SwiftVets.com

[Schadow]

This from lawyer John Hinderaker at PowerLine:

[GM Strong]

What would have happened in WWII had ULTRA and other Intelligence gathering been subjected to this kind of garbage??? It is incredible that ULTRA was maintained as secret far beyond the war's end, especially with as many people as were involved.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[docford]

Another point that everyone frequently forgets - the issue of whether a search/wiretap was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment only comes up if the evidence is being used during a court proceeding where the US Constitution is applied. In the case of terrorists, that is highly unlikely.
_________________
Doc Ford
HMC (SW) USN

[USAFE5]

And as the master of radio pointed out, the Democrats are using Iraq when questioning the authority given to the President, but he is using it against Al-Q, which is perfectly within the authorization given after 9/11. This small point will be used by the MSM without clarifying this point until people really think it is Iraq not AlQ being targeted.

[Schadow]

I think there is no doubt that the President will not get in trouble over this in spite of the Dems' best efforts. The term "unreasonable" provides excellent cover in time of war, declared or not.

On the other hand, although the NYT is pretty well armored by the first amendment, the treasonous scum who gave the story to them should be discovered and dealt with very harshly. It was probably one of the Congress members who got briefed on the project or - more likely - one of their staff weasels. I do hope Bush gives Gonzales a swift kick in the posterior and orders him to pursue this at flank speed.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

[srmorton]

What gets me is the millions of dollars spent by Fitzgerald to pursue the
Valerie Plame "leak" which, if it even was a leak, is of no consequence
whatever when it comes to national security. This "shameful" leak can
do real harm to our ability to prosecute the WOT, but no one is calling
for the SP to investigate it. Also, it's frustrating that the MSM (as usual)
is skewing the coverage and omitting "little details" about how this same
law was used during the Clinton administration (probably with much less
justification) and how the Democrats in Congress were briefed about it.
Instead they are reporting the denials by the lying Dems that they knew
anything about it.

I applaud our President for trying to break through the barrier of the
MSM by holding the news conference yesterday. I know that it is not a
pleasant experience for him due to the fact that the intent of the WH
reporters is not to discover the truth, but to embarass the POTUS. If
I get frustrated because the Dems and their willing accomplices in the
media have no conpunction about out and out lying, I know it must be
even more frustrating for him, God bless him!
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[Schadow]

[joeshero]

I wonder why the New York Times has not moved yet its headquarter to Qatar. In terms of its blindness in seeing the danger posed by Islamic terrorists, or I tend to believe its deliberate effort to support, Islamofacism, there is no much different between Al Jazeera and NYT.
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[BuffaloJack]

[PhantomSgt]

[GoophyDog]

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 119, 2511.2.f:

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

Now where's the story?
_________________
Why ask? Because it needs asking.

[rparrott21]

Bush to Democrats...

image removed by Admin Lew

[I B Squidly]

The FBI discovered Nixon's sub rosa channel to Thieu through Madame Chang in '68 leaving LBJ outraged and frustrated. He couldn't announce it without revealing the source. Funny that when the CIA planted E Howard Hunt for LBJ as a mole in the Goldwater Campaign it was legal. When Hunt spied on Larry Obrien for Nixon it wasn't. To me, the most hair raising aspect of the whole Watergate affair was John Mitchell telling the Irwin committe that the Justice Dept. employed agents provocateurs to incite violence during the DC peace protests and nobody gave it a second thought. CIA v. FBI turf battles aside, dirty politics aside domestic spying has a long and convoluted history of outrage and indifference.

Many of us envy Lincoln's supra-legal incarceration and deportation of seditionists. Few of us remember the Palmer Raids executed without warrant. Over the years we've glamorized the wholey illegal presumptions of Prohibition Agents. At least the Volstead Act was an Amendment where the War on Drugs was largely an Executive yoyo. It got especially ugly under Dick. The DOD announced it would flood the streets of America with 50,000 'Nam vet heroin addicts. To that the old DOH responded with a modest proposal of rehab. Nixon saw an opportunity to demonize both pot smoking hippies and inner city junkies by escalating engagement. He fired the top three tiers of DOH, scrapped their budget and gave the money instead to cities like Gary, Indiana to buy armored cars to fight the drug threat. No-knock, good-faith, anonymous warrants issued from that point. Not even WaPo or NYT made much comment.

The Church committee scrambled any rhyme or reason to domestic spying but moving on to the Reagan years; Nixon's improvizations were judicially endorsed. Congress wouldn't piss in a bottle but all of us in uniform faced random 'Golden Flows'; 4th or 5th Amendment anyone?.....I know Clause 11, page 2 of your contract yada yada. Congress finally had the sense to see the counter-production of the 18th Amendment but can't grasp it of the War on Drugs from which most current abuses of liberty derive.

Later comes Clinton who collected raw FBI files with 'deniability' and short-sheeted all legitmate investigations into his China fund. All the while Dems, (cut that...can't we just call them) 'jackasses' support the murder of innocents for the greater good of 'Asset Recovery', but vilify W for doing less against traitors, consorting with the enemy.

We've gotten to this point with some complicity from Republicans but by statute any evidence so acquired is only useful against proveable traitors. By evidence printed daily in the local rag and brayed on nightly news the Jackasses are indictable. No wonder they howl.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"

-Wlm Shakespeare

[joeshero]

The double standards of the mainstream media on this eavesdropping issue is absolutely outrageous. Noel Sheppard nails it down convincingly.


NSA Eavesdropping and Media Double Standards
December 21st, 2005

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5092

There’s an old saying: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. When it comes to mainstream media reporting, nothing could be further from the truth.

No finer example of a media double standard has been recently evident than in the furor that has evolved over revelations of National Security Agency eavesdropping. To be more precise, the press response to The New York Times report on this subject last Friday is in stark contract to how they reacted in the ’90s when the Clinton administration was found to be engaging in extraordinarily similar activities.

A perfect example surfaced in a Washington Post article written yesterday by Charles Lane. In it, Lane referred to changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act under former President Clinton after the Aldrich Ames affair. For those unfamiliar, Ames was a CIA agent that was convicted in 1994 of working for the former Soviet Union:

“The original version of the law was silent on warrantless physical searches of suspected spies or terrorists. The Clinton administration claimed inherent authority to conduct such “black bag” jobs, including searches of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames’s house that turned up evidence of his spying for Russia. But it later sought amendments to FISA that brought physical searches under the FISA framework.”

The Post failed to make clear a number of key points:

• The two searches of Ames’ home were illegal under existing law at the time;

• The Clinton administration authorized these illegal searches with full support of former Attorney General Janet Reno and the Justice Department;

• Former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick had stated at the time that if the Justice Department tried to meet all the strict rules imposed on police in criminal matters, it would ‘’unduly frustrate’’ America’s counter-intelligence efforts;

• The Clinton administration ended up supporting changes to FISA – the Intelligence Authorization Act – in order to protect it from future legal challenges to its espionage procedures

...more on the above link
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

[Me#1You#10]

John Hinderaker at Powerline appears to be in "Take No Prisoners" mode...good for him...