| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Bill Clinton and the NSA
Via Newsmax:
During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.
On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted “a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices” when it “secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants.”
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s – all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.”
NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told “60 Minutes” that the agency was monitoring “everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs.”
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling “60 Minutes” that agency operators “can listen in to just about anything” – while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
Make sure to read the entire article, and then ask yourself “where was the outrage?”
Read more via Gary Gross.
(Thanks to Bak for the tip)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
60 Responses to “Bill Clinton and the NSA”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Andrew,
“acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications…”
Engligh 101 and Reading Comprehension 101 says to me that international encompasses any communications originating from here to Al Qaida or from Al Qaida to here. It doesn’t mean just from Al Qaida to Al Qaida except for in a Democrat obessesed impeach Bush mind even though every Democrat president since FISA asserted the power to gather information without warrants.
I’m not sure if you are purposefully misrepresenting or what but even being confronted with the text you don’t back down because you are arrogant (exactly what you accuse Bush of). Is that IRONIC or what. Should we bow down to you? /end sarcasm
English 101 doesn’t tell me that ‘foreign intelligence’information includes domestic al-qaeda suspects.
But I can see why this prohibition isn’t so clear to you, so lets instead use the one that Orrin Kerr points to:
“A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” 50 USC 1809.
Orrin’s post. Skip down to ‘now lets turn to FISA.’
It’s the word “international”. English 101 tells you that when you are on an “international” flight you are flying to another country or from another country.
Sorry you feel the arrogance to continue acting like the authority on the subject when I posted the text from FISA that CONTRADICTS your claim. And it’s understandable not lawyer mumbo jumbo. Sad day for ya.
I even bolded the word out of all of the text for ya.
Read again
BTW, Would you at least admit there are many (including Democrats) experts in the law who disagree with you and the Democrat leadership or would you be that doubly arrogant to not recognize they exist or discredit those folks?
Keep it up ! THis is great stuff for political newbies to see how you and your side operates. Incorrect accusations…
I was talking to a lawyer for 3 hours yesterday. He thought that the Bush administration has been cutting WIC in CA or nationally. I told him that is completely inaccurate that the budget has increased every year for over 2 decades for WIC. I then went on to tell him about the Democrat inaccurate accusation that went on for 5 months in 1995 about Republicans supposedly cutting Medicare by 270 Billion and also told him that budgets under Arnold have been rising/increasing and these are black and white facts and not subjective.
While beliefs about race and what solutions to take about racial inequities are subjective and pure opinion (yet Democrats inaccurately accuse Republicans of being racist – there are similar percentage of true racists in both parties) there are some things that are black and white like how much the budget increased or not. On the NSA subject you act like the arrogant authoritarian. I’ve read a whole lot and will say that I see enough to know that your arguments don’t hold water and haven’t been precedent. You just keep repeating the same argument over and over despite the contradicting text that I gave you above. And then refused to see the word “international” even though I had bolded it for ya.
“BTW, Would you at least admit there are many (including Democrats) experts in the law who disagree with you and the Democrat leadership or would you be that doubly arrogant to not recognize they exist or discredit those folks?”
I trust Orrin Kerr on this. The statute does look clear. Not even gonzales argues that they were acting pursuant to statute. He’s arguing they can ignore it or rely on the AUMF.
Did you read the words I cited? I cited teh wrong ones before, but now the right ones. What do those say?
Displayed lack of honesty and inability to answer the question. Avoidance displays that.
Go back and answer the question.
Yes. The statute does look clear (including the one I posted). As i said, English 101.
Again, go back and answer the question and be honest with everyone.
“Again, go back and answer the question and be honest with everyone. ”
It looks like the exclusive means cite is wrong. what about the ones I gave you, the one orrin kerr cites? is that correct? Does that answer your question?
Looks like the NOTHING means NOTHING to you.
Section (f) of that chapter, however, reads as follows:
(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
You’ve lost your ability to be the authority at that posting. Everything else you posted was opinion. There are people who agree with you and there are people who DISAGREE with you EVEN Democrats and my QUESTION to you asked you to ADMIT that and …. YOU CAN’T. Game over you lost.
” There are people who agree with you and there are people who DISAGREE with you EVEN Democrats and my QUESTION to you asked you to ADMIT that and …. YOU CAN’T. ”
Oh. Thats totally trivial. Of course people disagree with me. Don’t make them right though.