.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Milton J. Madison - An American Refugee Now Living in China, Where Liberty is Ascending

Federalism, Free Markets and the Liberty To Let One's Mind Wander. I Am Very Worried About the Fate of Liberty in the USA, Where Government is Taking people's Lives ____________________________________________________________________________________________ "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater-

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

New Headline...Secret Domestic Spying...

As the AP reports in their blockbuster, less than truthful reporting...
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and the expansion of presidential powers,
But as Bush explained yesterday...
I appreciate that. First, I want to make clear to the people listening that this program is limited in nature to those that are known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates. That's important. So it's a program that's limited, and you brought up something that I want to stress, and that is, is that these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a -- if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that.
So in other words, President Bush said that it isn't a domestic spying operation. Hello AP. So if Cheney says otherwise, then this is a real story, but you call it a domestic spying operation in your headline and your text is contradicting what the President said last night, then that too is a story. So, did Cheney call it a domestic spying operation or did you? Bush said that it wasn't for communications; calls and emails within the US, so, if is for calls that are either originated from outside the US into the US or those that operate vice-versa then is it a domestic spying operation? And is the AP making an argument that these types of "spying," if they are conducted from outside the US are really spying? Additionally, lets make the silly argument that these spying operations were actually conducted by those under the employ of other than the US government. Would this also be spying since it seems as if this program is in the area between national boundaries Who actually does regulate that security, AP? Gateway Pundit has a roundup of some the relevant facts authorizing international electronic surveillance. I am sure that any reader, with a half-a-rain can see that I am getting at the jurisdiction issue... is it spying if it is conducted outside of the Us on international communications. Does the liberties of the American legal system extend beyond our shores? Come on, you could find some dopey expert to support that position, I figure, but you clowns don't even bother. And if its not, then please, AP explain why you call it a domestic spying operation? Is it or is it not a domestic operation. If one asked me what a domestic spying operation is, I would somewhat more narrowly define it as spying on Americans INSIDE THE US.

So it appears to dense little me as if this is just another example of a anti-Bush hatchet job by the US press, intent on discrediting the man in charge of the security of its citizens. The American press won't be satisfied until they hamstring the President, whether it is this one and risking on limiting the capacity of future Presidents to the extent that terrorists may have totally free access to American soil and then perform an operation that kills Americans. Then these clowns, wrapped in all their colorful 1st Amendments rights, will be able to wring their wet and sodden hands and analyze why Bush was faulty in his approach to defending American soil, irrespective of what happened, when the blood will truly be on their cowardly hands.

Remember, readers, that we are at war. We have been attacked and our enemies want to attack again. The Democrats and the American press [one-in-the-same] want to see disaster strike for a simple plain political reasons so that they can argue that the methods used by the current administration were ineffective. If we leave our liberties and safety to such irresponsible entities as the anti-Bush press and the cowardly Democrats we will surely perish. I will never, ever vote for a Democrat again.


At 4:11 AM, Blogger US Givernment News said...


By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home