RINO Weed-Killers

[Flanders]

This question is still my favorite weed-killer: “Would you support the US withdrawing from the United Nations?”

A no, or a non, answer automatically eliminates presidential wannabes and candidates for Congress. A no, or a non, answer also wipes out a candidate’s claim to conservatism. Not asking the question gave the country the variety of weeds who thrive in the federal government’s fertile soil.

Incidentally, for some unknown reason Ron Paul, the author of HR 1146, never made withdrawal an issue when he ran for the Republican party’s presidential nomination. I’m not saying he would have defeated the media’s choice, but withdrawal as a campaign issue would have made a serious dent in the Republican party’s complacency on treason.

NOTE: Screwball Edward Snowden has one thing going for him if he is charged with treason. All he has do is ask why all of those elected officials and federal bureaucrats who commit treason for the United Nations every day are not in the dock alongside him. They not only give away the store, they pay America’s enemies to boot. The only thing more ludicrous would have been those Cold War traitors paying the Soviet Union for accepting the secrets.

I’m happy to report there is another weed-killer on the market —— Immigration Reform is its brand name. It is most effective in killing presidential ambitions. It works better than my weed-killer because the weeds spray themselves. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan bathe in the stuff:

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
By Jeffrey Lord on 6.18.13 @ 6:09AM
Rubio, Ryan losing credibility over amnesty as fraud issue returns.

The American Spectator : The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

I’ve singled out Ryan and Rubio because they want to be president; nevertheless, conservatives can marshal their efforts and deny the nomination to every Republican up for reelection who votes for amnesty. There is little doubt that anyone who votes against America’s sovereign borders is also a UN-lover who believes America must surrender its sovereignty to the United Nations. I just cannot see how those two positions can be separated.

NOTE: RINO Orrin Hatch had a tough fight for the nomination last year. He won and was reelected. To no one’s surprise he returned to the Senate —— and to his old tricks:

Senate panel OKs landmark immigration bill with Hatch on board
By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published May 21 2013 05:54 pm • Last Updated May 22 2013 09:31 am

Senate panel OKs landmark immigration bill with Hatch on board | The Salt Lake Tribune

On a positive note, I am adding a name to the big three, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, who appear to be legitimate conservatives worthy of consideration at this stage of the game. His name is Scott Wilson and he is Wisconsin’s governor. With all due respect to Cruz, Paul, and Lee personally, Scott Wilson gets a two stroke handicap because he is NOT a senator. It’s a fair handicap because the media loves senators.

There is one caveat. Forget the media and start vetting the wannabes to your satisfaction now. Three years to the nominating convention is closer than you think.

Finally, the US Senate is adding one more disgrace to its long sorry history:

Harry Reid: Gang bill could pass Senate now
By BURGESS EVERETT | 6/18/13 3:11 PM EDT

Harry Reid: Gang bill could pass Senate now - Burgess Everett - POLITICO.com

Should amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens guaranteeing open borders forever become law the bill will forever be known as The Gang Rape Bill.

 

[freedombecki]

The last time Mexicans tried to overtake border states, it was not by population expansion; Santa Ana went for scorched earth against the Texicans. From the sounds that come from LaRaza ways, I'm not certain that couldn't happen again. It'd be a little tough to imagine troops with modernized WMDs scouring the Hill Country killing folks with slash-and-burn methods, but if you look at their southern border, there's no mercy. It's a history know of shooting to kill immigrants from their south followed by omuerta silence about the body whereabouts, not to mention the whole thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'd like to see the UN relocated on a rotating basis.

 

[snowdenisahero]

Flanders
NOTE: Screwball Edward Snowden has one thing going for him if he is charged with treason. All he has do is ask why all of those elected officials and federal bureaucrats who commit treason for the United Nations every day are not in the dock alongside him. They not only give away the store, they pay America’s enemies to boot. The only thing more ludicrous would have been those Cold War traitors paying the Soviet Union for accepting the secrets.


Why is Snowden a "screwball"? Is that your professional psychological assesment of a man who blew the cover off the most massive secret illegal surveillance program in our nations history? Before you say it's legal: Just because the Government says it's legal doesn't mean it is. Our Government does illegal tings all the time and gets away with it. IRS issue's pretty illegal if you ask anyone who didn't want millions stolen from taxpayers, and given to the Union. A central bank was also supposed to be illegal and a communist construct that McCarthy used to scare the crap out of the America people with the "red scare".Yet we eventually got one under our Government. The UN does good and bad, just like every single entity in power. We can say they have done more good than bad. Can't say the same for the American Government. An illusion of freedom is not freedom, and when a Government takes that, then that's the worst they can do to a citizenry that trusted them.

 

[Flanders]

Why is Snowden a "screwball"?

To snowdenisahero: Only a screwball would flee to a Communist country. It’s a pity he did not stay in China and devote his talents to exposing the Chicoms.

Is that your professional psychological assesment of a man who blew the cover off the most massive secret illegal surveillance program in our nations history?

To snowdenisahero: He blew the lid off the technology. The most massive coverup is ongoing. That is covering up for a religion. Socialism/communism is the religion propagating the faith with tax dollars in violation of the First Amendment.

Before you say it's legal: Just because the Government says it's legal doesn't mean it is.

To snowdenisahero: Yes it does. The government makes, and selectively enforces, the laws. Don’t confuse legislation, unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical.

Our Government does illegal tings all the time and gets away with it.

To snowdenisahero: So does every other government. Once in a while our government does not get away with it. Totalitarian governments like the ones Screwball Snowden ran to always get away with it.

IRS issue's pretty illegal if you ask anyone who didn't want millions stolen from taxpayers, and given to the Union.

To snowdenisahero: Repeal the XVI Amendment if you object to the income tax funding socialism/communism and the tax collector’s morality.

A central bank was also supposed to be illegal and a communist construct that McCarthy used to scare the crap out of the America people with the "red scare".Yet we eventually got one under our Government.

To snowdenisahero: Didn’t you get the memo? Even Hollywood Lefties no longer think it’s fashionable to demonstrate their courage by attacking a dead senator:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zfq6URia1Zw]Glenn Beck-McCarthy and the Venona papers - YouTube[/ame]​

Do try and learn the facts:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WmrDz5k8pEk]M. Stanton Evans is the author of "Blacklisted by History" - YouTube[/ame]​

The UN does good and bad, just like every single entity in power.

To snowdenisahero: No it doesn’t. The tens of thousands of people who actually work for the UN are a collection of charity hustlers living on the labors of others. Worse still, the United Nations is an anti-America ORGANIZATION trying to acquire the powers of a government. It has no power for all of its pretensions.

We can say they have done more good than bad.

To snowdenisahero: No WE can’t. You don’t speak for me.

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain

Can't say the same for the American Government.

To snowdenisahero: Before Woodrow Wilson this country was the greatest force for individual liberties the world had ever seen. In spite of the parasite class a bit of America’s greatness survives. I’d say that is pretty good.

An illusion of freedom is not freedom, and when a Government takes that, then that's the worst they can do to a citizenry that trusted them.

To snowdenisahero: Am I correct in assuming you oppose Democrats and everything they’ve done to abolish the original Bill of Rights?

 

[Flanders]

Holy crap! I just put Scott Walker on my list:

Quote OP

On a positive note, I am adding a name to the big three, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, who appear to be legitimate conservatives worthy of consideration at this stage of the game. His name is Scott Wilson and he is Wisconsin’s governor. With all due respect to Cruz, Paul, and Lee personally, Scott Wilson gets a two stroke handicap because he is NOT a senator. It’s a fair handicap because the media loves senators.

Walker is now off the list forever:

Gov. Walker backs citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants
By Daniel Strauss - 07/03/13 11:05 AM ET

Gov. Walker backs citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[snowdenisahero]

Why is Snowden a "screwball"?

To snowdenisahero: Only a screwball would flee to a Communist country. It’s a pity he did not stay in China and devote his talents to exposing the Chicoms.

Is that your professional psychological assesment of a man who blew the cover off the most massive secret illegal surveillance program in our nations history?

To snowdenisahero: He blew the lid off the technology. The most massive coverup is ongoing. That is covering up for a religion. Socialism/communism is the religion propagating the faith with tax dollars in violation of the First Amendment.



To snowdenisahero: Yes it does. The government makes, and selectively enforces, the laws. Don’t confuse legislation, unconstitutional, illegal, and unethical.



To snowdenisahero: So does every other government. Once in a while our government does not get away with it. Totalitarian governments like the ones Screwball Snowden ran to always get away with it.



To snowdenisahero: Repeal the XVI Amendment if you object to the income tax funding socialism/communism and the tax collector’s morality.



To snowdenisahero: Didn’t you get the memo? Even Hollywood Lefties no longer think it’s fashionable to demonstrate their courage by attacking a dead senator:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zfq6URia1Zw]Glenn Beck-McCarthy and the Venona papers - YouTube[/ame]​

Do try and learn the facts:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WmrDz5k8pEk]M. Stanton Evans is the author of "Blacklisted by History" - YouTube[/ame]​

To snowdenisahero: No it doesn’t. The tens of thousands of people who actually work for the UN are a collection of charity hustlers living on the labors of others. Worse still, the United Nations is an anti-America ORGANIZATION trying to acquire the powers of a government. It has no power for all of its pretensions.



To snowdenisahero: No WE can’t. You don’t speak for me.

Can't say the same for the American Government.

To snowdenisahero: Before Woodrow Wilson this country was the greatest force for individual liberties the world had ever seen. In spite of the parasite class a bit of America’s greatness survives. I’d say that is pretty good.

An illusion of freedom is not freedom, and when a Government takes that, then that's the worst they can do to a citizenry that trusted them.

To snowdenisahero: Am I correct in assuming you oppose Democrats and everything they’ve done to abolish the original Bill of Rights?

The Democrats have nothing to do with it. This is not a partisan issue and there's no difference any longer. Might as well call them Republicrats or Demopubs...Government gets bigger and bigger no matter who's elected, and they continue to give themselves more power. Making breaking laws as they see fit...When did they become our rulers?

I was in the process of responding to all of this when my Mac switched back to the other page. So annoying when that happens on the trackpad, and I lost it all.

What the NSA did is illegal. If the Government had done nothing wrong they wouldn't go to such extreme lengths to sway public opinion/perception, and deter from the actual issue of spying on innocent Americans. Even people in the UK are facing these same issues. Alexander perjured himself, and if he had nothing to hide why would he do that? Why isn't he being charged for it when it's been proven he lied under oath?

If the MSM was reporting on everything the NSA is doing to Americans and how intrusive they've become, instead of using snowden as subterfuge, the public would be furious and wouldn't stand for it. Most of the people I talk to have no idea what's going on or even heard of the PRISM program. All they know is snowden this and snowden that. It's a carefully crafted propagandist travesty.

"A Pew Research Center and USA Today poll found 63 percent would feel their personal privacy was violated if they found out the government was collecting their data. Those under 30 and Tea Party Republicans were particularly supportive of Snowden's leaks and critical of infringements of their privacy. There are now campaigns hounding the U.S. government to Stop Watching Us, "I Stand With Edward Snowden" rallies, and a Rand Paul-led proposed lawsuit against the NSA."

If we had checks and balances, I would agree with you, but those are pretty much gone. The three branches of Government all agree when it comes to their power and how much of tit they should have. I see no opposition from either side and everything (including the Constitution) is just an inconvenient formality for them (which they're making exceedingly more convenient for them), smoke screening the authoritarian oligarchic surveillance state we live in.

Hell, I heard that Clinton's daughter was thinking of running for office. We now have kings and queens, princes and princesses. It's absurd. The nepotistic fashion in which the Government operates is disturbing to say the least. Only one I see who's challenging them is: http://www.randpaul2016.com/ similarly following in the footsteps of his father, but much less radical. Not that there's anything wrong with radical. Sometimes being called a radical can be the highest honor if your intentions are noble, just and good for the greater good.

We now use terms like "Home land" in America and even "greater good". Those terms used to be associated with negative things. In the case of home land, it still is. Much like Father land. Great good is now used to justify spying on Americans for the Greater good and safety of all. It's bullshit and a complete lie. Didn't stop the underwear bomber, or Boston bomber. They expect us to believe that terrorists are dumb enuf to use Social media, cell phones, internet etc and think they aren't being spied on and kno how to avoid being detected. Government must think we're idiots and believe the garbage they feed us.

I would gladly repeal the XVI Amendment if I could. Government won't let it happen.

You have serious misnomers about socialism and communism. It has NEVER truly existed in any so called socialist or communist country. Memo?...funny guy. lefties/righties. Didn't you get the memo: They're ambidextrous now in Government.

McCArthy was a fear monger who had neighbors scared of one another for no reason but control. He was like the the terrorist fear mongers of today who use it to take our freedoms away under the guise of national security.

We're a mixed economy with only aspects of communism/socialism/capitalism in it. What you call communism/socialism are just these supposed communist Governments acting in an authoritarian/totalitarian manner, nationalizing Oil, and other industries etc....nothing more nothing less.

The Paris commune was the closest anyone has ever come to true communism/socialism, and even that wasn't Marx's idealist society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune
Chicoms? lol China tries to teach U.S. free-market capitalism - Todd Harrison - MarketWatch

If the UN was really an Anti-American Government entity, then the US Government would not belong to it. If they won't put up with some measly whistle blowers, then they certainly wouldn't put up the UN if it threatened their power.

You live in a small world my friend. We see eye to eye on some things, but you should probably leave the left/right partisan nonsense where it belongs, in the past. That paradigm is over.




Arguing that the program is illegal or probably illegal

The arguments against the legality of the NSA fall into two broad categories: those who argue that FISA raises no Constitutional issues and therefore the NSA program is illegal on its face,[74] and those who argue that FISA (perhaps purposefully) raises a Constitutional conflict which should be resolved in Congress' favor.[75]

On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) denounced the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. The ABA also formulated a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without obtaining warrants from a special secret court as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[121]
According to a report in The Boston Globe on February 2, 2006 three law professors, David D. Cole (Georgetown University), Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), and Philip Heymann (Harvard), said that what Bush is doing is unprecedented. Bush's claim that other presidents asserted that wartime powers supersede an act of Congress, "is either intentionally misleading or downright false," Cole said. He said Bush is misstating the In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 ruling which supported Congressional regulation of surveillance. Epstein believes the United States Supreme Court would reject the Administration's argument and said, "I find every bit of this legal argument disingenuous...The president's position is essentially that (Congress) is not doing the right thing, so I'm going to act on my own." Professor Heymann, a former deputy US attorney general said, "The bottom line is, I know of no electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed that was not done under the . . . statute."[122]
Cole, Epstein, Heynmann and eleven other prominent legal scholars (Beth Nolan, Curtis Bradley, Geoffrey Stone, Harold Hongju Koh, Kathleen Sullivan, Laurence Tribe, Martin Lederman, Ronald Dworkin, Walter Dellinger, William S. Sessions and William Van Alstyne) wrote a letter to Congress that appeared in the New York Review of Books on February 9, 2006.[123] They wrote that "the Justice Department's defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law." They summarized:

In conclusion, the DOJ letter fails to offer a plausible legal defense of the NSA domestic spying program. If the administration felt that FISA was insufficient, the proper course was to seek legislative amendment, as it did with other aspects of FISA in the Patriot Act, and as Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap provision in FISA. One of the crucial features of a constitutional democracy is that it is always open to the President—or anyone else—to seek to change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that, in such a democracy, the President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable.

Professor Peter Swire, the C. William O’Neill Professor of Law at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and Visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote a detailed "Legal FAQs on NSA Wiretaps" concluding that "based on the facts available to date, the wiretap program appears to be clearly illegal."[124] Prof. Swire has previously written a very detailed history and analysis of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, published in Volume 72 of the George Washington Law Review, at 1306 (2004) and previously chaired a White House Working Group, including the intelligence agencies, on how to update electronic surveillance law for the Internet Age.
Robert Reinstein, dean of the law school at Temple University, has asserted that the warrantless domestic spying program is

a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally... When Congress speaks on questions that are domestic in nature, I really can't think of a situation where the president has successfully asserted a constitutional power to supersede that... This is domestic surveillance over American citizens for whom there is no evidence or proof that they are involved in any illegal activity, and it is in contravention of a statute of Congress specifically designed to prevent this.

Mr. Reinstein asserted that the broad consensus among legal scholars and national security experts is similar to his own analysis, and he predicted that the courts will rule that the program is unconstitutional.[125]
Edward Lazarus, author, law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and federal prosecutor, has argued in articles such as "Warrantless Wiretapping: Why It Seriously Imperils the Separation of Powers, And Continues the Executive's Sapping of Power From Congress and the Courts", that "Unilateral executive power is tyranny, plain and simple".[126]
Orin S. Kerr, a professor at The George Washington University Law School, prominent blogger and scholar of the legal framework of electronic surveillance has opined that the issues are complex, but that after his first analysis he concluded that the wiretapping probably does not infringe on Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, though it probably does violate FISA. President Bush has maintained he acted within "legal authority derived from the constitution" and that Congress "granted [him] additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda".[127] However, while the President may argue that the necessary statutory authority to override FISA's warrant provisions is provided by the authorization to use "all necessary force" in the employment of military resources to protect the security of the United States, and that the use of wiretapping is a qualifying use of force (under the terms of the authorization for the use of military force against al-Qaida as found in Senate Joint Resolution 23, 2001), Kerr believes that this justification is ultimately unpersuasive, as is the argument that the President's power as the Commander-in-Chief (as derived from Article Two of the United States Constitution) provides him with the necessary constitutional authority to circumvent FISA during a time of war.[128] Kerr cautiously estimates that about eight of the nine Supreme Court justices would agree with him that Article Two cannot trump statutes like FISA.[129]
Robert M. Bloom, Professor of Law at Boston College, says this in a paper entitled "The Constitutional Infirmity of Warrantless NSA Surveillance: The Abuse of Presidential Power and the Injury to the Fourth Amendment," published on February 19, 2007, which he co-authored with William J. Dunn, a former Defense Department intelligence analyst, also of BC Law School:[130]

President Bush argues that the surveillance program passes constitutional inquiry based upon his constitutionally delegated war and foreign policy powers, as well as from the congressional joint resolution passed following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These arguments fail to supersede the explicit and exhaustive statutory framework provided by Congress and amended repeatedly since 2001 for judicial approval and authorization of electronic surveillance. The specific regulation by Congress based upon war powers shared concurrently with the President provides a constitutional requirement that cannot be bypassed or ignored by the President. The President’s choice to do so violates the Constitution and risks the definite sacrifice of individual rights for the speculative gain from warrantless action.

Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer, author and prominent blogger (Greenwald's legal blog)[131] arguing that the NSA program is illegal summarized:[132]

Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so.

After the Supreme Court's judgment in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Greenwald wrote: "The administration’s theories to justify the President’s lawbreaking have always been frivolous. But for those pretending not to recognize that fact, the Supreme Court has so ruled."[133]
Jordan Paust, Mike and Teresa Baker College Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center, rejected the administration's legal arguments for the NSA program writing:[134]

George W. Bush and US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claim that domestic spying in manifest violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was authorized by Congress in broad language in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) regarding persons responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Similar claims have been made in a December 22 letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella to the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The claims are patently false... ... Moreover, any so-called inherent presidential authority to spy on Americans at home (perhaps of the kind denounced in Youngstown (1952) and which no strict constructionist should pretend to recognize), has been clearly limited in the FISA in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) and 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1), as supplemented by the criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).

William C. Banks, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University argued that the NSA program is unconstitutional, writing that "in the unlikely event that legal authority for the NSA program can be found, this domestic spying violates the Fourth Amendment."[135]
John Dean, Author and former White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon testified before Congress on March 31, 2006, on the issue of censuring George Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretap program, saying "I hope... you will not place the president above the law by inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."[136]

Related issues
Warrantless wiretaps and the history of FISA
Main article: Warrantless searches in the United States

The administration has compared the NSA warrantless surveillance program with historical wartime warrantless searches in the United States, going back to George Washington.[51]

Critics have pointed out that Washington's surveillance occurred before the existence of the U.S. Constitution, and the other historical precedents cited by the administration were before the passage of FISA, and therefore did not directly contravene federal law.[75] Abuses of electronic surveillance by the federal government such as Project SHAMROCK led to reform legislation in the 1970s.[137] Advancing technology began to present questions not directly addressed by the legislation as early as 1985.[138]

Executive orders by previous administrations including Clinton's and Carter's authorized the attorneys general to exercise authority with respect to both options under FISA.[139][140] In Clinton's executive order, he authorized his attorney general "[pursuant] to section 302(a)(1)" to conduct physical searches without court order "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section".
Sufficiency of FISA in the war on terror

On December 19, 2005, U.S. Dept. of Justice Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, William Moschella, wrote a letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, defending the NSA program:

As explained above, the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the President might have sought specifically to create such an early warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities. Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations. In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.

U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah, also of the FISC, stated that he was unclear on why the FISC's emergency authority would not meet the administration's stated "need to move quickly." He and fellow judges on the court attended a briefing in January, called by presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.[141][142] The court was also concerned about "whether the administration had misled their court about its sources of information on possible terrorism suspects . . . [as this] could taint the integrity of the court's work."[143]

In part to address this problem, several commentators have raised the issue of whether, regardless how one feels about the authorization issue, FISA needs to be amended to address specific foreign intelligence needs, current technology developments, and advanced technical methods of intelligence gathering, in particular to provide for programmatic approvals of general or automated surveillance of foreign terrorist communications, the results of which could then legally be used as predicate for FISA warrants. In a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA "retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist."[144] For other examples, see Fixing Surveillance;[145] Why We Listen,[146] The Eavesdropping Debate We Should be Having;[147] A New Surveillance Act;[148] and A historical solution to the Bush spying issue[149] (the latter setting out a historical perspective on the need for programmatic approval in foreign intelligence surveillance generally). And see Whispering Wires and Warrantless Wiretaps[150] (discussing how FISA is inadequate to address certain technology developments).

During the investigational phase of the 9/11 Commission, a letter written by Special Agent Coleen Rowley, in her capacity as legal council to the FBI's Minneapolis Field Office, to FBI Director Robert Mueller came to the attention of the committee.[151] In that letter and in subsequent testimony before the commission and the Senate Judiciary Committee, SA Rowley recounted among other things, the manner in which FISA procedural hurdles had hampered the FBI's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called "20th hijacker") prior to the 9/11 attacks. Among the factors she cited were the complexity of the application and the detailed information required and confusion by field operatives about the standard of probable cause required by the FISC and the strength of the required link to a foreign power. At his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, 2002, Director Mueller in response to questions about the Rowley allegations testified that unlike normal criminal procedures, FISA warrant applications are "complex and detailed", requiring the intervention of FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) personnel trained in a specialized procedure (the "Woods" procedure) to ensure accuracy.[152]
FISA exclusivity controversy
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (June 2013)

On January 19, 2006 the Department of Justice published a memorandum that stated in part:

For the foregoing reasons, the President—in light of the broad authority to use military force in response to the attacks of September 11 and to prevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on the President by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented by Congress in the AUMF—has legal authority to authorize the NSA to conduct the signals intelligence activities he has described. Those activities are authorized by the Constitution and by statute, and they violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment.

The following day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with lone co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 350, a resolution "expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens."[54][55] This non-binding resolution died in the Senate without being brought up for debate or being voted upon, so cannot be considered the "sense of the Senate."[56]

On February 2, 2006 the same 14 constitutional scholars and former government officials responded:

In sum, we remain as unpersuaded by the DOJ's 42-page attempt to find authority for the NSA spying program as we were of its initial five-page version. The DOJ's more extended discussion only reaffirms our initial conclusion, because it makes clear that to find this program statutorily authorized would requires rewriting not only clear specific federal legislation, but major aspects of constitutional doctrine. Accordingly, we continue to believe that the administration has failed to offer any plausible legal justification for the NSA program.

On June 29, 2006, in a detainee case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected an analogous AUMF argument. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens, while ruling that "the AUMF activated the President’s war powers, and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances" (citations omitted), held there was nothing in the AUMF language "even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The distinction drawn by J. Stevens in Hamdan between that case and Hamdi, where the AUMF language was found to override the explicit language regarding detention in 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) is that the instant case would require a "Repeal by implication" of the UCMJ. How this distinction would be drawn in future cases involving the NSA program is unclear.
Separation of powers and Unitary Executive theory
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (June 2013)
Further information: Unitary Executive theory, Commander-in-Chief, and Separation of powers

The administration argues that the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance within U.S. borders was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al.. He argues that the President had the "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."[153][154]

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the President's authority as commander-in-chief extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts...without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected."[155] Whether such declarations applying to foreign intelligence are in compliance with FISA has been examined by few courts since the passage of the act in 1978.

It is also uncertain whether the allegation that surveillance involves foreign parties suffices to extend law governing the president's military and foreign affairs powers to cover domestic activities. The Supreme Court voiced this concern in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, released a detailed report on NSA electronic surveillance, "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information," on January 5, 2006, which concluded:

From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes. To the extent that the NSA activity is not permitted by some reading of Title III or FISA, it may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb, in which case exclusive presidential control is sustainable only by “disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.” While courts have generally accepted that the President has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance, and has not ruled on the extent to which Congress can act with respect to electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.[100][156][157]

Classified information
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (June 2013)
Leaking of classified information

There is no single law that criminalizes the leaking of all classified information. There are certain statutes that prohibit certain types of classified information being leaked under certain circumstances. One such law is 18 U.S.C. § 798; it was tacked on to the Espionage Act of 1917 during the Second Red Scare in 1950. It is the 'SIGINT' statute, meaning signals intelligence. This statute says that

... whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, [including by publication,] classified information [relating to] the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government, [shall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years.]

This statute is not limited in application to only federal government employees. However, the Code of Federal Regulations suggests the statute may apply primarily to the "[c]ommunication of classified information by Government officer or employee". 50 USCS §783 (2005).

There is a statutory procedure[158] for a "whistleblower" in the intelligence community to report concerns with the propriety of a secret program, The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-272, Title VII, 112 Stat. 2413 (1998). Essentially the Act provides for disclosure to the agency Inspector General, and if the result of that is unsatisfactory, appeal to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. A former official of the NSA, Russ Tice, has asked to testify under the terms of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, in order to provide information to these committees about "highly classified Special Access Programs, or SAPs, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency."[159]

Executive Order 13292, which sets up the U.S. security classification system, provides (Sec 1.7) that "n no case shall information be classified in order to conceal violations of law".

Given doubts about the legality of the overall program, the classification of its existence may not have been valid under E.O. 13292.
VERY Publication of classified information

It is unlikely that the New York Times could be held liable for publishing its article under established Supreme Court precedent. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514,[160] the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment precluded liability for a media defendant for publication of illegally obtained communications that the media defendant itself did nothing illegal to obtain if the topic involves a public controversy. The high court in Bartnicki accepted due to the suit's procedural position, that interception of information which was ultimately broadcast by the defendant radio station was initially illegal (in violation of ECPA), but nonetheless gave the radio station a pass because it did nothing itself illegal to obtain the information.

Nor could the government have prevented the publication of the classified information by obtaining an injunction. In the Pentagon Papers case, (New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971)),[161] the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that injunctions against the New York Times publication of classified information (United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by The Department of Defense, a 47 volume, 7,000-page, top-secret United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in the Vietnam War from 1945 to 1971) were unconstitutional prior restraints and that the government had not met the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint.

The 1917 Espionage Act, aside from the SIGINT statute discussed above, only criminalizes 'national defense' information, not 'classified' information. Although the Justice Department as a matter of law sees no exemption for the press, as a matter of fact it has refrained from prosecuting:

A prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly, indeed, the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself.

On the other hand, Sean McGahan of Northeastern University, told the Washington Post,

There's a tone of gleeful relish in the way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries, their appetite for withholding information, and the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors.[162]

 

[Flanders]

The Democrats have nothing to do with it. This is not a partisan issue and there's no difference any longer. Might as well call them Republicrats or Demopubs...Government gets bigger and bigger no matter who's elected, and they continue to give themselves more power. Making breaking laws as they see fit...

To snowdenisahero: It is a very partisan issue when the issue of limited government verses totalitarian government is not confined to 2 political parties. Democrats have everything to do with big government because that is the party that has been moving the country toward tyranny by abolishing the Constitution that limits government. Democrats came so far they no longer deny their objectives. Yet you somehow manage to absolve Democrats from the big government they created, while you appear to oppose bigger and bigger government.

When did they become our rulers?

To snowdenisahero: On the day millions of parasites decided that a benign totalitarian was finally within reach.

If the MSM was reporting on everything the NSA is doing to Americans and how intrusive they've become, instead of using snowden as subterfuge, the public would be furious and wouldn't stand for it. Most of the people I talk to have no idea what's going on or even heard of the PRISM program. All they know is snowden this and snowden that. It's a carefully crafted propagandist travesty.

To snowdenisahero: First note that it is big government advocates who are doing the spying on law-abiding Americans.

Secondly, Snowden is more propagandist than he is whistle blower.

In truth, the government does not want Snowden returned. The ideal resolution is for him to spend the rest of his life as a fugitive.

Hell, I heard that Clinton's daughter was thinking of running for office. We now have kings and queens, princes and princesses. It's absurd. The nepotistic fashion in which the Government operates is disturbing to say the least. Only one I see who's challenging them is: Rand Paul 2016 | U.S. Senate*|*Official Rand Paul campaign site similarly following in the footsteps of his father, but much less radical. Not that there's anything wrong with radical.

To snowdenisahero: I will agree if you can name one radical that who preached limited government after the radical Founders gave us a Constitution and Bill of Rights that constrained government. Every nineteenth and twentieth century radical so loved by liberals preached bigger government. Fools like Hillary Clinton fell for the biggest Communist “radical” of all, Saul Alinsky.

Sometimes being called a radical can be the highest honor if your intentions are noble, just and good for the greater good.

To snowdenisahero: There’s the rub. Ignoble radicals cite big government collectivism as the greatest good. They usually call it the general welfare or the common good. The result is always the same; more government.

You have serious misnomers about socialism and communism. It has NEVER truly existed in any so called socialist or communist country.

To snowdenisahero: The true believers of every failed ideology say the same thing. The real thing was never tried.

If the UN was really an Anti-American Government entity, then the US Government would not belong to it. If they won't put up with some measly whistle blowers, then they certainly wouldn't put up the UN if it threatened their power.

To snowdenisahero: FDR Democrats created the United Nations. Today’s leading Democrats would tear this country apart before they would withdraw from that foul organization.

Note that the government is not the people. The United Nations is championed by ruling classes the world over. The American people have no say in it except to fund it.

You live in a small world my friend. We see eye to eye on some things, but you should probably leave the left/right partisan nonsense where it belongs, in the past. That paradigm is over.

To snowdenisahero: Paradigm! That’s the 9th or 10th variation I've heard about the crap American Communists spouted early on in the Cold War.

At the beginning of the Cold War most people were led to believe that communism and capitalism would meet in the middle someday and everything would turn out alright. That fairy tale’s goal was to lull Americans into believing that a little socialism wouldn’t hurt. Mainstream media, and the education industry, entered into a conspiracy of silence which did much to further that belief. Today, the vague notion of a compromise between communism (a political system), and capitalism (an economic system within a political system), is the main reason so many Americans are accepting so much government control.

It is you who should put that crap in the past rather than trying to convince anyone that Cold War commies had it Right.

 

[freedombecki]

I'd like to see the UN relocated on a rotating basis.

... So long as its next stop is Atlantis for cratering to bad influences who'd like to wipe America off the face of the map.

 

[snowdenisahero]

The Democrats have nothing to do with it. This is not a partisan issue and there's no difference any longer. Might as well call them Republicrats or Demopubs...Government gets bigger and bigger no matter who's elected, and they continue to give themselves more power. Making breaking laws as they see fit...

To snowdenisahero: It is a very partisan issue when the issue of limited government verses totalitarian government is not confined to 2 political parties. Democrats have everything to do with big government because that is the party that has been moving the country toward tyranny by abolishing the Constitution that limits government. Democrats came so far they no longer deny their objectives. Yet you somehow manage to absolve Democrats from the big government they created, while you appear to oppose bigger and bigger government.

When did they become our rulers?

To snowdenisahero: On the day millions of parasites decided that a benign totalitarian was finally within reach.



To snowdenisahero: First note that it is big government advocates who are doing the spying on law-abiding Americans.

Secondly, Snowden is more propagandist than he is whistle blower.

In truth, the government does not want Snowden returned. The ideal resolution is for him to spend the rest of his life as a fugitive.



To snowdenisahero: I will agree if you can name one radical that who preached limited government after the radical Founders gave us a Constitution and Bill of Rights that constrained government. Every nineteenth and twentieth century radical so loved by liberals preached bigger government. Fools like Hillary Clinton fell for the biggest Communist “radical” of all, Saul Alinsky.



To snowdenisahero: There’s the rub. Ignoble radicals cite big government collectivism as the greatest good. They usually call it the general welfare or the common good. The result is always the same; more government.



To snowdenisahero: The true believers of every failed ideology say the same thing. The real thing was never tried.

If the UN was really an Anti-American Government entity, then the US Government would not belong to it. If they won't put up with some measly whistle blowers, then they certainly wouldn't put up the UN if it threatened their power.

To snowdenisahero: FDR Democrats created the United Nations. Today’s leading Democrats would tear this country apart before they would withdraw from that foul organization.

Note that the government is not the people. The United Nations is championed by ruling classes the world over. The American people have no say in it except to fund it.

You live in a small world my friend. We see eye to eye on some things, but you should probably leave the left/right partisan nonsense where it belongs, in the past. That paradigm is over.

To snowdenisahero: Paradigm! That’s the 9th or 10th variation I've heard about the crap American Communists spouted early on in the Cold War.

At the beginning of the Cold War most people were led to believe that communism and capitalism would meet in the middle someday and everything would turn out alright. That fairy tale’s goal was to lull Americans into believing that a little socialism wouldn’t hurt. Mainstream media, and the education industry, entered into a conspiracy of silence which did much to further that belief. Today, the vague notion of a compromise between communism (a political system), and capitalism (an economic system within a political system), is the main reason so many Americans are accepting so much government control.

It is you who should put that crap in the past rather than trying to convince anyone that Cold War commies had it Right.

All you talk about is partisan nonsense. This discussion is over if you can't see that GW was just as big Government as the fool in office now, and they're all just puppets. It's good, you're exactly where the Government wants you, and you're thinking exactly the way they want you to. This is a waste of time.