From: "Gary Britt" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0291_01C60271.99C67D00
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good link Jeff:

Attorney and fundamental liberties protector Mark Levin gave these = comments:

  Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits =
the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with =
U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if =
the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and =
involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.=20
  The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is =
that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the =
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months =
to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely =
bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive =
order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he =
needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

  It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the =
government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this = story
is fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, = too. To
the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to = stop the
eavesdropping. And he's no friend of this administration. Nor = is he above
using intelligence for political purposes, as his now = infamous memorandum
demonstrates.

  But these leaks -- about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front =
companies, and now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and =
extremely detrimental to our national security. They are far worse than =
any aspect of the Plame matter. The question is whether our government = is
capable of tracking down these perpetrators and punishing them, or = will
we continue to allow the Times and Washington Post determine = national
security policy. And if these wiretaps are violative of our = civil
liberties, it's curious that the Times would wait a year to report = about
it. I cannot remember the last time, or first time, this newspaper =
reported a leak that was helpful to our war effort.


"jeff"  wrote in message =
news:43a34f28$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Adam wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4534488.stm
> >=20
> > Tut tut tut. I remember some NSA type giving me a whole long speil =
about=20
> > them having to stop taps if there was an american on one end of the =
line=20
> > etc....
>=20
> I recommend anyone wanting to comment on this subject go here first:
>=20
> http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm
------=_NextPart_000_0291_01C60271.99C67D00
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Good link Jeff:
 
Attorney and fundamental liberties protector Mark Levin gave these=20
comments:
 

Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence =
Security=20
  Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if =
they are=20
  with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only =
needed if=20
  the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States =
and=20
  involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. 
  The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is =
that=20
  the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office =
of=20
  Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a =

  standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic,=20
  depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not =
contrary=20
  to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act =
quickly. The=20
  president has constitutional powers, too.
  It's also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about =
the=20
  government's eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this =
story is=20
  fully fleshed out, we'll learn that many others knew about it, too. To =
the=20
  best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn't take any steps to stop the=20
  eavesdropping. And he's no friend of this administration. Nor is he =
above=20
  using intelligence for political purposes, as his now infamous =
memorandum=20
  demonstrates.
  But these leaks -- about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front =
companies, and=20
  now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and extremely =
detrimental=20
  to our national security. They are far worse than any aspect of the =
Plame=20
  matter. The question is whether our government is capable of tracking =
down=20
  these perpetrators and punishing them, or will we continue to allow =
the Times=20
  and Washington Post determine national security policy. And if these =
wiretaps=20
  are violative of our civil liberties, it's curious that the Times =
would wait a=20
  year to report about it. I cannot remember the last time, or first =
time, this=20
  newspaper reported a leak that was helpful to our war=20
effort.
 
"jeff" <jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=">mailto:jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com">jeff{at}shultzinfosystems.com=
>=20
wrote in message news:43a34f28$1{at}w3.nls.net...>=20
Adam wrote:> > http://new" target="new">http://new=">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4534488.stm">http://new=
s.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4534488.stm>=20
> > > Tut tut tut. I remember some NSA type
giving me a =
whole long=20
speil about > > them having to stop taps if there
was an = american on=20
one end of the line > > etc....>
> I recommend = anyone=20
wanting to comment on this subject go here first:>
> http://michellemal" target="new">http://michellemal=">http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004090.htm">http://michellemal=
kin.com/archives/004090.htm

------=_NextPart_000_0291_01C60271.99C67D00--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5