NYT's Source for NSA Wiretaps ~ A Leaking DUMBASS!
In yet another case involving leaked classified information, the New York Slimes will not reveal the Government Source who illegally informed them of President Bush's Secret Wiretaps on selected International Calls of suspected al-Qaieda TERRORISTS.
Oddly, the national media uproar is not over the leaking of Top Secret Information (such as with the outing of supposed Secret Agent Valerie Plame debacle), but rather is being directed at the President for trying to prevent another 9-11. WHAT THE HELL is wrong with THIS PICTURE?
And if that isn't BAD ENOUGH, some incarcerated terrorists are planning to use this new information to have their cases overturned and THEN want to SUE THE PRESIDENT!!!
In borrowing a paragraph from a recent article over at Timmer's Righting America:
Oddly, the national media uproar is not over the leaking of Top Secret Information (such as with the outing of supposed Secret Agent Valerie Plame debacle), but rather is being directed at the President for trying to prevent another 9-11. WHAT THE HELL is wrong with THIS PICTURE?
"The N.S.A. program is a necessary program," stated the President on Sunday. "I was elected to protect the American people from harm. And on Sept. 11, 2001, our nation was attacked. And after that day, I vowed to use all the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people, which is what I have been doing and will continue to do."So NOW, not only is President Bush in political hot water over taking the initiative to do his job to protect us, but now the Terrorist Cells in this country have been thouroughly briefed on what it is we do to catch them.
And if that isn't BAD ENOUGH, some incarcerated terrorists are planning to use this new information to have their cases overturned and THEN want to SUE THE PRESIDENT!!!
In borrowing a paragraph from a recent article over at Timmer's Righting America:
"How are we to wage the War on Terror without using our resources? We are slowly tying our hands in every facet of this fight - from regulating and publicizing our interrogation methods to curbing our own ability to use force - in this wacky, bizzaro-world of protecting the guilty and imperiling the innocent, there is a very real possibility that our nation will meet its ultimate doom by such madness (try to imagine 9-11 times TEN)."And what about this unidentified DUMBASS who leaked the information? Having committed an act of Treason and (it can be argued) Espionage against the United States, where is the outrage? Why are we not in hot pursuit of this individual who, with the help of the equally treasonous New York Times, has singlehandedly done what no terrorist could ever do - he (or she) has played the mole for an organization that wants us all DEAD.
posted by Timmer of Righting America at Permalink
31 Comments:
I'm with you buddy -- it is only called an outrage if doing that hurts BUSH.
Liberal pricks!
The only dumbass is YOU. Bush broke the law, but you are too uneducated and blinded by your loyalty to even admit that.
What a complete ass. And your blog is not funny either. You suck.
It's pretty funny though that you are the best the Republican slimebags have to offer.
Tony,
Yep - lot of hate out there for the Prez. I don't always agree with him either, but it seems that most of the liberal "Outrage of the Week" material is spawned by this irrational hatred.
Foltz,
What the hell kind of name is that? Kinda' rhymes with "Dolts" - which may describe you and all your friends! It certainly fits with your eloquent little tizzy here. Dumbass.
Happy New Year Chazz.
Foltz. You are a cowardly anonymous-poster moron. Bush didn't break the law. In fact, every President since Jimmy Carter has done THE SAME EXACT THING.
I believe the leaker is West Virginia's junior Senator Jay Rockefeller.
Kent,
Just becasue other presidents have committed crimes does not justify anything. Shit, if you couldn't shift blame, what defense would you have?
Will anyone recover an ounce of shame and ADMIT your president broke the law. Pretend for one minute that a democrat authorized illegal spying. Would the leaker be a "dumbass?"
Kent,
Same to you, buddy! And it would not surprise me AT ALL to discover that one of the Dems on one of the Oversight Committees was the leak.
Dan/Craaaaalllllspace,
There you go AGAIN! YES, it was done by other president's, and NO it was not A FRIGGIN CRIME! Where are your convictions? Shit sparky, maybe you DO belong in Hollywood after all! (might need a good plastic surgeon first...and a personal trainer...and a diet! hahaha).
Kevin,
I'm with you Baby - and thanks for the compliment. We aim to pleae here at Dumbass Detection Central!
Wow Chazz... you insult this good in person? If so, the only way you win is by going to the playground fence and teasing the 2nd graders. I can see it all now.
Pickup truck pulls up with American flag and two matching "support our troops" ribbons on each side. Overgrown, 30-some child steps out, turns off the Howard Stern show. Goes up to the fence, yells dumbass real loud and starts laughing. All the kids say amongst themselves, "Jeez... this guy again."
The principal comes out. "Chazz! IS that you?" You pull your baseball cap over your face and walk away. You quickly go home and pretend that some cartoon character is a liberal and write some 7th grade-level blogpost about it, then tell Timmer about how you told off a bunch of liberals. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but you try. OH, how you try.
Dan Craaaaaaal,
Is THAT the best you got? And you toy with the idea of screen-plays for Hollywood? Was COMEDY in your plan?
And your having not joined the military. Good idea. If this is you "cuttin up," you woulda' been eaten alive.
The only thing laughable, or dramatic, is you. I'd stick with the trees, the dog(s), the bicycle...
Hahahahaha! Good one, KJ!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No one with an IQ above a doughnut would ask for proof that Bush has violated the law. But, just for the hell of it and the pleasure of showing you myopically obsessed retards for what you are - here is the proof: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html
All you have to do is go to the link and read FISA to see that the wiretapping Bush authorized [ordered] the NSA to do was illegal. FISA specifically mandates a court order must be obtained and provides ground rules for all emergency circumstances should they exist. We know the president was fully aware of FISA law because, in 2004, Bush stated:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
Therefore, it is absolutely clear the President personally knew was violating FISA and the punishment for that violation under FISA is clear:
�§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.
The President has publicly admitted that he personally approved the program without the oversight of a search warrant or a court order. Additionally, he has avowed to continue to do so.
* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for lawful government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]
The authority for FISA is found in the second Amendment of the US Constitution.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- United States Constitution, Amendment IV *
In order for warrantless wiretapping to be conducted, the Constitution would have to be changed. For more than three years Bush didn't bother going to congress to try to get the law changed, he simply ignored the Constitution and the law and broke it - over 36 times by continuing to reauthorize the illegal activity by the NSA.
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant. He knows it is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He coerced the paper to withhold publication for a year under the rationale that to publish it would be an act of treason. That threat remains active today and there is concern the White House may attempt to charge the paper and the involved reporters.
Bush insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. Congress did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism. They specifically denied the administration's request to extend the "military intervention" to American soil or its citizens. NSA operates under the Pentagon, i.e.,military.
The president knew publication by the NYT would cause him great embarrassment, would be grounds for Impeachment, could result in criminal charges being brought against him, and, at the very best, restrict his presidency to nothing more than a totally ineffective lame duck. It was for that reason—and not a genuine concern about national security—that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.
Don't think for one instant that George W. Bush is not aware that, if the Republicans lose control of Congress next November, he will be impeached. Nixon was impeached because of his warrantless wire tapping, and Bush's crime exceeds Nixon's by immeasurable numbers.
The most amazing event to arise from this criminal operation thus far is the ballyhooing about trying to find the "traitorous whistle blower" who gave the information to the newspaper. Of course it is simply a diversionary tactic designed to cast the blame somewhere else, but I find it ludicrous that someone could be considered a "traitor" for reporting a crime by the top government official, the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, via the news to the American people who he must answer to.
Now, before you "people" go off on me as some left wing radical, you should know that I was career military, a Navy SEAL, fought in two wars, have three purple heart, the Navy Cross plus some other "stuff," and I'm as conservative as they come. But, I'm not blind, and I'm not stupid. Bush is a criminal! and should be treated accordingly.
Seal -
Sorry, but I'm calling BULLSHIT here. Either you were NOT a career SEAL, or (if you were) then you had the clearance to know better - and are a DUMBASS.
You are as conservative as they come? More BULLSHIT - I remember you from Moxiegrrrl's pathetic liberal site...and your whiny rant's belie your claim. Your credibility is non-existent for lying about THAT.
Now, about your long-winded post - I suggest you read further.
Start with this article: http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/12/defense_challen.html
If you are correct, then BUSH will be impeached. If I am right, this will go to the Supreme court and his use of presidential authority during a time of war will be justified. Time will tell.
In the meantime, take a close look at yourself, Shipmate...your patriotism has been corrupted and you are arguing on the wrong side of this thing. Dumbass.
Your proferred article is only examples of arguments the administation may attempt to justify Bush's illegal wiretapping. Nothing said there alters the standing fact that Bush's actions violated the Constitution and the law.
Of course he is going to argue that it was legal under some premise. However, his chances are slim and none. Bush is going down in the disgrace he so richly deserves. I only hope we can find a true conservative to replace him.
Chazz and the other legit bloggers, I apologize for my longwinded comment but these "Military wannabees" get under my skin. I always find it funny when a liberal tries to phony up their credentials by saying they were career military and they were a member of a special forces unit with numerous decorations and awards (somehow implying that ordinary service members never earned any decorations). I'm curious if they ever read B.G. Burketts book Stolen Valor. Probably not. If "seal" was the career Navy vet he claims then he would have the decency to at least put the special unit SEAL in caps for the Honor & discipline it takes to earn the title. I'd like to call his and anyone else's attention to the following site in case they run up against another "Highly" decorated "seal" who tries to imply that his other "stuff" is as important as a Navy Cross: http://www.homeofheroes.com/verify/0_NC/ncross_rvn_list.html Last time I looked the Navy Cross was of some importance compared to all the other "stuff" "seal" refers to. I do question "seals" conservative credentials since he is certain that President Bush has broken the law and has convicted him without a trial. I think most moderate to conservative individuals would still prefer the "innocent till proven guilty" constitution and not the Howard Dean Progressive left form of justice of "If the news says they broke the law, then it must be so!"
Again sorry to be so longwinded but some of these lib characters make me chuckle.
Semper FI! Chazz
God Bless the Marines!
I'm going back to enjoying that good Ky bourbon now!
You can type all the caps you want into the username box but this blog site converts them to lower case for some reason. I would have thought even a jarhead could have figgered that one out.
The two things I have found most consistant about you loyalists is [a] Anyone who disagrees with your view of the world is automatically a liberal, as if two conservatives couldn't possibly disagree about anything, and [b] personally attacking the individual's credibility and character [which you have no actual knowledge of] as a liar, a phoney, or some other ruse instead of addressing the point or issue they present. That's what people do when they have no legitimate rebutal to the facts or information presented. Distract. Divert everyones attention away from anything legitimately showing what we do to be wrong by loudly allegating some personal flaw in the messenger. If the only evidence you have to cast doubt upon my 20+ years of military service is that I used "stuff" for the sake of brevity rather than bore everyone to death with a long list of campaign ribbons, etc., I suggest you should concentrate on more of that fine old Kentucy bourbon reality and less on the fantasy that an alcoholic draft dodger is the right person to lead this nation.
Well seal....I see what you mean by assault on character, "alcoholic draft dodger" yeah all my conservative friends refer to the President in that manner whether we agree or not. I would just think that a veteran who gave so much of their life defending this nations values would at least not be part of the ongoing daily news blather and wait till due process has taken place. Oh and thanks for the fine tip on the bourbon.
Chazz Great site, to bad I cant vote for Ramsey Clark more than once.
Hillbilly out!
I think the answer is simple. Ask The average person at home what they want more.
1)The government catching and/or killing people that live every day dreaming about blowing up and killing us.
2)The government respecting the privacy people that live every day dreaming about blowing up and killing us.
Brad you are absolutely correct. Well said....
Semper Fi!
Dumbass Reporter,
I don't know for sure if the reported wire taping is a crime. That is for the courts to decide. But I do know it is a crime for someone with access to top secret NSA operations to leak them to the press. Where is the outrage over a select few deciding they are above the laws setup to protect National security? If this wire tapping is even a crime there are protocols in place to report it to the authorities. I am pretty sure calling the New Your Times is not part of that protocol.
"Dumbass Reporter" -
Just had a look at YOUR wannabee site. Gimme a BREAK! In MY opinion, JEALOUSY is the highest form of FLATTERY.......so thanks for the compliment! Dumbass.
Brad said:
Where is the outrage over a select few deciding they are above the laws setup to protect National security? If this wire tapping is even a crime there are protocols in place to report it to the authorities. I am pretty sure calling the New Your Times is not part of that protocol.
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Ignoring facts and ignorance. It has been well publicized that many NSA employees questioned the legality of Bush's order and followed protocol by bringing it up to their superiors. Those superiors refused to do anything about it. The catch-22 was that - to report anything the NSA spy program was doing to anyone outside the agency would be a crime due to the "secret" classification of it. Any complaint or allegation had to go through proper channels that, in this case, are direct to the Bush - Rumsfeld administration. The are no other avenues "within" the government. In other words it could only be reported to those who ordered them to violate FISA law and the Constitution. Several of the NSA agents resigned in protest.
If you are a patriotic American and loyal to your country and its law, to whom do you report a crime committed by its top officials? The president is the cheif law enforcement officer. However, he is not the ultimate authority. He must answer to the people. WE are the ultimate authority in the United States of America. Therefore, reporting this crime to the people is the next step in the chain of command, IS the proper protocol, and the only way to do that is via the free press.
Those agents who reported Bush's crime to the people have committed no crime. In fact, they have done what they are duty bound to do. If the illegal wiretapping had been discovered at some later date after Bush left office, everyone would be asking why someone in the agency did not report it.
Seal said,
Herein lies the heart of the problem. Ignoring facts and ignorance. It has been well publicized that many NSA employees questioned the legality of Bush's order and followed protocol by bringing it up to their superiors.
Yea, Name one.
There are checks and balances to any Government agency. Not all of them lead to Bush. You have a very simple view of how the NSA works. God knows the feelings of a few people who are on a need to know bases about an operation are better qualified to say if it is illegal then a judge that has spent his life being schooled in the law.
seal -
As I ALSO recall you doing on Moxiegirl's site, so you are doing again here on Chazz's site. If you are not a LIBERAL, then you do a GREAT imitation! You have no proof whatsoever of the things you allege. None - and yet you throw them out there as if it is common knowledge.
The NSA is under the auspices of the Department of Defense - that is why the Director is always a Military officer. If ANY employee has a beef with any shady legality of NSA practices, he or she can call the IG and it is taken VERY seriously. Don't forget, every employee is given a certain measure of trust and keeping them happy is in everyone's interest.
Like your name-dropping, special-forces tie-ins and claimed conservatism (all of which I doubt more than ever), your penchant for throwing pseudo-facts around is pointless and transparent.
I would remind you, as Brad has, that it remains to be seen if Bush acted within his right as a President using constitutional War-Powers. But there can be NO DOUBT that whoever leaked this HIGHLY classified information committed a very serious crime.
As a supposed former-SEAL, national security should be nothing new to you - and the fight against TERRORISM should be VERY familiar (and important) to you. This "Domestic Phonetapping" was done on exclusive international calls with suspected al Qaida participants. SO even if you are NOT a former SEAL, and just a plain old citizen, why don't you get that?
I agree.FDR Threatened death to a retired Colonel for leaking information about the Battle of the Corral Sea,and that problem of leaks never happenedagain.Although I'm still a registered Dem I wish the President would take this same path,that is why we are continuing to have problems with this thing.He had better take action and take it fast.
The Constitution trumps FISA and the Constitution grants the President extraordinary wartime powers. End of story.
Liberals are so vacuous.
I would remind you, as Brad has, that it remains to be seen if Bush acted within his right as a President using constitutional War-Powers. But there can be NO DOUBT that whoever leaked this HIGHLY classified information committed a very serious crime.
As a supposed former-SEAL, national security should be nothing new to you - and the fight against TERRORISM should be VERY familiar (and important) to you. This "Domestic Phonetapping" was done on exclusive international calls with suspected al Qaida participants. SO even if you are NOT a former SEAL, and just a plain old citizen, why don't you get that?
***********************************
What I "get" is that the dozen NSA agents did not release "highly classified" information unless you consider violating the law as being highly classified. The existance of wiretapping by the NSA is common knowledge, not a secret. Andrew Tice and the others only exposed that they had been ordered to conduct wire tapping of US citizens without obtaining a court order as required by the constitution and the law. They exposed nothing else.
The other thing I "get" is that one person, Bush, claims that the phonetapping was "very limited," restricted to only those whom they had a legitimate reason to believe were "connected to Al Quaeda" and, on the other hand, twelve people who were actually involved in the phonetapping program stating that many thousands, probably millions, of American citizens conversations were being listened to. It is also known that the information from those "taps" were being shared with other government agencies.
The fact that phonetaps were being conducted without a warrant is not at issue. Bush has admitted it. However, the president refuses to produce any of the NSA records or allow any NSA personnel to be questioned about it in order to validate his claim. That leaves us with twelve to one evidence as to the numbers and types of phonetaps and one of those twelve, Andrew Tice, has offered to testify before congress.
I, also, "get" that twelve is not simply a disgruntled employee and as long as we are left with nothing other than the word of twelve against one we have no choice but to consider the "one" as lying. It has further come to light that certain "liberal" persons have had their phone records turned over to an agency the servers refuse to admit to or deny or disclose. And, that certain liberal organizations with no connection whatsoever to Al Quaeda have been phonetapped. That information has been published by the MSM and on the Internet with the facts to back it up so don't ask me to name anyone, go look it up.
A number of government officials considered the warrantless wiretaps of dubious legality. Several people in the National Security Agency refused to participate in them, and a deputy attorney general even declined to sign off on warranless aspects of these wiretaps. The special FISA court has raised concerns as well, and a judge on that court has resigned in protest.
I "get" that conclusions are reached upon the weight of the evidence and facts of law. The contention that a president has the constitutional authority to violate the law under "extrodinary war powers" is factually untrue. That was Nixon's contention during the Vietnam war for exactly the same crime. His claim was rejected and in order to prevent any future president from acting under that erroneous rationale, congess clearly spelled it out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congress explicitly intended FISA to define the balance between the legitimate requirements of national security on the one hand and the need both to protect against presidential abuses and to safeguard personal privacy on the other.
When government violates the contitutionally protected rights of its citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and to be "secure" in their privacy - THAT violates "national security." The idea that violating the Contitution's explicit guaranteed right to the personal security of the citizenry is in the interest of national security is ludicrous.
If the President is permitted to break the law on wiretapping on his own say-so, then a President can break any other law on his own say-so -- a formula for dictatorship. This is not a theoretical danger: President Bush has recently claimed the right as Commander in Chief to violate the McCain amendment banning torture and degrading treatment of detainees. By simply attaching a "signing statement" to that law, he granted himself the right disregard it and do as he wished whenever he wished. We saw in Watergate how President Nixon falsely and cynically used that argument to cover up ordinary crimes and political misdeeds. It didn't excuse him and it doesn't excuse George W. Bush. What he obviously does not understand is tha he is "Comander In Chief" of the Armed forces - He is NOT Comander In Chief of the United States Of America and it's citizens!
seal,
"...certain liberal organizations with no connection whatsoever to Al Quaeda have been phonetapped. That information has been published by the MSM and on the Internet with the facts to back it up so don't ask me to name anyone, go look it up."
Again, you are full of shit. No - YOU look it up, and supply the link so we can read your liberal bullshit sources - if you even have any.
I'll supply YOU with a link (cuz I'm cool like that). Read Timmer's article http://rightingamerica.blogspot.com/2006/01/nsa-whistleblower-tice-had-axe-to.html , follow his links, and find out about your literally INSANE NSA leaker - who (you will discover) NEVER worked these wiretaps...in fact, was only with NSA for less than a year before having his clearance yanked.
Lastly, try to keep your rambling comments to something less than an epic novel, will ya? Maybe then you'll have time to actually research, and provide, your "sources."
I guess I stuck my foot in my mouth when I asked Seal to name one source of the wire tap allegations. I should of asked him to name one "sane" source.
seal, what's your class number? you don't have to give me any names.
Dumbass Reporter said...
Do you believe everything Bush says? LOL!
I will say For myself "No I do not".
For one when it comes to any kind of secret operation he will not tell you the truth. What is the point of calling it secret if you don’t keep it a secret. I love how the other side of this issue attacks this. I will tell you 90% of the country thinks listening to what terrorists are saying (or people who happen to know terrorists) is a pretty good idea, 9.99999% want the country to miss something so they can say say the country is less safe thanks to Bush, and 0.00001% is calling some one in Afghanistan for logistic support for their plans to blow something up. I don’t know about your Reporter but I am not to worried about my phone number being on a computer found around any terrorist who has been caught or killed in the war on terror.
Post a Comment
<< Home