A Unitary Executive (481 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -1 on 12 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by resignator <resignator7.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2006-06-14 23:51:42 EDT
Let's talk a little about the NSA. I would like to show you a gem I uncovered while digging around the their site:
http://www.dni.gov/speeches/20060123_speech.htm
Reporters did a rather decent job of grilling the nation's highest ranking intelligence officer. I am not suprised that many of them express fears of a government able to spy on anyone it likes. No small wonder really as "anyone" INCLUDES them.
First question:
"QUESTION: Yes, Wayne Madsen, syndicated columnist. General, how do you explain the fact that there were several rare spectacles of whistleblowers coming forward at NSA, especially after 9/11, something that hasn't really happened in the past, who have complained about violations of FISA and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which implements the law at the agency?"
The reaction is classic:
"GEN. HAYDEN: I talked to the NSA staff on Friday. The NSA inspector general reports to me, as of last Friday, from the inception of this program through last Friday night, not a single employee of the National Security Agency has addressed a concern about this program to the NSA IG. I should also add that no member of the NSA workforce who has been asked to be included in this program has responded to that request with anything except enthusiasm. I don't know what you're talking about."
I wonder how those reports of FISA violations got out then. Hmmm, let's see...the NSA is being tapped by FOX news and/or CNN. No wait, the terrorists are leaking the info! Wait no, now I got it...the NSA was giving a tour and a reporter posing as a tourist, snuck away from the group, and got the scoop. Katie Couric is a ninja you know.
A few questions later:
"QUESTION: Sam Husseini from IPA Media. You just now spoke of, quote, "two paths," but of course the FISA statute itself says that it will be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be pursued. Are you not, therefore, violating the law?"
"GEN. HAYDEN: That's probably a question I should deflect to the Department of Justice, but as I said in my comments, I have an order whose lawfulness has been attested to by the attorney general, an order whose lawfulness has been attested to by NSA lawyers who do this for a living. No, we're not violating the law."
That's right bitch...DEFLECTED!!! Take your bullshit talk of "law" over to the DoJ cause I ain't havin' it. I dont believe the General feels too safe in his role of spying on Americans.
Why didn't the general ask for congress to expand FISA or approve the presidential order? I mean the order was reasonable and all the NSA lawyers approved it, right?
"GEN. HAYDEN: We did brief Congress, John, as you know. It's been announced more than a dozen times. I've been the briefer. Every time that's happened, I've been there. And my intent there, in ways less restricted than I've had to operate here, was to make sure that the people in the room fully understood what had been authorized and what we have been doing.
One additional aspect that I would suggest to you I think is very important, is that -- and I will take no view on the, you know, political step of going to the Congress for an amendment of the FISA Act, and so on, and so forth. But I will offer you an operational point, and the operational point is this; if we had done that, if we will do that, if we were to do that, I would hope we would do it in such a way that the legitimate debate and legitimate discussions of that step do not betray to the enemy the tactics, techniques and procedures that we are now using to detect them."
Oh, I see. We can't let terrorists know the techniques and procedures. Plus, Hayden doesn't like to take "political steps" so DEAL with it. There is no way for congress to review and pass laws that fight terrorism anymore. All laws henceforth, must be declared by the "unitary executive" and kept in secret from the public.
Now for the best part of the questions:
"QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure."
Nice twist on law there there.
The fourth ammendment:
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.
I was wondering why you didnt quote the whole thing. Perhaps, he really does believe the ammendment only grants protection from "unreasonable" searches and he is just bad at reading comprehension.
Let me simplify it for anyone who is unclear on this. If you don't have a warrant based on PROBABLE CAUSE you cannot perform a search or seizure. The "reasonableness" of the search and/or seizure DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER ONE BIT. Understand general?
The last question before the general runs off crying like a girl:
"QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.
Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."
Just following orders. That's what good generals do, all right? He had no choice. The attorney general averted to the lawfullness. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." Case closed bitches. I mean, what the hell more could you ask for?
What really fucking burns me up? This PROVES that Gen. Hayden lied before the house and senate intelligence committees on Oct. 17, 2002:
"GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?
HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA act.
GOSS: Special protections, according to your testimony.
HAYDEN: Special protections then apply. It is -- there are procedural steps that one can identify such a person as the agent of a foreign power. But one's got to go through those procedural steps.
Now, take that metaphor and apply it to somebody without the persona of Osama bin Laden and you can see the challenge of trying to cover people inside U.S. borders, even if they will us harm."
Here it comes:
GOSS: Well, lets -- again, I don't want to get into details. I'm aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let's just suppose this sniper is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?
HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it."
DISCLAIMER: Honestly, I dont think Hayden is that bad a person. He is just a grunt following orders praying this doesn't get pinned on him when it blows up.
User Reviews
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2006-06-21 16:54:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-15 19:29:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-06-15 16:15:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
-------
There is a HUGE difference between unlawful, and unreasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------
I guess quoting the 4th for you to read wasnt enough.
Q. What determines if a search and/or seizure is lawful?
A. A warrant based on probable cause.
"GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe."
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-06-15 16:15:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
-------
There is a HUGE difference between unlawful, and unreasonable.
Submitted by livEvil (user info) at 2006-06-15 10:40:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
i was gonna -2 this but this comment changed my mind:
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-15 01:04:23 (#)
Ranking: -2
That guy looks like a giant newborn. I am so creeped out right now.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-06-15 10:19:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sung to the tune of William Tell's March:
Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess-ess-ess
Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess-ess-ess
Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess, Ee-tee-ess-ess-ess
EE-TEE-EEEEEESSS, Ee-tee-ess-ESS-ess
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-06-15 07:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2006-06-15 07:35:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Drop the ..ator and just resign.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-15 01:04:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That guy looks like a giant newborn. I am so creeped out right now.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-15 00:33:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-06-15 00:17:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/88013
--------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by FilthyAssistant
If it was ETS there would be much more frequent use of the word "fools"
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by goferforhire
"he's like ETS only more reasonable. He's not quite as geniusy though. It's a trade-off"
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jeanneee
ETS?
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by ih8u2man
EVER HEAR OF THIS DUDE?
http://www.lts.de/Grafiken/ETS-Logo_Kopie.gif
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by MrSparkle847
ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS ETS
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DavyJones
Hey, an ETS alter.
zzz.
-------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Method
This IS ETS!
Oh
My
Gawd
------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by BadAssJulie
Vengance is ETS. I thought everyone knew that.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2006-06-15 00:17:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/88013
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-15 00:02:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-06-14 23:57:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
ugh
---------------------------------------------------------
Haha, I thought by now you would have learned.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-06-14 23:57:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ugh