the DailyKos. If my opinions sound similar, it is undoubtedly due to the twin phenomenons of critical thinking and rational thought. I know it looks like magic to you that those who use these tools could arrive at similar opinions, but it's actually about as ordinary and necessary as breathing. It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them. Although, I must admit, bludgeoning someone is more fun than engaging in genuine debate of the issues.
BTW, I'm not impressed with the Red Scare tactics you employ. I suppose your beliefs are based on what other people think of your patriotism, right? And you're afraid to disagree because that would be un-American?
You don't really expect to influence my opinion with that tripe, do you? I suppose a child responds to that kind of intimidation on the playground, and we know that the sheep respond to it when it comes from the White House, but it's not an effective debate tactic. It's unfortunate, because I am open-minded and would be willing to have a legitimate argument with you about this topic, but it doesn't seem to be within your abilities. So I wish you well in your reign over the sheep and the lemmings.
Posted by: Victoria at January 15, 2006 01:04 PM (PaNoT)
31
You are pretty humorous, Victoria. You appear to be following the time-tested rhetoric of the Democratic Party when it comes to Republicans.
1. Joseph McCarthy was a Republican, and he discredited himself with his nonsense about Communists under every rock. Those were his "Red Scare tactics." I am a Republican, and I am concerned that the real threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist screwballs who would decapitate you or any other American in a New York minute. Therefore, according to your flabby logic, I am using Red Scare tactics. Are you so naive to believe that there is no threat?
2. Richard Nixon was a Republican, and he was forced to resign as president because of the Watergate fiasco. Also, he had enemy lists, and he authorized spying against them because of his own insecurities. George W. Bush is a Republican, and he wants to deny citizens their privacy by spying on international al Qaeda communications with probable al Qaeda operatives inside the United States. Somehow that seems to be a very poorly constructed comparrison, Victoria, and the logic escapes me completely.
"Critical thinking and rational thought?" I think not. You may be using this surveillance stuff as a "rationale" for otherwise weak accusations against George Bush, but no clear thinking person I know of would say that the paranoia prompting your unfounded fears of George W. Bush is representative of rational thought.
It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them.
I know, I know. The Republicans have cornered the market on pre-conceived opinions and intimidation tactics. And I guess Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other Democrats don't do exactly the same thing with their "culture of corruption" and "Bush lied" claims that they have beaten into the ground? Give me a break, lady.
I have no interest whatsoever in influencing you or your philosophy with my brand of what you call "tripe." I do expect to have learned persons discuss the facts governing the options available to the President in accordance with the law of the land.
The FISA does allow for warrantless surveillance for as long as a year at a time, and that is specified in the Act itself. I suggest you may wish to actually read the FISA provisions in their entirety. You may also wish to read through a number of FISA Court decisions and decisions by various courts of appeal on the legality of Bush's actions.
While you are at it, read through the wording of the Fourth Amendment and Article II. You may just learn something - if you are open-minded enough to even consider that what the President has done is actually within the law.
Do have a lovely day ....
1. Joseph McCarthy was a Republican, and he discredited himself with his nonsense about Communists under every rock. Those were his "Red Scare tactics." I am a Republican, and I am concerned that the real threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist screwballs who would decapitate you or any other American in a New York minute. Therefore, according to your flabby logic, I am using Red Scare tactics. Are you so naive to believe that there is no threat?
2. Richard Nixon was a Republican, and he was forced to resign as president because of the Watergate fiasco. Also, he had enemy lists, and he authorized spying against them because of his own insecurities. George W. Bush is a Republican, and he wants to deny citizens their privacy by spying on international al Qaeda communications with probable al Qaeda operatives inside the United States. Somehow that seems to be a very poorly constructed comparrison, Victoria, and the logic escapes me completely.
"Critical thinking and rational thought?" I think not. You may be using this surveillance stuff as a "rationale" for otherwise weak accusations against George Bush, but no clear thinking person I know of would say that the paranoia prompting your unfounded fears of George W. Bush is representative of rational thought.
It's also much more interesting than regurgitating the same pre-conceived opinions, packaging them in intimidation tactics and disdain, and beating someone about the head with them.
I know, I know. The Republicans have cornered the market on pre-conceived opinions and intimidation tactics. And I guess Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and other Democrats don't do exactly the same thing with their "culture of corruption" and "Bush lied" claims that they have beaten into the ground? Give me a break, lady.
I have no interest whatsoever in influencing you or your philosophy with my brand of what you call "tripe." I do expect to have learned persons discuss the facts governing the options available to the President in accordance with the law of the land.
The FISA does allow for warrantless surveillance for as long as a year at a time, and that is specified in the Act itself. I suggest you may wish to actually read the FISA provisions in their entirety. You may also wish to read through a number of FISA Court decisions and decisions by various courts of appeal on the legality of Bush's actions.
While you are at it, read through the wording of the Fourth Amendment and Article II. You may just learn something - if you are open-minded enough to even consider that what the President has done is actually within the law.
Do have a lovely day ....
Posted by: Retired Spy at January 15, 2006 02:51 PM (AaKND)
32
Ok, I'll bite.
First post here, on joining over at freerepublic and taking this side leap from there.
Retired Spy, please save me the trouble of distilling all of your previous comments, which undoubtedly contain your summary of the legalities of Bush II's actions re: warrantless surveillance.
I'm up to speed on the reading (4th, Article II, FISA, PATRIOT I, WPA, etc.).
On the face of things, it appears that Bush II has circumvented FISA, having not actually ever gotten the requisite FISA warrant, even after the fact of the surveillance.
Blow it out for me, wouldja? What's your stance?
I'm definitely open minded enough to consider all the evidence, if there is indeed any evidence.
First post here, on joining over at freerepublic and taking this side leap from there.
Retired Spy, please save me the trouble of distilling all of your previous comments, which undoubtedly contain your summary of the legalities of Bush II's actions re: warrantless surveillance.
I'm up to speed on the reading (4th, Article II, FISA, PATRIOT I, WPA, etc.).
On the face of things, it appears that Bush II has circumvented FISA, having not actually ever gotten the requisite FISA warrant, even after the fact of the surveillance.
Blow it out for me, wouldja? What's your stance?
I'm definitely open minded enough to consider all the evidence, if there is indeed any evidence.
Posted by: arbortender at January 18, 2006 06:04 PM (62L5i)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0142 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 40 records returned.
Page size 28 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.