Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="susiedriver" data-source="post: 75005" data-attributes="member: 1848"><p>wkmac,</p><p></p><p>Just to clear up any misunderstanding about the links you posted that show Clinton's and Carter's orders allow me to copy & paste this discussion (courtesy of News Hounds) of the links that Drudge posted and Fox news reported on:</p><p><a href="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more" target="_blank">http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more</a></p><p></p><p>Yesterday (12/21) the topic of Dayside was once again the controversy surrounding Bush's admission that he has been spying on American citizens. Juliet Huddy and Mike Jerrick interviewed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - TX) on the topic, but began the segment by spreading lies that were published on the Drudge Report.</p><p> JH: "Federal Judge James Robinson has resigned in protest of President Bush's authorization of domestic spying."</p><p> MJ: "This comes amid revelations President Bush is not the first Chief Executive of the United States to use these powers. Both Presidents Clinton and Carter also allowed domestic spying."</p><p> Comment: Amid revelations? This topic was reported, as far as I can tell, only on the Drudge Report, and has turned out to be nothing more than a lie.</p><p> Drudge <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm" target="_blank">claim</a>: "Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order."</p><p> But what Clinton actually signed was <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm" target="_blank">this</a>: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."</p><p> Notice the line "certifications required by that section." What does the section actually <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html" target="_blank">say</a>? "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person". </p><p> Now as for Carter, Drudge <a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm" target="_blank">claimed</a>: "Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.</p><p> But let's take a look at the actual Executive <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm" target="_blank">Order</a>: "1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."</p><p> Ok, but what is the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html" target="_blank">Section</a> that is being referenced in this Executive order? "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="susiedriver, post: 75005, member: 1848"] wkmac, Just to clear up any misunderstanding about the links you posted that show Clinton's and Carter's orders allow me to copy & paste this discussion (courtesy of News Hounds) of the links that Drudge posted and Fox news reported on: [URL="http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more"]http://www.newshounds.us/2005/12/22/dayside_and_kay_bailey_hutchison_spreading_drudge_report_lies.php#more[/URL] Yesterday (12/21) the topic of Dayside was once again the controversy surrounding Bush's admission that he has been spying on American citizens. Juliet Huddy and Mike Jerrick interviewed Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - TX) on the topic, but began the segment by spreading lies that were published on the Drudge Report. JH: "Federal Judge James Robinson has resigned in protest of President Bush's authorization of domestic spying." MJ: "This comes amid revelations President Bush is not the first Chief Executive of the United States to use these powers. Both Presidents Clinton and Carter also allowed domestic spying." Comment: Amid revelations? This topic was reported, as far as I can tell, only on the Drudge Report, and has turned out to be nothing more than a lie. Drudge [URL="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"]claim[/URL]: "Clinton, February 9, 1995: The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." But what Clinton actually signed was [URL="http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm"]this[/URL]: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section." Notice the line "certifications required by that section." What does the section actually [URL="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html"]say[/URL]? "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person". Now as for Carter, Drudge [URL="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm"]claimed[/URL]: "Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order. But let's take a look at the actual Executive [URL="http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm"]Order[/URL]: "1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section." Ok, but what is the [URL="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html"]Section[/URL] that is being referenced in this Executive order? "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Democrats Test Themes for `06 and `08
Top