Posted on 02/05/2006 7:44:02 PM PST by FairOpinion
The Bush administration will tell the Senate today that the National Security Agency's programme for terrorist surveillance has been badly distorted by media reports, and that the scheme is a strictly limited one aimed at al-Qaeda members and affiliated groups.
In the first Senate hearing on the controversial programme, which was set up secretly in 2002 and revealed publicly in December, Alberto Gonzales, the attorney-general, will say that the press accounts "are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused or wrong," according to Time magazine, which has obtained documents outlining the planned testimony.
"Contrary to the speculation reflected in some media reporting, the terrorist surveillance programme is not a dragnet that sucks in all conversation and uses computer searches to pick out calls of interest," Mr Gonzales will say in response to questions raised by Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. "No communications are intercepted unless first it is determined that one end of the call is outside of the country, and professional intelligence experts have probable cause [that is, 'reasonable grounds to believe'] that a part to the communication is a member or agent of al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organisation."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.ft.com ...
If a lib gets in office the use of this will be the LEAST of our worries.
Thanks!
A congress with any balls would call many media and network executives in and subpoena many records to examine whether or not they are in a cabal in support of terrorism: fried nuts of fried nuts.
Be very, very glad that I am not the President.
I would have old style "black operations" going on 24/7 and I would start with the media and lib scum.
Every time these traitors open their mouths, another American Troop dies or gets his body ripped apart, the battle in that hellhole gets longer and the effort costs all of us more money.
'Scheme' is a completely standard British synonym for the American usage of the word 'plan'. It is neither connotative nor perjorative in any sense, as you unfortunately suggest.
anyone see the editorial cartoon with two little boys talking thru a string and 2 tin cans? i guess the cartoonist didn't put a large body of water between them cuz he coudn't spell atlantic. pardon my lower cases.
I like those loaded headlines.
:^(
Or what the press pulls from its bag of stale tricks, lash out.
Check this out:
Preview of Sen. Kennedy's questioning tomorrow
For whatever it's worth, I received the following preview from Sen. Kennedy's staff regarding his intentions for questioning Alberto Gonzales at tomorrow's hearings (I'm posting this with their consent):
So as I suggested on Friday – Kennedy is going to take an interesting, unexpected approach in Monday's wiretapping hearings.
First of all, again as we discussed - all Dems on the panel are going to emphasize that they take a back seat to no one when it comes to national security, and they arent going to fall into Karl Rove’s trap that asking questions about a questionably illegal program is similar to handing the terrorists our playbook.
But Kennedy will take that further by questioning Gonzales about the effectiveness of the program from the national security standpoint, believing that this rogue program is harmful because by ignoring around FISA it 1) our national security is actually weakened when the country is divided – and we aren’t protecting those intelligence officials who are working to protect us (if the President’s legal analysis is wrong – these people could go to jail for breaking the law) and 2) raises the risk that terrorist go free - given that the evidence is tainted because it isnt sanctioned by law.
In addition, Kennedy will underscore how willing Congress was/is to give the President the tools he needed, and question Gonzales why they parted with history in deciding to circumvent the time honored (and Constitutionally required) system of checks and balances. He will strongly contend that Congress is willing to work with this administration.
There are documents from the Ford Library detailing Kennedy’s unique role, as the principle author of FISA – including 1) Kennedy’s statement how well the Administration was working with them, including Antonin Scalia who was Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974-1973 2) how Attorney General Levi supported the law and 3) how important it was for the Adminstration to have Kennedy’s backing. In contrast to this Administration’s lack of trust in Congress – the Republican Administration under Ford actually came to Kennedy and asked him to take the lead on introducing FISA.
Also, as you saw today on MTP, Specter said that nothing in the AUMF mentions electronic surveillance – exactly what resolution offered by Kennedy and Leahy says, S. Res. 350....
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/preview-of-sen-kennedys-questioning.html
It will back fire on him and the Dems
I'll see ya in the morning. I'll have a cup of coffee for you..LOL
Here is the transcript of Gen. Hayden's interview on FoxNews today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183844,00.html
"WALLACE: ... is it true, as top administration officials have told me, that they raised the issue of amending the law and it was congressional leaders who said no, because it would end up disclosing the existence of the program?
HAYDEN: Chris, I don't remember the specific dialogue. The question of amending came up. And there was agreement among congressional leaders that that would be very difficult to do without revealing too much about the program."
===
This is why they didn't ammend the law, first of all it wasn't necessary, and second of all it would have disclosed too much about the program.
It is worth reading the entire transcript, where Gen. Hayden emphasizes again and again that it was only used against terrorists to prevent attacks.
We had a lib in office, remember? He tapped peoples phones for no other reason than he wanted to get something on them, remember? His name is Clinton. He also tried his best to outlaw firearms and completely trash the 2nd amendment, he didn't quite make it but came very close.
He didn't have the power to do these things but he did them anyway. Libs don't care what the constitution says, they try to weasel laws in by judicial coup and by lying to the ignorant people who make up their base. One way or another if a lib gets in the White House within the next 20 years, we will lose big chunks of our freedom.
Congressional Committee on un-American Affairs.
It's about damned time. Turn up the heat, keep it up, and throw some treasonous arses in jail.
You obviously have some sort of problem with the republican party, you sound angry, so STFU and do something about it instead of whining your butt off.
If you feel we need a third party then start one!
I would love to have an alternative to republicans, BUT they are better than the dimwits, we have taken back some of the second amendment with Bush in office and have accomplished several other things that I know you are aware of, Clinton bled us dry, he was the worst law breaking President we have ever had in my lifetime and I have lived a few years now.
As I said, put up or shut up.
Sure they are.
UK paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.