I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
"Make noise, not war.
Liberal activists -- among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam-era antiwar movement -- plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush's State of the Union address. "
As a semiregular reader of your blog, I knew you would want to correct this….
You Posted:
Monday, January 09, 2006
So Far It Has...
Scroll down to "Clinton's spying passed unnoted". Far be it from the denizens of Campbell Ave. to waste ink. To do otherwise would be to actually inform their readers.
posted by I'm Not Emeril at 10:16 PM
Referencing your letter:
In his Dec. 24 letter to the editor, "Clinton would have gained a media pass," Richard C. Long states his desire for President Clinton to still be in office so that "he could have authorized the same surveillance safeguards against the terrorists as Bush has done, and you would have never heard a peep out of the media."
I'm sorry to have to deliver this news to Long, but Clinton did authorize the same type of surveillance against Aldrich Ames, as did Jimmy Carter against Truong Dinh Hung.
In both situations, the right of the president, acting upon the directive of the attorney general, was upheld in court.
Unfortunately, if this letter sees publication, this will most likely be the sole expenditure of ink by The Roanoke Times regarding these and other precedents.
Alton Foley
Collinsville
But see:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/gore_domestic_spying
Seems you and the White House play fast and loose with the facts…..
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Oops…..
http://www.qando.net/
"The left-wing opposition groups are reported to be frustrated that their standard-bearers are 'letting Alito off the hook.' What hook? Neither Sam Alito nor John Roberts remotely represents Ted Kennedy's famous 'Robert Bork's America' speech. Reasonable people can disagree on the views of these conservative jurists, but first we need reasonable people."
Never have I longed so much as now for the days when Clinton was our commander in chief. He could have authorized the same surveillance safeguards against the terrorists as Bush has done, and you would have never heard a peep out of the media.Uh... Richard, he did. But not against terrorists, instead he used this same power to aid in the apprehension of Aldrich Ames (at least, he may have used it further, but I have no reference to other uses).
Richard C. Long
Salem
Rep. Rick Boucher, who represents our district as a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, did all of us a service when he carefully reviewed the legal questions surrounding President Bush's authorization of domestic spying by the National Security Agency ("Has the president violated the rule of law?" The Roanoke Times, Dec. 21). And now that the administration has formally defended these practices, the question that faces us has become clear: Is the president above the law?What Richard does not know, and The Roanoke Times, Dr. Schultz, and Rick Boucher most certainly would prefer he remain ignorant of, is the pesky little fact that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter each have used the same provision of the US Code Title 50 > Chapter 36 > Subchapter I > § 1802. They would also prefer not to announce to the world that it's use has been upheld in Court. (link in pdf form)
(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means;OK, paragraph (1) clearly excludes "United States persons", doesn't it? Ooops. Notice that it ends with the little word "or". Go on to Paragraph (2) to see who else might be considered an "Agent of a foreign power", and notice that this time it does not begin with the phrase "any person other than a United States person", instead it begins with;
(1) any person other than a United States person, who;—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person'’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person who;This section of the US Code (in paragraph (2) sections (A),(B),(C),(D),&(E) clearly allows surveillance without a warrant against "United States persons" if there exists reasonable suspicion that such person is involved in, among other things, espionage, (ala Adrich Ames) or terrorism.
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in prepthereforetherefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). (all emphasis added by author)
