Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NSA (letter to Senate)
NRO ^ | KJ Lopez

Posted on 12/22/2005 12:03:18 PM PST by hipaatwo

writes to the Senate about the eavesdropping frenzy.

It's a PDF file


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; d; nsa; patriotleak; spying
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 last
To: Don_Ret_USAF
Thank You for the HTML Version. I was able to read the PDF version using both 6.2 (computer with Win98SE) and Version 7.2 (Computer WinXP SP2) with no problems.

Linux weirdo here - I can read it from `gv`. I was surprized that `pdftotext` produced most of the letter. I had to hand edit the italicized material and paragraph breaks, ran spell check on it, fixed a few obvious quirks, and viola - music!

Anyway, more likely to be read in HTML form. I'm looking for a couple more links to finish the cross reference, and in the process of adding links have found and fixed numerous typos. If sombody else agrees to post the HTML rendition as a fresh thread, I'd make it available (using my profile page) for purpose of picking up and dropping into its own thread.

221 posted on 12/22/2005 6:18:09 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

You can: click on the "T" (Text Tool) in the top bar.....

The President stated that these activities are
" crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure
of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified
information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."


222 posted on 12/22/2005 6:20:41 PM PST by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
By definition, it's not a violation if it's reasonable. It's not just the government that decides that, of course. The courts have a role, but so do we.

The courts are part of the government. As for "we", I don't remember ever being asked what's reasonable. Do you?

223 posted on 12/22/2005 6:46:18 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Souled_Out
I reread all of your posts on the previous thread and became convinced by your logic

Thank you, that's very flattering. In context, however, it sounds like "I used to be a Republican until..." In other words, none of your posts attest to this conversion, except this one--in which you inform us that you've converted back.

By your answer I see that you are so smart you do not even have to read the letter or consider what SCJ's have said in the past.

I fail to see where you get the idea I didn't read the NSA's letter.

224 posted on 12/22/2005 6:49:02 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks Peach.

I am always here, I just prefer to lurk until an idiot surfaces with specious arguments that begs to be b!tch slapped.

May the Glory of our Saviors birth be upon you and your family.

Merry Christmas!

Semper Reindeer

225 posted on 12/22/2005 6:52:15 PM PST by Trident/Delta (Chaos, Panic and Disorder.....My work here is done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I'll start a thread using the HTML version you supplied. Give me a few minutes.


226 posted on 12/22/2005 6:52:15 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: hipaatwo

President Bush is Protecting America.

The Traitorcrats are Protecting Al Queda.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters


227 posted on 12/22/2005 6:59:35 PM PST by bray (Merry Christmas Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The stand alone thread of the Assistant AG's letter is here:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545787/posts


228 posted on 12/22/2005 7:03:22 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: pbrown

No gold bricks, no nothing. At the level of arrogance necessary to be a senator, there is no fear of anything stronger than political censure, and least of all fear of the law. Big whoop.


229 posted on 12/22/2005 7:08:43 PM PST by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Thanks - I have an HTML version with links, etc., like this ...

Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but hound to resist by force . . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19,27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J., concurring) ("[T]he Prize Cases . . . stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] . . . [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").

230 posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:35 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Do you want to copy that post you just made and put it on the new thread? The legal eagle's can enjoy going through all that.


231 posted on 12/22/2005 7:21:20 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
By definition, it's not a violation if it's reasonable. It's not just the government that decides that, of course. The courts have a role, but so do we.

The courts are part of the government. As for "we", I don't remember ever being asked what's reasonable. Do you?

Good catch. I meant 'the Executive branch', not 'the government'.

As far as being personally asked about any particular law, it doesn't work like that. 'We' express our displeasure through our Congressmen, and if enough people are unhappy about something, they'll either get on board with us, or not get reelected.

232 posted on 12/22/2005 7:25:48 PM PST by Steel Wolf (* No sleep till Baghdad! *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
'We' express our displeasure through our Congressmen, and if enough people are unhappy about something, they'll either get on board with us, or not get reelected.

The only trouble with that strategy is, 200 years have demonstrated that it doesn't work. For starters, a majority don't want freedom in the first place.

233 posted on 12/22/2005 8:39:17 PM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel

"In context, however, it sounds like "I used to be a Republican until..."
I'm not a Republican and never have been, I Freep to determine other peoples points of view on topics that I do not have enough knowledge of to form an informed opinion.

I'm an exDim converted to an Independent so I get to view each political event without the burden of a particular political parties BS which allows me to listen to other people who know more than me and form my opinions.

I'm still reading. :~)


"none of your posts attest to this conversion, except this one"
LOL

I'm stuck in dial up land celebrating Christmas with the in-laws so I don't have the chance to get online very often.


"I fail to see where you get the idea I didn't read the NSA's letter."
I found the fact that former SCJ's determined "that a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable" a compelling fact that seemed to override the fourth amendment.

The fact that you did not mention or rebut any of the information in the letter left me with the impression that you may not have read it.

234 posted on 12/22/2005 10:21:16 PM PST by Souled_Out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel; Steel Wolf; Souled_Out; blinachka; Bavarian Leprechaun; TexasGreg; liberte; Peach; ..

Shalom Israel:

"The only trouble with that strategy is, 200 years have demonstrated that it doesn't work."

So now we are starting to get down to your basic position.

You are basically saying our form of government doesn't work (specifically voting for representatives) and never has worked (at least in the last 200 years).

If it has been broken for 200 years, how do you propose to fix it? I mean, absolutely, precisely, certainly, with no possibility of a doubt, fix it. After all, you do think in terms of absolutes. No generalities here. Specifics.

Presumably you would start by taking out the "weasel word" 'unreasonable' which the framers of the constitution were so careless (or so devious) to have put there in the first place. What other rewrites of the constitution would you propose? Or would you scrap it altogether?

Many of us on this forum have tried (to one degree or another) to engage you in discussion on this issue, but you have engaged us as though we are using ignorant sophistry, while you, of course, are one of the truly enlightened ones. Perhaps you can now reveal to us your plan to correct the mistakes of the last 200 years.

Absolutely.


235 posted on 12/23/2005 1:40:41 AM PST by Cap Huff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Souled_Out
I found the fact that former SCJ's determined "that a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable" a compelling fact that seemed to override the fourth amendment.

You didn't mention where they get that in the Constitution. Nor, for that matter, where the Constitution says that an SCJ can override the Constitution.

236 posted on 12/23/2005 3:39:55 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Don_Ret_USAF

Thank you


237 posted on 12/23/2005 4:59:25 AM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
This is all about Congress limiting the Powers of the President. Filibustering judges is in the same category.

The Executive Branch holds the Leadership role in Wartime with the President designated as Commander in Chief. It is his PRIMARY DUTY.

Let's look at it this way.....AlQueda and all those terrorism groups will look at Citizenship as a plus if you want a job with them. Driver's licenses are okay but real or forged Birth Certificates or Green Cards will be even better. I am now of the feeling that "hidden" fingerprints should be added to all licenses.

P.S. My Professional License carries my fingerprints in the State files where I do business.

238 posted on 12/23/2005 8:04:57 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Cap Huff

Thank you for your excellent question, Cap. I'm not holding my breath for an actual response.


239 posted on 12/23/2005 9:26:17 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Cap Huff

I see S.I. doesn't have too much money where his mouth is.


240 posted on 12/23/2005 11:18:04 AM PST by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-240 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson