'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented - Wash. Times
NAH
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 22, 2005
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national
security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president
legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign
intelligence.
"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 and that the
president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney
general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in
1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic
surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court --
the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence
cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held
"that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless
searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political
fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the
Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between
al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose
publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing
the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the
court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that
authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the
President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent
years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who
ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That
case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office
in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless
searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence
value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill,
Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in
highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the
president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified
before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President
Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of
the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA,
which created the secret court and required federal agents to get
approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign
intelligence cases.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits
"the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI
'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a
court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications
of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly
known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post
described what could still happen to any person or group determined to
be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone,
then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote
William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say
terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA
loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a
traditional enemy state.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized
high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods
to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that
hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy
policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those
hearings should be open to the public.
One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use
of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her
testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential
authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left
unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the
president's "inherent authority."
"The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she
said.
--
oderint dum metuant
Conservatives Hate America
> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>
ignorance from the right.
Col. Mortimer
ouroboros rex
"Col. Mortimer" <bobby...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1135273099.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dhimmirats are kool aid drinkers..
rofl Republicans are flat out liars.
NAH
>NAH wrote:
>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>>
>>
>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>>
>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
Link, loser?
--
oderint dum metuant
ouroboros rex
<NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?author=4
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/
Krusty's Mom
<NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton 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.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed
warrantless searches 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 DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
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.
Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than
"physical searches" like Clinton. But again, 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.
Joking You
"Conservatives Hate America" <conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1135272623.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
continuing effort by liberals, who are totally out of touch with reality, to
punish Bush for the perceived theft of the 2000 presidency. Liberals cannot
believe that one of there wackos would be rejected by everyday Americans.
Krusty's Mom
"Joking You" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7%Bqf.46$UF3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
ouroboros rex
"Joking You" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7%Bqf.46$UF3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> in message news:1135272623.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> NAH wrote:
>>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>>>
>> A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere. More lies and/or
>> ignorance from the right.
>>
> The story has NOT been debunked anywhere.
lie
This is not a story but a
> continuing effort by liberals, who are totally out of touch with reality,
> to punish Bush for the perceived theft of the 2000 presidency.
lie
Liberals cannot
> believe that one of there wackos would be rejected by everyday Americans.
rofl
C -_- S
NAH wrote:
> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>
don't mentionthe Moonie "Wash. Times" in your subject line.
That's like posting "PARODY" in bold lettering.
C_S
NAH
>> continuing effort by liberals, who are totally out of touch with reality,
>> to punish Bush for the perceived theft of the 2000 presidency.
>
>lie
liar
--
oderint dum metuant
ouroboros rex
<NAH> wrote in message news:stslq15ef998ci6cq...@4ax.com...
roflmao You're even dumber than I took you for!
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?author=4
Larry Hewitt
"Joking You" <jef...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7%Bqf.46$UF3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
This story has been repeatedly, and thoroughly debunked.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/myths-as-news/
Wash. Times Pushes Surveillance Myths As "News"
The Washington Times has an article titled "'Warrantless' searches not
unprecedented."
It demonstrates a startling degree of ignorance about the issue.
The opening sentence reads "Previous administrations, as well as the
court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President
Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches
without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence."
That isn't even the issue.
The issue is whether the President can authorize electronic
surveillance of U.S. persons without warrants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
(No one disputes that it can do so abroad. That's what it means to
have an intelligence operation.)
It only gets worse from there.
The article, written by Charles Hurt, claims that Deputy Attorney
General Jamie S. Gorelick testimony in 1994 supports administration's
legal position.
But as I've explained in detail, Gorelick's testimony was about the
President's authority to conduct physical searches, which weren't
covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time of
her testimony. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/
The act was amended in 1995 to cover physical searches.
Before and after the amendment, the Clinton administration complied
with the law.
Hurt also steals a trick from the National Review's Byron York and
takes a sentence from a 2002 FISA court opinion out of context.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-gorelick-myth/
(I explain how here.)
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/21/appeals-court-myth/
The article concludes with a long, and completely irrelevant, history
of previous administration's use of warrantless physical searches --
all of which occur before the 1995 made warrantless physical searches
illegal.
Larry
>
Joking You
"Krusty's Mom" <krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote in message
news:43aaee38$0$80217$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
You say Clinton did not authorize warrentless searches and then you state
"...ony if...". "Only if" gives gthe situation when he would have done it.
>
>
> * 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.
Aldrich Ames was and is an American citizen.
>
>
> Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to
> physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5),
> exclude electronic surveillance.
It's still a warrentless seach.
>
>
> CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
> And now, Carter's turn:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than
> "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, 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.
>
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/
YOu ought to work for the Democrats as a spin doctor.
>
>
>
Joking You
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:doeqt5$q4g$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
If it is a lie then kindly provide documentation showing it is a lie.
>
>
Krusty's Mom
You ought to work for the circus as a clown, since you have nothing better
to say.
Any facts or links to back up your earlier BS?
ouroboros rex
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/myths-as-news/
alanm...@yahoo.com
Conservatives Hate America wrote:
> NAH wrote:
> > Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
> >
> >
> > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
> >
> A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
In your hysterical outrage aganist searches, you overlook the fact
that warrantless searches are made any time you go through a line at
the airport. Pinetta ruled that
searchers shouldn't discriminate on the basis of ethiicity, so
Democrats take the ridiculous stand that it's reasonable to search an
80 year old grandmother in line at the airport, because she may be a
terrorist, while it's unreasonable to check some calls going to the
middle east.
For more on various rulings regarding the fourth amendment and
potential spying, see
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
- A. McIntire
Bubali
The BIG NATIONAL issue then: Bill's PENIS in Monica's mouth.
Today's issue: Government SPYING on Americans without a warrant!
Probably not as important for idiot religious zealots and "compasionate"
conservatives as Bill's penis - AND THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM CROOKS!
<NAH> wrote in message news:raolq1p7f6c7uoh4l...@4ax.com...
Captain Compassion
<krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote:
>
><NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
>> <conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>NAH wrote:
>>>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>>>>
>>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
>>
>> Link, loser?
>
>
>CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
>Here's what Clinton signed:
>
Aldritch Ames. Enough said.
--
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- Dick Cheney 11/16/2005
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net
golds
Now I get it. If Bill Clinton is searching your house without a warrant
thats okay. If George Bush has a computer hooked to your phone line that is
listening for key words like, "bomb" that is possibly the most evil ever
done by mankind and he should be removed from office. Thanks for the
clarification. I guess its obvious why these terrorists operated unabated
and set up 911 during the Clinton administration.
Captain Compassion
Here is what Clinton did:
"As recently as 1993, however, President Clinton's Attorney General,
Janet Reno, authorized a warrantless search of the residence of
Aldrich H. Ames, who was at the time an employee of the CIA. (5) That
search discovered numerous items (6) that helped put Ames behind bars
for life. Ames's treason dealt a hard blow to America and our
intelligence services: it compromised numerous operations and sources
and may have led to the deaths of 10 persons. (7)"
(5.)1994 Intelligence Committee Report at 40.
(6.) "On October 9, 1993, FBI agents conducted a search of Ames'
residence in Arlington [Virginia]. Among other things, this search
yielded (1) a typewriter ribbon which contained a note Ames had
written to his KGB contact regarding a meeting in Caracas, Venezuela
in October 1992; (2) a computer document which identified a mailbox at
37th and R Streets in Washington, D.C. as a signal site; and (3) a
series of computer documents regarding Ames' relationship with the
KGB. These computer documents included information on clandestine
communications, classified CIA operations, classified CIA human
assets, and information regarding the payments previously made to
Ames." "An Assessment of the Aldrich H. Ames Espionage Case and Its
Implications for U.S. Intelligence," Rept. of the Staff of the Senate
Select Comm. on Intelligence, Sen. Print 103-90, 103d Cong. 2,d Sess.
51 (1994) (citation to affidavit omitted).
(7.) After the search of the Ames residence, FISA was amended to cover
physical searches. Pub. L. 103-359, Title VIII, Oct. 14, 1994, 108
Stat. 3443, 50 U.S.C. งง1821-1828.
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/fr102601.htm#N_5_
Krusty's Mom
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:s92mq15s4d6kd7a6o...@4ax.com...
Looks like he put a spy away for doing what Turd Blossom and Scooter did.
Larry Hewitt
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:12:12 -0500, "Krusty's Mom"
> <krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
> >> On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
> >> <conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>NAH wrote:
> >>>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
> >>>>
> >>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
> >>
> >> Link, loser?
> >
> >
> >CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
> >Here's what Clinton signed:
> >
>
> Aldritch Ames. Enough said.
Repeat it all youwant, it is still irrelevant bullhockey.
Oh, BTW, his first name is Aldrich.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
Yep, and until 1995, when the FISA Act was amended, these searches were
legal.
Bush's wiretaps are illegal.
Enough said.
Larry
Server 13
> "ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:doepi0$pi7$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>><NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
>>><conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>NAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Link, loser?
>>
>>http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?author=4
>>
>>http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/
>>
>
>
> Now I get it. If Bill Clinton is searching your house without a warrant
Nope, guess you don't. lol
Server 13
You ought to quit pretending the law was never changed. lol
Captain Compassion
<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
>news:h71mq11o9bqf0isi3...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:12:12 -0500, "Krusty's Mom"
>> <krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
>> >> <conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>NAH wrote:
>> >>>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>> >>>>
>> >>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> Link, loser?
>> >
>> >
>> >CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
>> >Here's what Clinton signed:
>> >
>>
>> Aldritch Ames. Enough said.
>
>Repeat it all youwant, it is still irrelevant bullhockey.
>
>Oh, BTW, his first name is Aldrich.
>
The statement, "CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN
CITIZENS",is incorrect.
NAH
LOL!!
Try this:
From:
William E. Moschella Assistant Attorney General Justice Dept
to Senate Intelligence Commitee:
Dec 22, 2005
http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf
Dear Chairmen Roberts and Hoekstra. Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and
Ranking Member Harman:
As you know, in response to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the
President has described certain activitics of the National Security
Agency ("NSA") that he has authorized since shortly after Septcmber 1
1,200 1 . As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain
international communications into and out of the United States of
people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The
purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to
detect and prcvent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the
IJnited States.
The President has made clear that he will use his constitutional and
statutory authorities to protect the American people from further
terrorist attacks, and the NSA activities the President described are
part of that effort.
Leaders of the Congress were briefed on these activities more than a
dozen tlnies.
The purpose of this letter is to provide an additional brief summary
of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the
President.
As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated
that these activities are " crucial to our national security." The
President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this
effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.
Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and
endangers our country."
These critical national security activities remain classified. All
United States laws and policies governing the protection and
nondisclosure of national security information. including the
information relating to the activities described by the President,
remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure of
classified infomiation violates federal criminal law. The Government
may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these
activities in an appropriate manner.
Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not
endanger national security. Under Article 11 of the Constitution,
including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the
responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the
Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty.
See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1 863) (stressing
that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized
but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special
legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[Tlhe Prize Cases . . . stand
for the proposition that the President has independent authority to
repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of
force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring).
The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble
to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of
September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[Tlhe President has
authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent
acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in
the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. 8 1541(c) ("The
constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend
to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").
This constitutional authority includes the authority to order
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United
States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four
circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re
Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[AIII the
other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President
did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain
foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the
President does have that authority. . . .").
The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the
context of purely donrestic threats. hut it expressly
distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States
District Cotrrt, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White
recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the
authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security
purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United
States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has
considered the requirements of national security and authorized
electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389
U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).
The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct
the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority
under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attacks of September 1 1, 2001, . . . in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."
5 2(a), The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States,
Jee also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 1 I "render it both
necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights
to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and
abroad").
The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force
against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly
"committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States
for months before those attacks. The reality of the September I 1 plot
demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on
foreign soil and in America. In Han~div . R~inzsfeld5, 42 U.S. 507
(2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF.
At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the
President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because
"detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a
fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the
"necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id. at 5
18-19 (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J.,
dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and
unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundaniental incident[s] of waging
war." Id. at 5 18-19 (plurality opinion); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J.,
dissenting). Con~municationsin telligence targeted at the enemy is a
fundamental incident of the use of military force.
Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical
part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph
lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted
telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to
exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct
communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a
war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute,
to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war,
the AUMF clearlv und unnzistakuhlj authorizes such activities directed
against the communications of our enemy.
Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngsrown
Sheet & Tub? Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579,635 (1952) (Jackson, J.,
concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf:
Y O U I I ~ S ~3O43W UI.IS,. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute
"from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied").
The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by
the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act ("FISA"). Section 25 11(2)(f) oftitle 18 prov~desa, s relevant
here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall
be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance.. . may be
conducted." Section 109 ofFISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct
electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C.
5 1809(a)(l). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic
surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered
in the context of surrounding provisions. Sec 18 U.S.C. 5 251 l(1)
("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person
who+a) intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral, or electronic
communication[] . . . shall be punished . . . .") (emphasis added);
id. 4 25 11(2)(e) (providing a defense to liability to individuals
"conduct[ing] electronic surveillance, . . . as authorized by
thatAct[FISA]") (emphasis added).
By expressly and broadly excepting from its prohibition electronic
surveillance undertaken "as authorized by statute," section 109 of
FISA permits an exception to the "procedures" of FISA referred to in
18 U.S.C. a 251 1(2)(f) where authorized by another statute, even if
the other authorizing statute does not specifically amend section 25
11(2)(f).
The AUMF satisfies section 109's requirement for statutory
authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the
Court in Hanzdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18
U.S.C. 9 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States
"except pursuant to an Act of Congress." See Hu~ndi5, 42 U.S. at 519
(explaining that "it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use
specific language of detention"); sec id. at 587 (Thomas, J.,
dissenting).
Some might suggest that FISA could be read to require that a
subsequent statutory authorization must come in the form of an
amendment to FISA itself. But under established principles of
statutory construction, the AUMF and FISA must be constnied in harmony
to avoid any potential conflict between FISA and the President's
Article I1 authority as Commander in Chief. See, e.g., Zad~yriasv .
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001); INSv. Sf. Cvr, 533 U.S. 289, 300
(2001).
Accordingly. any ambiguity as to whether the AUMF is a statute that
satisfies the requirements of FISA and allows electronic surveillance
in the conflict with a1 Qaeda without complying with FISA procedures
must be resolved in favor ofan interpretation that is consistent with
the President's long-recognized authority.
The NSA activities described by the President are also consistent with
the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties. The Fourth
Amendment's "central requirement is one of reasonableness." Illinois
v. McArthur, 53 1 U.S. 326,330 (2001) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
For searches conducted in the course of ordinary criminal law
enforcement, reasonableness generally requires securing a warrant. See
Bd. ofEduc, v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 828 (2002).
Outside the ordinary criminal law enforcement context, however, the
Supreme Court has, at times, dispensed with the warrant, instead
adjudging the reasonableness of a search under the totality of the
circumstances. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118 (2001).
In particular, the Supreme Court has long recognized that "special
needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," can justify
departure from the usual warrant requirement. Vernonia School Dis!.
47J v. Acton, 5 15 U.S. 646, 653 (1995); see also Ci@ ofIndianapolis
v. Edmot~d5, 31 U.S. 32.41- 42 (2000) (striking down checkpoint where
"primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal
wrongdoing").
Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed
conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic
attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special
needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence
collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our
Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than
traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 3 10 F.3d at 745;
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59. 72 (2d Cir. 1984) (recognizing
that the Fourth Amendment implications of foreign intelligence
surveillance are far different from ordinary wiretapping, because they
are not principally used for criminal prosecution).
Intercepting comn~unicationsi nto and out of the United States of
persons linked to al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a
catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable. Reasonableness is generally
determined by "balancing the nature of the intnision on the
individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental
interests." Earls, 536 U.S. at 829.
There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at
stake with respect to the activities described by the President. That
must be balanced, however, against the Government's compelling
interest in the security of the Nation. see, e.g., Haig v. Agee, 453
U.S. 280, 307 (1981) ("It is obvious and unarguable that no
governmental interest is more con~pellingth an the security of the
Nation.") (citation and quotation marks omitted).
The fact that the NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized
approximately every 45 days to ensure that they continue to be
necessary and appropriate further demonstrates the reasonableness of
these activities.
As explained above. the President determined that it was necessary
following September 1 1 to create an early warning detection system.
FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the
early warning detection system.
In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the
President might have sought specifically to create such an early
warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our
enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities.
Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use
of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a
very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations.
In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available
legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.
We hope this information is helpful
Sincerely,
William E. Moschella
Assistant Attorney General
--
oderint dum metuant
NAH
>Bush's wiretaps are illegal.
>
LOL!
Read it and weep ..
Server 13
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:41:13 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
> <larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:h71mq11o9bqf0isi3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:12:12 -0500, "Krusty's Mom"
>>><krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><NAH> wrote in message news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
>>>>><conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NAH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>Link, loser?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
>>>>Here's what Clinton signed:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Aldritch Ames. Enough said.
>>
>>Repeat it all youwant, it is still irrelevant bullhockey.
>>
>>Oh, BTW, his first name is Aldrich.
>>
>
> The statement, "CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN
> CITIZENS",is incorrect.
Yep - make that 'wiretaps'.
Joking You
"Server 13" <c-b...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dof4dh$t1b$3...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Perhaps you ought to learn exactly what the law perains to. Hell, even
justice department workers in the Clinton administration state that the
president has the authority.
>
Krusty's Mom
>
> Perhaps you ought to learn exactly what the law perains to. Hell, even
> justice department workers in the Clinton administration state that the
> president has the authority.
Got a cite to the quote?
I bet you are using it out of context.
Server 13
Cite?
Server 13
More lies. The law authorizes wiretaps and allows 72 HOURS for FISA
authorization.
Larry Hewitt
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:41:13 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
> <larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:h71mq11o9bqf0isi3...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:12:12 -0500, "Krusty's Mom"
> >> <krust...@mytrailerpark.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><NAH> wrote in message
news:ioplq1h45jgsue1vh...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On 22 Dec 2005 09:30:23 -0800, "Conservatives Hate America"
> >> >> <conservative...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>NAH wrote:
> >> >>>> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>A story already thoroughly debunked elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> Link, loser?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
> >> >Here's what Clinton signed:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Aldritch Ames. Enough said.
> >
> >Repeat it all youwant, it is still irrelevant bullhockey.
> >
> >Oh, BTW, his first name is Aldrich.
> >
> The statement, "CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN
> CITIZENS",is incorrect.
>
That statement should be amended to say CLinton sis not order ILLEGAL
warrantless searches of of American citizens.
And what does that have to do with Bush ordering illegal wiretaps of
American citizens?
Larry
Server 13
More lies.
MichaelC
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.sto
ry?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Mike
MichaelC
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.sto
ry?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Mike
>
Krusty's Mom
Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent
power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty.
Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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."
The key word is "physical".
Ditty Tracy Detective
helpful loans, breaking 50-50 Senate vote...... Medicaid vulnerable
aged and studious poor and middle class students to pay for the
hopeless and meaningless war in IRAQ!
HOW OUR T-BONDS "IMMIGRATED" TO CHINA
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
Roy Beck, a liberal progressive ... read here his classic 1996 book
"THE CASE AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: The moral, economic, social, and
environmental reasons for reducing U.S. immigration back to traditional
levels" ... even more sensible and applicable today ... click ABOVE to
download the entire nearly 400 page book for free!
http://unemployment_crisis.tripod.com/IMMIGRATION.html
What the monthly magazine THE WASHINGTONIAN has to say about the
unaccountable trillions of FANNIE MAE, and that "Nobody in Washington
Messes With Fannie" ..
DEC. 23, 2005 -- CHINA-USA --- USA BEING DEVOURED BY CHINA -- America's
trade deficit in goods and services reached another record, hitting
$68.9 billion in October. The news, much worse than expected, was
blamed partly on a surge of Chinese electronic and toy imports (the
deficit in goods with the country was a record $20.5 billion) and
capped a year of growing political rancour with Beijing over trade.
Fannie Mae is a "government sponsored enterprise", aka a 'GSE'. Are
Mitigation Banks for Wetlands a GSE also??? Considering the WHOPPER
federal funding handouts [welfare for Big Business] to both sneaky
anti-eco Mitigation Banks, and the sly & shifty Fannie, it sure seems
so!!
What is a MITIGATION BANK and what does it have to do with military
engineers and wetland swap deals and New Orleans Reconstruction?
[Critical Habitats Inc.] MITIGATION BANKS CONSORTIUM, and Palacios
Wetland Mitigation Bank, Matagorda Texas on the Gulf Coast! --
'In-Lieu-Fee' Mitigation
-- http://www2.eli.org/wmb/backgroundb.htm
HOW CAN YOU HELP MOTHER NATURE and the Gulf Coast Victims?
Who Are Your Wetland Mitigation Bank Customers?? Not the displaced and
dissed HOMELANDERS of the Gulf Coast ... they were/are 'sitting ducks'
The following is a list of some activities in your region that will
impact wetlands and generate demand for your wetland bank.
http://www.criticalhabitats.com/about.htm
WHO MITIGATION BANKS HELP THE MOST!!
** The U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers [COE]
**Transportation development such as highway or road widenings, new
road development, parking areas
**Utilities such as oil pipeline construction, power line construction,
hydroelectric power development
**Commercial Marinas
**Commercial and industrial construction including shopping centers and
industrial parks
**Giant Residential developers
In-lieu-fee mitigation is a method for satisfying compensatory wetland
mitigation requirements. With in-lieu-fee programs, project applicants
agree to contribute mitigation fees to an approved third party that
will use these funds to implement the required compensation.
In-lieu-fee mitigation is similar to wetland mitigation banking in that
they both provide consolidated, off-site mitigation for multiple permit
recipients.
Although in theory, wetland mitigation banking provides compensatory
mitigation in advance of authorized impacts, in-lieu-fee mitigation
does not offer this benefit. Mitigation funds are collected in advance
of permitted impacts, but the funds may not be used to compensate for
permitted losses for some time. In-lieu-fee mitigation can, however, be
used to restore a variety of wetland types of varying sizes at a number
of locations, while mitigation banks frequently consolidate numerous
wetland impacts into one large site. Until 2001, there were no
standards governing approval or use of in-lieu-fee programs.
In-lieu-fee mitigation “occurs in circumstances where a permittee
provides funds to an in-lieu-fee sponsor instead of either completing
project-specific mitigation or purchasing credits from a mitigation
bank approved under the Banking Guidance.â€
Source: U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of Interior, and U.S. Department of Commerce.
Federal Guidance on the Use of In-Lieu-Fee Arrangements for
Compensatory Mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 2000.
BENJAMIN SHALOM BERNANKE, our new Fed Reserve Chairman, will he fix
the trillions $$$$ debt to China/Asia, and spontaneously generate new
magic bullet T-bonds for our Treasury!?? ....click on above link to see
how Fannie Mae home loan mortgages work against the US public with the
collusion of the U.S. Treasury, and how together they have gutted our
nation like a megalomaniac Bonnie & Clyde ... this strategy goes by the
name of "CARRYING TRADE," which means foreigners can borrow at cheap
rates in the United States and pump the proceeds into China.
Here is how it works! FANNIE MAE, did you know that only one US bank is
fatter and richer than Fannie Mae, our most powerful dispenser of money
[home mortgage loans] than any U.S. commerical bank, besides Citibank,
its sole superior? Fannie Mae doles out trillions in home loans which
are tied into U.S. tax dollars & the US Treasury. This includes muy
MUCHO bad home loans to illegal immigrants -- just check out Bank of
America records or hang out in a Latino neighborhood bank branch and
listen in if you can speak Spanish. When this TRILLIONS goes SPLIFF!,
where is the cash to back it up? It has all disappeared without a trace
same as our pension funds!
Our US Treasury will be under much pressure to owe up somehow at the
time of the meltdown which will come at the same time that the Chinese
Dragon starts to fly to Mars and soars the skies above our heads --
making a laughing stock of our National Reconnaissance Organization spy
satellites -- and leaving us behind financially, culturally, and
materialistically, like an overextended 7-11 store chock full o'Minnie
mouses!
CHINA -- The Chinese have been long buying up the vast bulk of our
T-bonds. Our CEOs and our Federal Reserve and our Congress have BEEN
ALL FOR IT! The Japanese yen and the British pound are not pegged to
our dollar like the Chinese yuan, so don't get your panties in a twist
fretting over the Japanese and British small island nations holding
some of our T-bonds.
The Chinese have been raking in money from this CARRYING TRADE deal and
are making a killing off of the interest we must pay them. In a
parallel universe, the Communist Chinese [suddenly in the last decade
at least] are brilliant venture capitalists and have their own mirror
image T-bond structure in their bloated Treasury, looking a lot unlike
our thin Lizzy! They got all of Europe and most of the world buying up
their own T-bonds like hot dogs on Coney Island. Funny thing is, almost
not even one Chinese elite will touch their own Chinese T-bonds. They
don't buy them! They know why! It's time for you readers to get hip
too!
Thus, funny money in our Treasury is backing up the growth of illegal
immigrant housing in the US and also the most powerful boom in China
not seen since the building of the Great Pyramids in ancient Egypt! We
are the sad losers, wasting away our very short and desperately needed
time to defeat an illusory monster in the sand dunes and Gulfs of
ancient Babylon, and doing next to nothing for our Gulf Coast wounded
here at home!
Why are we helping undocumented aliens in the USA to buy homes and cars
and SUVs and giving away our assets to the booming Chinese economy, who
today as a middle class live better than our middle class in the USA,
especially better than the dissed and neglected displaced denizens of
New Orleans. We have produced a surplus of native born PhDs in science
and engineering right here at home, for over a decade or two, and yet
our lawyers and Senators have been doling out H1-B visas to alien
scientists and engineers!
Our exports are laughable compared to Germany ... thus, do we have any
real money left in our Treasury that has not been spent on contractors
such as Halliburton and Wackenhut and KBG and Caryle Group and USIS,
just to mention a few of the insiders, with no bid contracts awash over
in Afghanistan and Iraq for these parasites. I don't think so. Prove me
wrong, make my day. When even our own unions do NOTHING to help African
Americans nor blue collar workers nor our rapidly shrinking and
vanishing middle class to stay afloat and to train to keep abreast of
new technologies, when these impotent and supplicating and feather
lined union managers can only reach out like beggars to help ONLY
illegal immigrants to organize and strike against Big Business abuses,
and not organize and assist us legals, we are in need of some new
founding fathers and a new and bolder drum and fife corps! Lace up your
boots and pump up the volume! Make some music and make yourself heard!
GW FEMA-VILLES MORE PREVALENT THAN HOOVERVILLES
GW FEMAvilles are very bad for our national health
"U.S. policy on immigration is a tragic joke," By Lou Dobbs
THE ADRIAN REPORT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
GW "Femaville" Bush rings death knell for millions of families with
bankruptcy law --- read about it
Gaithersburg, Maryland legal residents deplore the state paid day
laborer site for illegal immigrants in their jobs-striken region of the
country where unemployment is high
Illegal Immigrant Language teachers arrested at top security U.S.
military base
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two Indonesians and a Senegalese who worked as
foreign language instructors for elite U.S. special operations troops
at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been arrested on immigration
charges, authorities said on Wednesday.
The Army said the three worked at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School at Fort Bragg. Sgt. Joseph Healy, a spokesman for
Army Special Operations Command, said the three had a purely academic
role and "were not exposed to any Army special operations tactics
techniques or procedures."
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said the arrests were
part of an effort to remove illegal immigrants working at sensitive
U.S. sites and critical infrastructure locations such as airports,
seaports, nuclear plants, chemical plants and military bases.
ICE agents on Tuesday arrested Indonesians Nurkis Qadariah, 34, and
Sayf Rimal, 37, and charged them with possessing and using false
immigration documents and making false statements, the agency said.
They were contractors working for BIB Consultants Inc., a Florida-based
company that provides language instructors to U.S. Special Forces and
other military personnel at Fort Bragg. Criminal complaints filed
against them said they used counterfeit Resident Alien cards and
falsely claimed they were lawful U.S. permanent residents to get work
with BIB.
Authorities said there were pending deportation proceedings against
Qadariah and Rimal in New York.
ICE agents also arrested Senegalese Ousmane Moreau, 38, as part of the
same investigation and charged him with being in the United States
illegally, which will lead to proceedings to remove him from the
country, the agency said.
"Unauthorized workers who use fraudulent documents to gain work at
sensitive U.S. military installations pose a serious homeland security
threat," Jeff Jordan, the agency's assistant special agent-in-charge in
Charlotte, North Carolina, said in a statement.
"Not only are their identities in question, but they are also
vulnerable to potential exploitation by terrorists and other criminals
given their illegal status in this country," Jordan said. "Furthermore,
these individuals have access to some of the most sensitive work sites
in the nation."
Authorities said the arrests stemmed from an investigation by ICE, the
Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Army Criminal Investigation
Command and Fort Bragg security officials.
IMPENDING CREDIT CARD DENIAL, ANTI-GW RIOTS in the STREETS....regarding
his April 2005 signing of the "BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION and CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT" ... of which 84% of all bankruptcy filers are too poor
to qualify for the new law's "mean's test"
Dubya's monstrously cold disenfranchisement of the struggling middle
and lower classes of USA through his bill stripping away rights to
claim bankruptcy against old credit card debts ... this has kept our
unemployment rate down from 19% to 5.6%! GW is the loser with his
signing of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act....another special treatment for the very rich, the pretty rich,
and the banks
THE ADRIAN REPORT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Volume 2 -- The Benjamin Shalom Bernanke edition
U.S. Treasury Bonds [T-bonds, as in CHINA] Fall on Appointment of New
Fed Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, a Republican Everyone Knew
Shalom Bernanke would get the plum Chairmanship for over a year now
....
10-25-2005 -- U.S. 10-year Treasury notes fell the most in four weeks
as "Just Print Me Some More of them $100s" Benjamin Shalom Bernanke was
named to succeed Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chairman.
Treasury bonds last week made a small rally as miserably falling U.S.
stock prices enhanced the appeal of yields higher than 4.50 percent.
Still, the Treasury market is headed for its worst year of returns
since 1999.
"MISTER DEFLATION
[Our new Republican]" ... As a child, Benjamin Shalom Bernanke honed
his analytical mind by playing chess and studying Hebrew at the local
synagogue ... Shalom Bernanke argues that America's trillions of
dollars of trade deficit and debts to China, especially in regards to
our T-bonds tied to the home mortgage loan industry and Fannie Mae, are
not responsible for our woes, but rather that the disciplined European
nations, and dutiful Japan, through their diligence for maintaining
healthy savings accounts, is what put us in our empty house of cards!
President Bush announced that Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers Benjamin Shalom Bernanke-(R), will replace Alan Greenspan as
Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the Oval Office, October 24, 2005.
(Larry Downing/Reuters)
A Fed governor from August 2002 to June 2005, Bernanke during his first
year raised concern in speeches about the possibility of deflation, or
broad price declines that hurt economic growth. He sees disaster when
consumer prices begin falling.
Many expressed concerned about comments Bernanke made in a speech as
Fed governor that suggested he would consider actually sparking higher
inflation in order to combat the threat of deflation, or falling prices
that can cripple the economy.
BAPTISM INTO THE THIRD MILLENIUM--->
www.realdemocracy.com/debacle.htm
Fannie Mae /U.S. Treasury 4 trillion dollar imminent collapse
while China booms on our money ....
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00057.htm How
HUD's mistress Ginnie Mae got reamed by PROMIS's backdoor software
-- and the resulting mortgage loan sellout of our national treasury
bonds
www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/barisheff050505pv.html
Gold Bar Hoarding
rose 38% in 2004 and gold coin fabrication rose by 7%--- this trend is
tripling in 2005
HAPPY HALLOWEEN [this year dress up as chairman of the Fed Reserve, the
scariest monster!!
Says Bernanke: "The U.S. government has a technology, called a
printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it
to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost,"
Bernanke said in remarks to the National Economists Club in Washington
in November 2002.
"By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by
credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the
value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent
to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services," he said.
During that speech, Bernanke added that "prevention of deflation
remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation,
however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press
example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will
ultimately always reverse a deflation."
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW--The sight of hordes of Americans wading across
the Rio Grande into Mexico, on the other hand, has a piquant
quality.... CLICK NOW
What are "LIARS LOANS?"---
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
in the black hole supernova of internal domestic demolition of billions
and billions of taxpayers dollars lost forever in giving easy home
mortgage loans to illegal immigrants to bolster U.S. housing and auto
loan and sales markets for nearly ten years now!!! Yep ... it's all
true!
Sept. 1, 2005 -- Paul Krugman, NY Times, on ARM home mortgage loans and
the imminent explosion of the toy bubble economy, owned by the Chinese
holding our T-bonds:
"These days Mr. Greenspan expresses concern about the financial risks
created by "the prevalence of interest-only loans and the introduction
of more-exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages [ARMs]." But last
year he encouraged families to take on those very risks, touting the
advantages of adjustable-rate mortgages [ARMs] and declaring that
"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage
product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage."
If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he's saying now, people
might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn't, and now
it's too late. There are signs that the housing market either has
peaked already or soon will. And it will be up to Mr. Greenspan's
successor to manage the bubble's aftermath.
How bad will that aftermath be? The U.S. economy is currently suffering
from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the
housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and
to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes.
On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by
selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans
make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money
borrowed from China.
tightwad wrote:
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/22/130508.shtml
zzbu...@netscape.net
NAH wrote:
> Dems on Suicide Watch ... Again?
>
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
>
> By Charles Hurt
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> Published December 22, 2005
Well, we don't need The Washington Times, AP wannabees
to tell us that though. Since the only searches that do
have predencenst are the ones that have warrants.
Which is obviously why we use trains and heliicopters,
rather than Washingtoon Learjet leasure suits,
The Trump Plaza, and Hummvees for searches.
>
> Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national
> security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president
> legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign
> intelligence.
Well they were forced to that, since Clinton's Internet Warrant
gave away more free intelligence to China, Russia, Iraq, Iran,
Israel, and India, and Venuzula, than all previous educational
devices in all of human history.
So, it's not really a matter of legal. Since Clinton was debarred
for being a wannabee M.D. and his rightly
should have been.
Larry Hewitt
"MichaelC" <mikec...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:J8Gqf.35205$7h7....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Nope. Wrong. From your cite: "Every president since FISA's passage has
asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under
President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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.""
First, this is for _physical_ searches of foreign owned assets, not wiretaps
of US citizens. Wiretaps are covered under different laws and different
sections of FISA and other laws.
Second, tis testimony was _before_ congress amended the FISA Act to forbid
warrantless physical searchesin 1885.
Care to try again?
Larry
> Mike
> >
>
>
Larry Hewitt
Nope. Wrong. From your cite: "Every president since FISA's passage has
asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under
President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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.""
First, this is for _physical_ searches of foreign owned assets, not wiretaps
of US citizens. Wiretaps are covered under different laws and different
sections of FISA and other laws.
Second, this testimony was _before_ congress amended the FISA Act to forbid
warrantless physical searches in 1995.
MichaelC
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:dog0u8$9pt8$1...@news3.infoave.net...
Not wrong. You asked for a cite stating that an ex-Clintonista believes that
the President did indeed have the authority. The first paragraph of the
article, written by an ex-associate AG under Clinton, states clearly:
" President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National
Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone
calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions
of the Justice Department under prior presidents."
There you go; you got what you asked for. The fact that you have a talking
point to (ostensibly) refute ONE of his nine or ten evidentiary points is
not relevant to your original request for a citation.
Mike
> From your cite: "Every president since FISA's passage has
> asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms.
Under
> President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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.""
>
> First, this is for _physical_ searches of foreign owned assets, not
wiretaps
> of US citizens. Wiretaps are covered under different laws and different
> sections of FISA and other laws.
>
> Second, tis testimony was _before_ congress amended the FISA Act to forbid
> warrantless physical searchesin 1885.
>
> Care to try again?
No, because you've intentionallly clipped the most relevant portions of the
citation so you could focus on the one that you had a talking point for,
albeit a weak one. Faced with that level of intellectual dishonesty, you're
entitled to stew in your own swill with no help from me.
If (and this is a very big if) Mr. Bush actually does face an impeachment on
this matter, evidence (you *do* understand the difference between "evidence"
and "proof", do you not)
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> > Mike
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Phaedrine
"MichaelC" <mikec...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Not wrong. You asked for a cite stating that an ex-Clintonista believes that
> the President did indeed have the authority. The first paragraph of the
> article, written by an ex-associate AG under Clinton, states clearly:
>
> " President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National
> Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone
> calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions
> of the Justice Department under prior presidents."
<http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/22/myths-as-news/>
Wash. Times Pushes Surveillance Myths As Å‚NewsË›
by "Judd"
The Washington Times has an article titled Å‚ÅšWarrantlessÄ… searches not
unprecedented.Ë› It demonstrates a startling degree of ignorance about
the issue.
The opening sentence reads Å‚Previous administrations, as well as the
court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President
BushÄ…s position that a president legally may authorize searches without
warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.Ë› That isnÄ…t even the issue.
The issue is whether the President can authorize electronic surveillance
of U.S. persons without warrants. (No one disputes that it can do so
abroad. ThatÄ…s what it means to have an intelligence operation.)
It only gets worse from there. The article, written by Charles Hurt,
claims that Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testimony in 1994
supports administrationÄ…s legal position. But as IÄ…ve explained in
detail, GorelickÄ…s testimony was about the PresidentÄ…s authority to
conduct physical searches, which werenÄ…t covered by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act at the time of her testimony. The act was
amended in 1995 to cover physical searches. Before and after the
amendment, the Clinton administration complied with the law.
Hurt also steals a trick from the National ReviewÄ…s Byron York and takes
a sentence from a 2002 FISA court opinion out of context. (I explain how
here.)
The article concludes with a long, and completely irrelevant, history of
previous administrationÄ…s use of warrantless physical searches all of
which occur before the 1995 made warrantless physical searches illegal.
This is about following the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
<http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
Larry Hewitt
An associate attorney general who had no direct involvement in security
matters who quotes Gorelick's statement as support for his _opinion_.
He justifies it because it "is valuable".
And he justifies it as "foreign intelligence".
Noone is disputing the fact that the president can order warrantless
wiretaps on forign assets. No questio. But he CANNOT ord warrantless
wiretaps on US citizens . FISA was vreated explcitly to handle the need to
wirretap US citizens suspected of being ivolved in espionage against the US.
And even worse, many of hte citzens Bush ordered wiretapped aren;t even
suspected of being involved in espionage, they are merely recipients of
phone calls.
Thoroughly uncredible.
MichaelC
Perhaps, perhaps not. Time will tell if the issue has legs. Personally, I
tend to doubt it. especially considering how often the 4th Amendment has
been ignored for matters ostensibly having to do with the public good. The
electorate would likely read any effort, if placed in historical context, as
selective prosecution for political gain, which is not a label a politican
wants to have hanging around his neck.
Mike
Larry Hewitt
Its got legs. Its got long legs. We are about to enter an election season
and spying on US citizens is a hot button issue on both the far right and
the far left. You can bet congress is going to get involved.
Larry
> Mike
>
>
>
MichaelC
>
<bandwidth snip>
> >
> > Perhaps, perhaps not. Time will tell if the issue has legs. Personally,
I
> > tend to doubt it. especially considering how often the 4th Amendment has
> > been ignored for matters ostensibly having to do with the public good.
The
> > electorate would likely read any effort, if placed in historical
context,
> as
> > selective prosecution for political gain, which is not a label a
politican
> > wants to have hanging around his neck.
> >
>
> Its got legs. Its got long legs. We are about to enter an election season
> and spying on US citizens is a hot button issue on both the far right and
> the far left. You can bet congress is going to get involved.
>
> Larry
You're right about the parts of the parties that care, but there's not a lot
of votes out there. Most americans, fortunately or unfortunately, are OK
with reasoned exceptions to the BOR *if* they agree with the objective of
the exception.
We'll know in a month. If Alito knocks it off the front page, I doubt if it
will be back. If he doesn't, well, then it has legs.
Mike
Tom Betz
news:EEXqf.38727$q%.14441@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
> We'll know in a month. If Alito knocks it off the front page, I doubt
> if it will be back. If he doesn't, well, then it has legs.
Alito may provide the earliest opportunity for the Senate to address the
issue in hearings; in fact, this issue may block Alito's confirmation,
because there are true conservative Republicans who are also up in arms
over Bush's illegal abuse of America's eavesdropping capabilities.
From <http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13479880.htm>:
As a Reagan administration lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel
Alito argued that federal officials can't be sued for damages for
wiretapping Americans without warrants in national security cases, a
document released Friday showed.
Alito's position may complicate his prospects for confirmation
because its disclosure comes amid an uproar over a 4-year-old Bush
administration counterterrorism operation that has been
eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.
The scope of the investigation into domestic surveillance widened
Friday, with the New York Times reporting on its Web site that the
National Security Agency conducted much broader surveillance of
e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush
administration has acknowledged so far.
President Bush's argument that he has the legal and constitutional
authority to direct the National Security Agency to conduct the
secret domestic surveillance operation is almost certain to end up
before the Supreme Court.
The operation, intended to track Al-Qaida members and their allies
in the United States, has provoked questions about its legality
among Democrats and some Republicans, including Sen. Arlen Specter
of Pennsylvania, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Judiciary Committee is to begin Alito's confirmation hearings
Jan. 9.
--
| "There's no telling what new harm Bush might |
| do if he ever gets back up off the mat. |
| You have to keep your knee on his windpipe |
| until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau |
| IMPEACH <http://gug.in/ywkyg> IMPEACH |