FOX Breaking News- Bush to Hold Press Conference at 10:30 a.m. EST This Morning

FOX NEWS ^ | 12/19/05 | BREAKING NEWS - FOX NEWS

[Berlin_Freeper]

Bush to Hold Press Conference at 10:30 a.m. EST This Morning

[freema]

Oh, they're pissed!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

[Chieftain]

Egos??? DemonCRAPS??? You must be shrink!

[Turborules]

Below my comments (if you have time) is an article describing the deaths from a nuclear bomb in NEW YORK CITY where Hillary and Shoooomer live and these dumb-ass dims want to make a fuss about Bush doing his Constitutional Mandated Job with excellence they can only dream of doing themselves... so many lies to get power and if to be believed and God help us if they are again in power, they are the very ones to be hit first in NYC...if the Bastards had prior warnings from the teariest again...as Blue dress Clinton did...then they will never get out of their Government Bunkers again alive...

I pray they never have any votes to power!!!



December 19, 2005, 8:59 a.m.
Unwarranted Outrage
The Times blew our cover.



I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.

How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).

Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."

But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.

O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."

Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your above mentioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.

Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).

This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.

So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through — if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?

You can answer that one.

— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins.asp

[altura]

A baseball bat would be more effective.

[Wasanother]

That was the most pathetic POC I've read in a while. The was not even a pretense of fairness.

[ncpatriot]

So is the President.

Very biased article.

[Turborules]

The Armed Citzenry as well as the US Military, National Guard, FBI, ect. ect. ect. would never stand for the dims treason to happen...they know that better than honest law abiding citizens...why else do they want our guns and ammunition??????????????????????????????????? Not to protect us from ourselves...but to protec them bastards from us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow that felt good! How we doing out there folks?

[Just A Nobody]

Shhhhh.....of course!

[Just A Nobody]

Ahhh, there's always tomorrow!

[Peach]

Notice how they can't tell the reader which law it is that the president has broken. hahahaha

[La Enchiladita]

I saw your post just as offices were closing in D.C. I look forward to talking with Chris tomorrow and, in the meantime, I sent an e-mail to the President: supporting his new 'tude and urging an investigation in the leak of top secret information.

[Txsleuth]

Did any of you see O'Reilly a few minutes ago??

He had on Jonathan Turley..and Turley said that he thinks that Pres. Bush did a "premeditated federal offense..that should be prosecuted..impeachable offense.."


O'Reilly, Turley and the other lawyer ALL said hearings should happen AGAINST Bush...NOT to find out the leaker...

[Peach]

OMG. I knew there was a reason I wasn't watching television tonight. LOL

Maybe they should tell us EXACTLY which law was broken because to my knowledge, this all protects the president:

The legislation posted below says that US citizens can be subject to warrantless wiretaps.

section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."

Does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.

Does that include everyone, even citizens? Yes. Subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

And then of course, Newsweek, there's this little tidbit you forgot to mention:

Congress passed new legislation which permitted the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543451/posts

[mystery-ak]

I watched it...Turley also said that Bush committed a federal crime and is subject to impeachment...my heart sank at that moment.....more ammo for the rats...

[krunkygirl]

I don't believe (Dem)Turley. I don't believe Dems period.

[Peach]

It will be okay, mystery. The president consulted with the Attorney General and Congress. I don't believe he broke the law.

The press is all about controversy. Period.

[Txsleuth]

Yessssss...that is why I am so alarmed...NOT that I think that Bush will be prosecuted...but..

Turley just gave the dems the ammo to start impeachment proceedings...in fact, I think I saw a thread earlier today where Rep. John Lewis is doing just that...

All I have heard all day is "Bush isn't KING"....sigh

[Bahbah]

Turley said that he thinks that Pres. Bush did a "premeditated federal offense..that should be prosecuted..impeachable offense.

Turned it off. IF you didn't get to see or hear much today, get ready for the line tomorrow from those in congress who were briefed on this that it wasn't a real briefing or real oversight because they couldn't talk among each other or get their own legal counsel.

[shield]

I saw it. What he indicated is the SC would NEVER uphold what the President has done. In the past, they've always kicked down this.

If it goes to the SC...bet this new group, especially when Alito is confirmed, will not kick it down.

Besides, the rats have been on this wiretapping from the get go. Don't think this is going any place.

And as far as the l978 Law is concerned...W was NOT breaking the law.

[mystery-ak]

I liked Turley, especially during the election standoff in 2000....I pray he's wrong on this one....