|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Goldberg is a journalist, not Ashcroft's younger brother.
|
<h3>Goldberg is a journalist?.....Goldberg is a...........</h3>
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
....it is baffling to me that in order to make various bush initiatives seem neutral by comparison, folk are willing to post stuff by explicitly conservative authoritarian writers.
|
....he does it all of the time....I think it stems from his milestone <b>"I hate <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1942044&postcount=99">guerilla opeds post</a>, two years ago....."</b>
I post compelling (overwhelming ????) evidence....quoting from government web pages, the POTUS and Atty. General Gonzales, making untrue and manipulative statements, almost identical to statements that the POTUS had made five years earlier, for the purpose of persuading us to not object to their unchecked (by a judicial review and then, if appropriate and legal, a judicial warrant) use of authority that they have illegally taken unto themselves, i.e., breaking/ignoring FISA law provisions, misuse of and failure to account for all NSL's issued (National Security Letters.....)
The <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120447"> Official Declaration of War Against Bush - Cheney and their Republican Supporters</a> began with:
.......To start it off....what are you thinking.....what do you read....what do you "know"?????? Do we even speak the same language, anymore????
<h3>Here's the "editor at large", of one of your most prominent publications:</h3>
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT <h2>June 27, 2007</h2>
Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff
CARLSON:.....On his last full day as prime minister, it is reported that Blair will be become a special envoy to the Middle East. Will he make the difference in the world‘s most perilous region?
Plus, the most perilous region in Washington, D.C. this week is the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Today‘s “Washington Post” featured the third in a series of four articles bent on exposing Mr. Cheney‘s sinister and alleged skirting of the Constitution, and reputedly dangerous influence on the rest of the Bush administration.
In today‘s episode, the vice president dictates economic policy and tax cuts, among many other things. The “Post‘s” scathing series has spawned editorials across the country, suggesting that Dick Cheney ought to be impeached, or otherwise forced out of office for the good of the nation.
Well, joining me now, one of Dick Cheney‘s very few remaining defenders and only a part-time defender at that, is nationally-syndicated columnist and editor-at-large at “The National Review Online,” Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah, welcome.
<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. <h2>Why are you defending Cheney?
GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney.</h2> I think that he‘s, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there‘s a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don‘t want politicians to go by the polls, who don‘t put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.
And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn‘t bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and <h3> I think it‘s a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn‘t care.</h3> There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn‘t. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.
But he‘s a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I‘m not sure that‘s the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there‘s something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....
........CARLSON: That‘s right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn‘t look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don‘t know what they‘re talking about or they‘re lying. People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic, I agree completely.
GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?
CARLSON: I am bothered though—that‘s right, that‘s exactly right.
GOLDBERG: I mean, he‘s sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.
CARLSON: But I‘m bothered by Cheney ‘s—but does—Cheney‘s secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it‘s rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven‘t seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don‘t we?
GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.
CARLSON: Right.
GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, is that the person who holds the secrets has power. And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he‘s trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.
I think it‘s got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can‘t really get everything that he wants that way.
CARLSON: I think you‘re absolutely right.
Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney‘s name comes up, you‘re apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. <h3>What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?
GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn‘t care.</h3> You know, there‘s nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn‘t hate, it‘s indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn‘t care what they think about him.
CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn‘t, he doesn‘t—he tells a joke that‘s written into his speech, <h3>he doesn‘t wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.
GOLDBERG: I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he‘s doing it, you know. I mean, it‘s just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink. Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.</h3>
CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I‘m glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you‘re almost alone in this nation of 300 million.
Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.
GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There‘s lots of empty chairs.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.
GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......
.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.
|
....now....facts to counter Jonah Goldberg and powerclown's assumptions:
powerclown did not display the date that the JOnah Goldberg oped was written:
By 2007, nearly everything Goldberg asserted in his 2003 article, was contradicted.
Goldberg's assurances about "warrants signed by judges", is especially laughable....
<h3>As the DOJ's IG reported, the FBI did not use Section 215 orders until 2004....AFTER Goldberg's oped was published....rendering it irrelevant to the subject of it's main point. Goldberg (and powerclown....) ignore the fact that we only know about abuses of our rights if and when the DOJ allows it's IG to inspect for them....and when the DOJ does not redact his findings from his official reports....
Before our rights were taken away, at least an impartial judge was presented with evidence to justify what it was that the FBI and other law enforcement sought permission to search for, and if the judge approved, a search could be conducted within the parameters that the judge had granted, based on the evidence presented to obtain the warrant.
The target of the search could then present the record of the evidence that was used to obtain the judge's signature of the warrant, and the parameters (the limits) that the judge defined for the search.....to another judge and a jury, to show any discrepancies between what law enforcement presented to the warrant signing judge....and what they actually searched for, how....and why....</h3>
<h2>....and now....powerclown....what do we have? Looks like a lying POTUS and Atty. General, and an untold, unchecked amount of abuse of our constitutional rights.....</h2>
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/testimony/0703b/index.htm
<center>Statement of
Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
before the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. House of Representatives
concerning
“The FBI’s Use of National Security Letters and Section 215 Requests for Business Records”
March 28, 2007</center>
* * * * *
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Hoekstra, and Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Thank you for inviting me to testify about two recent reports issued by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) use of national security letters and the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records. In the Patriot Reauthorization Act, enacted in 2006, Congress directed the OIG to examine the FBI’s use of these two important authorities. The reviews were directed to examine, among other things, the number of times these authorities were used, the importance of the information obtained, how the information was utilized, any improper or illegal uses of these authorities, and other noteworthy facts or circumstances related to their use.
On March 9, 2007, we issued separate reports on the FBI’s use of national security letters and Section 215 orders. We publicly released two unclassified reports, with only limited information redacted (blacked out) which the Department or the FBI considered to be classified. We also provided to Congress, including this Committee, copies of the full classified reports that contain some additional classified information on the FBI’s use of the two authorities. However, the OIG’s main findings and conclusions are included in the unclassified versions that were publicly released.
In this written statement, I will summarize the key findings from our reports, focusing most of my comments on the national security letters report. I will first provide brief background on national security letters and how we conducted our review. I will then provide a few observations to put our findings in context. Next, I will highlight the main findings of our national security letter report. After that, I will briefly summarize our report on the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records......
......2. OIG Findings
Our review found that, after enactment of the Patriot Act, the FBI’s use of national security letters increased dramatically. In 2000, the last full year prior to passage of the Patriot Act, the FBI issued approximately 8,500 NSL requests. It is important to note that one national security letter may request information about multiple telephone numbers or e-mail addresses. Because the FBI’s semiannual classified reports to Congress provide the number of requests rather than the number of letters, we also focused on the total number of requests.
After the Patriot Act, the number of NSL requests issued by the FBI increased to approximately 39,000 in 2003, approximately 56,000 in 2004, and approximately 47,000 in 2005. In total, during the 3-year period covered by our review, the FBI issued more than 143,000 NSL requests.
However, we believe that these numbers, which are based on information from the FBI’s database, understate the total number of NSL requests issued by the FBI. During our review, we found that the FBI database used to track these requests is inaccurate and does not include all NSL requests. .........
.....As also directed by the Patriot Reauthorization Act, the OIG review examined whether there were any “improper or illegal uses” of NSL authorities. We found that from 2003 through 2005, the FBI identified 26 possible intelligence violations involving its use of NSLs, 19 of which the FBI reported to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB). Of the 26 possible violations, 22 were the result of FBI errors, while 4 were caused by mistakes made by recipients of the NSLs......
.....We examined the FBI investigative files in the four field offices to determine whether FBI case agents and supervisors had adhered to FBI policies designed to ensure appropriate supervisory review of the use of NSL authorities. We found that 60 percent of the investigative files we examined contained one or more violations of FBI internal policies relating to national security letters. These included failures to document supervisory review of NSL approval memoranda and failures to include in NSL approval memoranda required information, such as the authorizing statute, the status of the investigative subject, or the number or types of records requested.
In another finding, our review determined that the FBI Headquarters Counterterrorism Division generated over 300 NSLs exclusively from “control files” rather than from “investigative files,” in violation of FBI policy. When NSLs are issued from control files, the NSL documentation does not indicate whether the NSLs are issued in authorized investigations or whether the information sought in the NSLs is relevant to those investigations. This documentation is necessary to establish compliance with NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and FBI policies.
In addition, we found that the FBI had no policy requiring the retention of signed copies of national security letters. As a result, we were unable to conduct a comprehensive audit of the FBI’s compliance with its internal control policies and the statutory certifications required for NSLs.
In one of the most troubling findings, we determined that from 2003 through 2005 the FBI improperly obtained telephone toll billing records and subscriber information from 3 telephone companies pursuant to over 700 so-called “exigent letters.” These letters generally were signed by personnel in the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), a unit of the Counterterrorism Division in FBI Headquarters, and were based on a form letter used by the FBI’s New York Field Division in the criminal investigations related to the September 11 attacks. The exigent letters signed by the CAU typically stated:
Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone numbers be provided. Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office who will process and serve them formally to [information redacted] as expeditiously as possible.
These letters were signed by CAU Unit Chiefs, CAU special agents, and subordinate personnel, none of whom were delegated authority to sign NSLs.
Our review found that that the FBI sometimes used these exigent letters in non-emergency circumstances. In addition, the FBI failed to ensure that there were duly authorized investigations to which the requests could be tied. The exigent letters also inaccurately represented that the FBI had already requested subpoenas for the information when, in fact, it had not. The FBI also failed to ensure that NSLs were issued promptly to the telephone companies after the exigent letters were sent. Rather, in many instances, after obtaining records from the telephone companies the FBI issued national security letters many months after the fact to “cover” the information obtained.
As our report describes, we were not convinced by the legal justifications offered by the FBI during our review for the FBI’s acquisition of telephone toll billing records and subscriber information in response to the exigent letters without first issuing NSLs. The first justification offered was the need to reconcile the strict requirements of the NSL statute with the FBI’s mission to prevent terrorist attacks. While the FBI’s counterterrorism mission may require streamlined procedures to ensure the timely receipt of information in genuine emergencies, the FBI needs to address the problem by expediting the issuance of national security letters or by seeking legislative modification to the voluntary emergency disclosure provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), not through these exigent letters. Moreover, the FBI’s justification for the exigent letters was undercut because they were used in non-emergency circumstances, not followed in many instances within a reasonable time by the issuance of NSLs, and not catalogued in a fashion that would enable FBI managers or anyone else to review the practice or the predication required by the NSL statute.
In sum, we concluded that the FBI’s use of these letters inappropriately circumvented the requirements of the NSL statute, and violated Attorney General Guidelines and FBI policies. ......
2. THE OIG’S SECTION 215 REPORT
In the last section of my statement, I want to summarize briefly the OIG’s second report, which examined the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders to obtain business records. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek an order from the FISA Court to obtain “any tangible thing,” including books, records, and other items, from any business, organization, or entity provided the item or items are for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not create new investigative authority, but instead significantly expanded existing authority found in FISA by broadening the types of records that could be obtained and by lowering the evidentiary threshold to obtain a Section 215 order for business records. Public concerns about the scope of this expanded Section 215 authority centered on the ability of the FBI to obtain library records, and many public commentators began to refer to Section 215 as the “library provision.”
Our review found that the FBI and the Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) submitted to the FISA Court two different kinds of applications for Section 215 orders: “pure” Section 215 applications and “combination” Section 215 applications. A “pure” Section 215 application is a term used to refer to a Section 215 application for any tangible item which is not associated with an application for any other FISA authority. A “combination” Section 215 application is a term used to refer to a Section 215 request that was added to a FISA application for pen register/trap and trace orders, which identify incoming and outgoing telephone numbers called on a particular line. In a combination order, the Section 215 request was added to the pen register/trap and trace application in order to obtain subscriber information related to the telephone numbers.
We found that from 2002 through 2005 the Department, on behalf of the FBI, submitted to the FISA Court a total of 21 pure Section 215 applications and 141 combination Section 215 applications.
<h3>We found that the first pure Section 215 order was approved by the FISA Court in spring 2004, more than 2 years after enactment of the Patriot Act. The FISA Court approved six more pure Section 215 applications that year, for a total of seven in 2004. The FISA Court approved 14 pure Section 215 applications in 2005.</h3>
Examples of the types of business records that were obtained through pure Section 215 orders include driver’s license records, public accommodations records, apartment records, and credit card records.
We also determined that the FBI did not obtain Section 215 orders for any library records from 2002 through 2005 (the time period covered by our review). <h2>The few applications for Section 215 orders for library records that were initiated in the FBI during this period were withdrawn while undergoing the review process within the FBI and the Department. None were submitted to the FISA Court.</h2>
<h3>With respect to how information from Section 215 orders was used, we found no instance where the information obtained from a Section 215 order resulted in a major case development such as disruption of a terrorist plot. We also found that very little of the information obtained in response to Section 215 orders has been disseminated to intelligence agencies outside the DOJ.</h3>
However, FBI personnel told us they believe that the kind of intelligence gathered from Section 215 orders is essential to national security investigations. They also stated that the importance of the information is sometimes not known until much later in an investigation, when the information is linked to some other piece of intelligence. FBI officials and Department attorneys also stated that they believe Section 215 authority is useful because it is the only compulsory process for certain kinds of records that cannot be obtained through alternative means.
We did not identify any instances involving “improper or illegal use” of a pure Section 215 order. We did find problems with two combination Section 215 orders. In one instance, the FBI inadvertently collected information from a telephone number that no longer belonged to the target of the investigation. In another instance, the FBI received information from a telephone that was no longer connected to the subject because of a mistake by the telephone company.
We also found that the FBI has not used Section 215 orders as effectively as it could have because of legal, bureaucratic, or other impediments to obtaining these orders. For example, <h3>after passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, neither the Department nor the FBI issued implementing procedures or guidance with respect to the expansion of Section 215 authority for a long period of time.</h3> In addition, we found significant delays within the FBI and the Department in processing requests for Section 215 orders. <b>We also determined through our interviews that FBI field offices do not fully understand Section 215 orders or the process for obtaining them. </b>
3. CONCLUSION
In sum, our review of national security letters revealed that, in various ways, the FBI violated the national security letter statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or FBI internal policies governing their use. While we did not find that the violations were deliberate, we believe the misuses were widespread and serious.....
|
The ACLU, last septemeber, opined that the Patriot Act "reform", provided some relief from the unchecked potential of Section 215 to violate the rights of Americans:
Quote:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot...s20061027.html
Home : Safe and Free : USA PATRIOT Act
Citing Improvements to Law, ACLU Withdraws Section 215 Case But Vows to Fight Individual Orders (10/27/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
DETROIT -- Citing improvements to the law, the American Civil Liberties Union today withdrew a three-year-old lawsuit over Section 215 of the Patriot Act, but said it is prepared to defend individuals who receive demands for information under the provision.
Under the original Patriot Act, passed by Congress in October 2001 with virtually no debate, Section 215 radically expanded the FBI’s power to demand records and personal belongings of innocent people in the United States without any judicial oversight. After the ACLU filed its lawsuit and launched a nationwide campaign to reform the Patriot Act and restore checks and balances, Congress revised the law earlier this year to allow people who receive a demand for records to consult with a lawyer and challenge the demand in court.
“While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration’s most reckless policies,” said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. “The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis.”
The new Section 215 provision still presents serious constitutional problems. It gags recipients automatically and authorizes broad demands for information, which the ACLU said is a violation of individuals’ free speech rights. Although recipients may now challenge the gag orders, such challenges would be difficult because judges must defer to the FBI’s view that secrecy is necessary. The ACLU said it is prepared to offer legal assistance to businesses, organizations or individuals that receive Section 215 orders.
Before the ACLU filed the lawsuit, then Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to confirm whether or not the FBI had used Section 215 to demand personal records. Later the Attorney General admitted to using the provision, and last year the Justice Department revealed that it had issued 35 Section 215 orders. By comparison, the Washington Post reported in November 2005 that the FBI issues more than 30,000 demands a year for records under another provision of the Patriot Act that authorizes national security letters.
The ACLU is continuing its challenge to the national security letter provision in another case, Doe v. Gonzales, in the Southern District of New York. Before recent amendments to the law, the court had ruled that the gag provision of the national security letter statute violated free speech rights protected by the First Amendment, noting that “democracy abhors undue secrecy.” In 2005, the ACLU also successfully challenged a gag order on a national security letter issued to Connecticut librarians for patron records. The FBI withdrew that national security letter altogether in June 2006.
The national ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed the Section 215 case in Detroit in July 2003 on behalf of advocacy and community groups from across the country whose members and clients believed they were the targets of investigations because of their ethnicity, religion or political associations. On October 2, 2006, Judge Denise Page Hood rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case, noting that Section 215 had harmed the First Amendment rights of the plaintiff organizations. However, Judge Hood said she based her ruling on the original version of the law and did not consider the complaint in the context of the current, reauthorized version of the Patriot Act.
The case is Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft and was filed on behalf of the Muslim Community Association, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, Bridge Refugee and Sponsorship Services, Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber.
For more information on the ACLU’s ongoing challenge to the Patriot Act’s national security letter provision, go to www.aclu.org/nsl.
|
Last edited by host; 07-07-2007 at 09:44 AM..
|