A poster's comment on a Free Republic thread......
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"Did you see the New York Times report on how the infidels are tracking our money?"
"Yes Khalid. I sent a courier with a note to the financier, and he wrote back and assured me that he will route the transfers through a firm in the Bahamas and have the money laundered."
"That is good Achmed."
"It is easy. The infidel newspapers do all the hard work. All I have to do is sit here and write out notes."
"Achmed?"
"Yes Khalid?"
"How come you just don't call the financier?"
"Oh - that! Because the New York Times revealed that the infidels were monitoring our phone calls."
"Damn those infidels!"
"Thank Allah for the New York Times Khalid. Without them we'd have no secrets that weren't known to the infidels."
"Praise Allah for the New York Times."
"Indeed, praise Allah for the New York Times."
Ummm, wrong phoney scandal, Stew.
ReplyDeleteEvery one of these "wiretapping scandals" that have been brought up by the NYT is legal. There is even established legal precedent in the recent case.
Excerpt:
"The effort, which the government calls the 'Terrorist Finance Tracking Program' (TFTP), is entirely legal. There are no conceivable constitutional violations involved. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller (1976) that there is no right to privacy in financial-transaction information maintained by third parties."
Sorry.
Sorry Stew, but it's very apparent that the programs are legal.
ReplyDeleteHere is what the Washington Times has to say about the legality of the programs.
Noteworthy excerpt:
"All these facts lend the administration a strong presumption that its activities were legal and warranted, in which case the whole uproar surrounding them looks to be a sham.
The important point to be remembered in this debate is that America's clear strategic advantage over al Qaeda is our technological superiority. Al Qaeda has advantages in its fluid organizational structure, ability to blend in and its ruthless disregard for the laws of war and innocent human life. Technology is the West's home turf. Our 'asymmetric' advantage is found in exploiting it.
Here is some supporting legal analysis.
Key point:
"There are, of course, liberal law professors who would like the law to be different from what it is. They are free to develop theories according to which the Supreme Court, should it someday address this issue directly, would rule as they wish. But the administration is entitled to rely on the law as it currently exists. And there is simply no question about the fact that under the Constitution and all controlling precedents, the NSA intercept program is legal."
There are at least 3 separate and distinct programs involving communications intercepts, each of which is governed by different laws, policies, and procedures:
ReplyDelete1) Wiretaps, which involve listening to actual phone calls. These are done by law enforcement personnel inside the U.S.
2) Phone records review, which are automated and done by computer. The best analogy is police radar that looks at all cars going by and selects those that violate speed criteria.
3) Surveillance of phone calls (not listening, but watching who calls who) between identified terrorists and who they call.
Regardless of the "The sky is falling!" ballyhoo by the liberal press, NONE of these programs has been determined to be illegally implemented or conducted by our government. Not one. Nada.
"Regardless of the "The sky is falling!" ballyhoo by the liberal press, NONE of these programs has been determined to be illegally implemented or conducted by our government. Not one. Nada."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
And everytime we hear the Standard Political Talking Points regarding this issue, we need to keep reminding them of that Incovenient Truth.
"You can't handle the truth!!"
ReplyDelete"However, actually listening in to the phone conversations of American citizens without a warrant (or an attempt to obtain a warrant within the specified time period) certainly is illegal under FISA."
ReplyDeletePlease direct me to any source supporting this statment. Be specific as to which agency in which location and manned by what personnel are "listening."
Also describe how you know this. And I mean how do you know of your own personal knowledge, not what you've read or heard from a biased news source.
How do they listen? Is it a Title III operation, or a Penn register, or what? Do you even know the resources required to have a real person "listen" to phone conversations? Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Do you have any firsthand or personal knowledge of how these programs are conducted? Do you know which computers are used, which programs are used, the location of those copmputers or the techniques used? Do you know how the information is collected, collated, disseminted, and transmitted to the client?
You know what you read. And what you read is written by people who have a vested interest in destroying the Bush administration in any way they can. Taking a kernel of truth and twisting and distorting it is their stock in trade.
Funny, the liberals and terrorists have the same goal, to destroy the Bush administration. And both are savvy in using the media to try and achieve their common goal. Both often use the same language and arguments.
I sometimes wonder which one poses the greater danger to our country.
At the end of the day, our government has many resources available to legally gather intel information. FISA is only one of them. To assume that FISA is the one and only governing entity in this is naive.
Our government has explained time and again how these actions are legal, and there have been NO cases to show otherwise. None of these programs have been proved to be illegal, though many liberals wish to convince you otherwise.
If you choose to believe those that wish to destroy and not support our government, that's up to you. But don't try and make me believe the lies spun by the liberals.
"A liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude."