Jan 18 2007

News Media Claim False Victory Over NSA

Published by at 9:04 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

You got to love how naive or plainly embarrassed the news media must be at the news the FIS Court has given the administration a ‘blank check’ warrant to continue their program of listening in on terrorists communications which have one end here in the US. For a reminder here is the letter from AG Gonzales which clearly indicates the ‘spying’ will continue under a FIS Court Judge’s order:

I am writing to inform you that on January 10, 2007, a Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probably cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization. As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Clearly this says the spying will continue! Now read the Washington Post’s ridiculous spin:
>blockquote>Bush Retreats on Use of Executive Power
Allowing Court’s Role in Surveillance Is Latest Step Back

Let’s be clear. If Bush had not received what he wanted, he would not have ‘ended’ the TSP. Whatever name it runs under, the administration is doing the exaxct same thing it has been doing with the NSA – tracking down potential terrorists possibly here in the US.

Of course, the NY Times alerted the terrorists to the fact we were listening in on their conversations and tracking down agents here in the US. The paper’s drive for a Nobel could have ended up killing people. So far they have been lucky their blunder and total misreporting of the facts has not harmed anyone. The fact is Bush only stopped using the TSP on 45 day authorizations AFTER he got permanent agreement from the FIS Court. The media are such blatant liars sometimes.

23 responses so far

23 Responses to “News Media Claim False Victory Over NSA”

  1. satrist says:

    I’ve come to expect lies from the media. What irks me is when I hear knee jerk reactions from the ‘TRUE’ conservatives. One would think that the intelligent, TRUE conservatives would do a little more investigating before they automatically rush to judgement.

  2. stevevvs says:

    Mark Levin:

    The Gonzalez Letter

    Well, the administration spin is on, and it’s dizzying.

    First things first. The Fourth Amendment has no application where the government, during war, is intercepting enemy communications and the purpose is to prevent attacks on the United States by foreign enemies. That’s what the Constitution provides, that’s what the relevant circuit court decisions have held, and that’s what our history demonstrates. The president’s constitutional authority cannot be trumped by statute — or by the other branches. If FISA limits that authority, as some suggest, then it is unconstitutional. If Congress insists that the president comply with FISA in contravention of his constitutional authority, then Congress demands that the president violate the Constitution.

    If the government’s purpose in intercepting enemy communications is to bring criminal charges, that’s a different matter. In most cases the Fourth Amendment is then triggered. The question then is whether the reasonableness test or probable cause applies. Obviously, there are numerous situations in which searches can take place without meeting the probable cause test and seeking a warrant. The list is too long to provide here. It appears that the administration has decided that the test in most if not all cases will be probable cause. Why else go to the FISA court, or any court for that matter? So, the administration has committed the executive branch to meeting a higher standard in pursuit of the enemy, specifically their communications. Bill Clinton rejected this position in circumstances far more invasive than these. He supported warrantless searches where the search was physical, within the U.S., and involved U.S. citizens. Here, we’re talking about intercepting electronic communications under war-time conditions, which may or may not be within the U.S., and which may or may not involve U.S. citizens.

    Moreover, the administration has insisted since the NSA program was leaked to the press that it needed the flexibility to conduct searches without going to the FISA court because the pre-application process was too cumbersome. The administration urged this position in court, before Congress, and with the American people. Yet, there was no statutory fix, assuming one were possible. And the FISA court can’t provide the statutory respecting the pre-application process.

    The Gonzalez letter, on its face, provides no useful information dispelling any of these concerns – concerns the administration itself had raised. I, for one, don’t like being taken on a ride like this, only to have the administration claim some kind of false victory as it surrenders on all points. I am deeply troubled by its reversal of course. Certain administration officials are working overtime to spin this, and I can see the handiwork here and there, but nothing has changed except the administration’s position — not the Constitution, the FISA, the complicated pre-application process, or anything else.

    Yet another example of caving to the dems.

  3. Retired Spook says:

    Steve, I have a great deal of admiration and respect for Mark Levin, but my guess, based largely on my 24 years in signals intelligence, including assignments to NSA, is that Mark is not privy to the highly classified details of these new orders. The proof will be in the pudding, and I doubt President Bush very much cares how other people spin this as long as the American people are protected.

  4. stevevvs says:

    Retired Spook :

    I truely Hope You Are Correct. I’m waiting on something from my other most trusted person on this: Andrew C. McCarthy. So far, I’ve seen nothing. I too respect Mark .

    You just have to wonder, when he had his meetings with the incoming new Congressional Leaders what was discussed?
    I’d have loved to be a bug on the wall!

  5. AJStrata says:

    Stevevvs,

    Levin is missing the big picture – which has not changed. As before 9-11, we can intercept all day long, but can we do something about it when he find these folks?

    Prior to 9-11 the answer was “no” – the FIS Court refused to consider ANY lead, no matter how much it was substantiated afterwards, that arose from NSA intercepts. None. After 9-11, Bush and the Lead FIS Court judges (there was a handover of leadership of the court somewhere in 2004) figured out a way to allow leads that NSA initiated,and which the FBI could confirmed as serious to some level, to be could be considered for FISA warrant.

    Levin misses the key fact here. If we want to do something about potential terrorists here in country we need the FIS Court to authorize the search and monitor warrants – otherwise the FBI and other law enforcement agents will not risk their personal freedom (staying out of jail) to run down all these leads. So Bush still needs the FIS Court to cooperate so they will let warrants that allow these potential terrorists in country to be fully investigated and monitored and searched and picked up – if need be.

    Bush would have to go to something extreme like suspending Habius Corpus if he wanted to go around the courts. But since he HAS their cooperation in this and he is free now to continue the monitoring and the following up of leads from that monitoring, that is the perfect solution. Levin wants a Constitutional showdown during a time of war. He has just joined the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots club. It is better if government pulls together to fight our enemies instead of fighting each other. Partisan fever is a dangerous thing.

    The

  6. stevevvs says:

    AJ,
    I hope you are correct. Time will tell.

    “He has just joined the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots club. It is better if government pulls together to fight our enemies instead of fighting each other. Partisan fever is a dangerous thing.”

    Yes it is. But so is blind loyalty. I voted for Bush both times, rather enthusiasticly, I might add. But, I really thought the second term would be more conservative than the first. Boy, was I wrong! So, I’m capable of actually looking at what he has done, rather than what he says, and think for myself. And on issue after issue has has taken the moderate to liberal approach. The only exception that comes to mind is the war. Thankfully, he has pretty much stood his ground.

    People like Mark Levin, who faught very hard to make the case in Bush’s favor on this issue, are understandably upset over this and many other issues. He is a defender of the Constitution first and foremost, and Presidential Powers. It seems as though your a bit harsh on everyone who doesn’t think everything Bush does as a great thing.

    I think there was a lot of pressure put on Bush behind the scenes on this issue by Harry Reid, and Miss America, Nancy P. In time we may find out more as to whether this might have been the case.

    Catch You later, enjoy your day.

  7. crosspatch says:

    The strategy is simple … twist anything, even victories into some kind of a defeat. Simply go against anything the President says. Bush says no more troops? Fine, demand more. Bush says okay, send in more troops, fine, now say it is “unthikable”. Want evidence? Check out the Washington Times column today I just linked to.

    On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.

    “In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ‘stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”

    “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”

    Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

    Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

    “We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.

    This is what I was talking about last week when I mentioned that the Democrats in December had been demanding a surge and then when Bush announces one, are suddenly against it. It is like how the Democrats were all for going into Iraq until the troops crossed the border and then were suddenly against it. Reminds me of Lucy holding that football.

  8. stevevvs says:

    crosspatch,
    How do you put links in like that? I’d like to learn. You wrote Want Evidence, and under it is the link. How is that done?

    I think that passage was at the Corner at N.R. last week. It was somewhere! The Wash Times was a little late, but I’m glad they posted it.

  9. crosspatch says:

    You substitute angle brackets where I use parentheses below … I cant use angle brackets or it will show up as a link!

    (a href=”http://url.of.target.here”)Put the text here(/a) and that’s it.

    If you substitute angle brackets for the parens, it will create a link and “Put the text here” will be highlighted as a clickable link to “url.of.target.here”. The “a” tag is called an anchor. So you create an anchor with a hypertext reference (href) to the target page. Dont forget to enclose the URL in quotes and DONT forget to close the anchor with the (/a) or it will mess up the entire article until someone closes the anchor in a comment.

  10. stevevvs says:

    Thanks Crosspatch! I’ve always wondered how people do that! Someday soon, I will give it a try. I thought maybe you needed a special program or something.

  11. For Enforcement says:

    Thanks for that lesson Crosspatch, so if I read that correctly there are a total of 4 angle brackets, that includes the ones on either side of the /a is that correct. Okay, next question. how do you indent the text on both sides as in the column that you quoted.
    I’ve been wondering about these items. Almost all other sites i comment on uses a different system where you can change font and colors etc. This site doesn’t allow that, as far as I can determine, but the link you provided is in Blue. so I’m sure this will help a lot of people. that sure makes quotes lifted and pasted a lot simpler.

  12. NSA – The Crawford Kid does it again!…

    The more and more you look at AG Gonzales’ letter on the Domestic Survelliance/FISA issue, the more you see that rather than the administration backing down, they in fact solidified the program.
    My sources tell me that this move has been in th…

  13. crosspatch says:

    Yes, FE, each tag (in this case the “a” tag and the associated closing “/a” tag) are enclosed in angle brackets. That’s called “HTML” or Hypertext Markup Language. Not all HTML tags work on blogs but a few do. The other thing you are talking about is “blockquote”. So if you (again using parens so you can see it) enclose text with that tag like this:

    (blockquote)
    This is some quoted text
    (/blockquote)

    (notice how each tag also has a closing / tag) Then it will look like this:

    This is some quoted text

    Again DONT forget to close “tag” with “/tag” as that tells the browser that all the text between them are to be treated in some way. If you don’t close it, it runs on forever.

  14. For Enforcement says:

    I am applying the lesson leaned from Crosspatch, if I did this thing correctly a blockquote should follow.

    Yes, FE, each tag (in this case the “a” tag and the associated closing “/a” tag) are enclosed in angle brackets. That’s called “HTML” or

    So if the block quote was there, we should see it above, if it worked, thanks

  15. Carol_Herman says:

    When you run scared, you make mistakes.

    People get confused when they think the media, and/or the politicians, really can just snap their fingers and get what they want!

    If we were dealing with business, instead of politics, you’d be more alert to the Edsel not selling. Than you are, here. (Where Drudge has put up the headline that Geffen, Mr. Money in his hollywood pants pockets, just announced Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win the presidency.)

    Should teach ya something right there!

    And, all the crap out of congress? It seems not to matter to those who run this operation, that they’re running their party into the ground. But I did notice, that to gain the FEW seats to make the donks think they’re “in the majority,” is to miss the point.

    To “win” they had to lie. And, those 25 kiesters that changed in the HOUSE? Went to BLUE DOGS. And, a few who could steal results from very poor turnouts. Not a blow out. Doesn’t indicate a thing for 2008.

    Except that if you want to win, you don’t hire an italian ass to run your “shop.” Or HOUSE. Just because she has female genitalia.

    Lots of companies suffer when the management beings to look stupid.

    But those who have their jobs? They spend a major amount of time WORRIED.

    People hate pink slips. Few see the benefits of “being fired.” So, they contain themselves with “faith healers,” who make their livings pushing dunces into believing they’re “on top.”

    If pilots couldn’t make errors where they fly upside-down and don’t know it; I wouldn’t even know about such phenomena. But that’s the reason for INSTRUMENTS. They’re up there in the cockpit, because reason, alone, can confuse you so, that you don’t know you’re flying upside-down.

    And, the donks are scared out of their minds! If they weren’t scared, they’d use the powers they had to climb higher. But they fear the public more than you know! They fear letting people, for instance, read blogs. Or use cell-phones. In other words, they’d like to gear up “to take over the world of business.”

    HARDLY LIKELY.

    These people aren’t capable of running businesses well.

    Heck. Even in hollywood, where businesses are run into the ground, you still see an angry Geffen going after Hillary. TO STOP HER NOW!

    Some people get scared enough that they want to survive. Those people don’t run. (They don’t run for government seats.) And, they don’t run away from the “heat in the kitchen.” Where’s the kitchen, here? I dunno. And, nobody exactly asked Harry Truman, either.

    Me? I can’t wait for Bush to have opportunities, ahead, to take out his veto pen. Andrew Jackson, the FIRST President who was a man of the people, gained a humongous reputation for the GOOD, going after the congress critters by dipping his feather into an ink jar. Just in case you thought Bush can’t do a thing to stop the nonsense.

  16. Terrye says:

    I think Mark Levin is overlooking the fact that Bush will not be president forever. He wants a showdown with Congress over Executive power at a time when Bush is being attacked by the same Congress over the increase in troop levels.

    What happens if the next President is a Democrat? Has Levin thought about that? Bush has been signing that damn executive order every 45 days just to keep the program going. Now it will go on without the need for that from him, or the next person who gets in the White House. That will make it more difficult for Democrats to dismantle the program. I thought the whole purpose to the fight for this program was about the program, now it seems the program itself runs a slow second to a partisan fight.

  17. Carol_Herman says:

    I’m glad Beldar is blogging, again. I especially loved his predictions. Because he says BUSH HAS A VETO PEN. And, he added BUSH WILL USE IT.

    So much for “show downs” between the clowns in congress, who are good at forming circles, before firing.

    While, you’d be surprised, how the VETO PEN could work. Because Beldar says there aren’t enough members in congress, who’d come together, to override the president’s vetos.

    Beldar set the number for this as being between 16 and 22. (Over two years time.)

    I was amazed! Because if you were hiring Beldar to give you legal advice you’d be paying a fortune. And, the advice would be worth taking.

    And, this was given for FREE!

    Of course, the congress critters, smelling defeat, might opt instead to send their wish list to “committee.” Santa Claus not being available, and all of that.

    Besides, for real news, Drudge posted a Geffen’s declaration that Hillary has to STAY AWAY FROM the holly-weirdies. Because they’re not gonna give her any money! (Well? Maybe, he was speaking for all? Or, maybe, Babs Streisand will have to run some concerts? Does that old bag still sell tickets?)

    It all depends on how you look at things. You see bad news? I see, today, Hillary took a hit up at Drudge. And, I always think Drudge is ahead of most of the games that play out in news rooms.

    “Partisan” doesn’t carry any weight when you can’t sell your Edsel.

  18. For Enforcement says:

    And all because H.U. Grant was born in Ohio and Led the Union forces in the civil war.

  19. Carol_Herman says:

    Grant’s victories set the stage for Pershing. MacArthur thought the world of Pershing. Though nothing from WW1, these days, resonates.

    Okay. MacArthur stole Pershing’s gal. And, stuff like that turned Pershing against MacArthur, who also deserves all the stars he earned.

    America was lucky that way. We really had GREAT GENERALS. Tommy Franks is not one of them. Though he’s downright better than Wesley Clark.

    Seems we all go through fallow periods.

    History though is written to make up for all the mistakes the journalists make, when they’re in charge of current events.

    Besides, even if our congress could corrupt our efforts in iraq; and I think they’re on a loser’s course when they try. There are still spooks from assorted other counties, picking up the slack.

    While in England, the HOUSE OF SAUD is threatening the British government with a huge loss in aircraft sales. They’re hoping this pressure forces England to cancel its actions against HOUSE OF SAUD financing of terrorism.

    On the other hand, I read a piece that said the HOUSE OF SAUD would deserve the consequences. Since they’re gonna be in need of the aircraft. And, if they don’t buy from the British, they buy from the french. (French crap, when it comes to military stuff, just doesn’t work as well.)

    If you have to buy from the french, stick to their cheeses and wines.

    It’s good to know the difference. Where in france they’re not afraid of raw milk. And, artesan cheeses are still made. While all we can buy is Velveeta. And, rubber bands. Food, especially the consumer stuff like Wonder Bread, shows ya that you can label this “bread.” It isn’t. And, you can even call it “Wonder.” What a wondah.

    Grant, by the way, proposed that when you fight you fight as hard as you can, without compromises. Since you want to defeat your enemy. And, you want your enemy to willingly SIGN the total surrender documents.

    How come banks know all about the needs of obtaining signatures on bonafide loan documents; and our military went to sleep, probably thinking “getting signatures” was such a chore, they could leave it to the hired “halp.”

    We’re gonna get back on stronger footing.

    And, yes. Someday, when history is again taught well, kids will be mesmerized by history. And, the words “social science” will go flying out the window! There’s nothing “social” about history. And, to be science, you cannot lie.

    But then, again, in the American model. Where one-room school houses prevailed, you learned how to read and write within four years. You still had your farm chores. Larger families were a boon, because there was so much daily work to do. And, if you loved books, you had access to free libraries.

    The Net does provide a source, so that those who get curious enough can find books that would intrique them no end. It’s still something of a miracle to have a society with a 90% literacy rate.

    And, here, ya just gotta credit the Net! You’re not gonna come here if you can’t read. (While most people stay shy about writing. I guess a few bullies throw the majority off their confidence levels.)

  20. Carol_Herman says:

    Grant’s middle initial was “S” …