It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Matt Drudge Dissinformation (Carter and Clinton)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

link



FYI. Similar but not quite.


Story

[edit on 22-12-2005 by dgtempe]




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
i will state i am not a dem or repub. so reguardless of which party was in office i will state this ......because bush did this i think its time people wake up and boot him out of office. he talks alot of his presidental powers.. in case people forgot.. we are the power because "we are the people" and any power he has is from us.. i say its time we take the power back.

Brian



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.


Here is what it said:


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949: FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES

The issue here is semantics, for Drudge is correct in what was said, verified abive:


the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order...


And Global News Matrix simply went and post the whole section, then countered that Drudge was wrong. The issue is that Drudge did not quote the entire section, and Global News Matrix is making a big deal out of Drudge not doing so. The point missed by Global News Matrix is that what Drudge is pointing out is that Clinton authorized no-warrent or warrentless searches whereas, Bush authorized no-warrent or warrentless wiretappings, surveillances, etc.

The other coincidence here is that you have likewise proven that Bush has done nothing wrong, for he, as well, utilized/utilizes the same US Code, Title 50, 1802, which involved no US persons. I would however advize reading up on the definition of "US persons."

So, in part, your simply attempting to stop or prevent people from saying that Carter and Clinton did nothing wrong and that what they did was by the "rule of law"? When you answer 'yes', you then admit that Bush is doing nothing wrong, correct? If not, then please point out the specific law(s) that the Bush Administration is allegedly breaking.




seekerof



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Seekerof, you take advantage of my somewhat lack of comprehension of the English language and twist it to suit your (and Bush's ) agenda.

Ok. Lets see what others have to say in plain English.

I'll wait.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.


dgtempe, what did Clinton's 1995 executive order authorize?
Did it involve US persons?





seekerof



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   

i will state i am not a dem or repub. so reguardless of which party was in office i will state this ......because bush did this i think its time people wake up and boot him out of office.


Well Brian would you mind explaining to me what exactly Bush did that warrants such a response?


he talks alot of his presidental powers.. in case people forgot.. we are the power because "we are the people" and any power he has is from us.. i say its time we take the power back.


Brian that is true, we do hold the power to decide who becomes President and who doesn’t. The majority deiced that in 2004. Bush is going to be the President for the next 3 years because we put him there. If you want to take your “power” back I suggest you do so in future congressional or President elections.
That’s the way to exercise your “power”, calling for people to be booted out only makes you look like some kid who doesn’t know much.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Carter, Clinton and Bush ALL did the proper thing and
went through proper channels to acquire the rights
for different types of surveillance with the intent to
keep America safer. They had the legal rights to do
so and they had the necessity to do so.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I bet Bush can not said that they make the country safe because the record arrests during his spying of the American people.

Perhaps the reason is . . . that they actually did and can not tell because that will bring the fact that Americans citizens may be roting in concentration camps all over the world roting away and being torture.

Keep it our side out of mind.


Occurs we may have some Bush emissaries here in ATS doing the dirty work of cleaning up his reputation.


They are fighting very hard, if you post some fact Dg you are actually an Islamic radical in disguise and a treat to national security.


So the new wave of attacks are starting to pop in some threads already.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

i will state i am not a dem or repub. so reguardless of which party was in office i will state this ......because bush did this i think its time people wake up and boot him out of office.


Well Brian would you mind explaining to me what exactly Bush did that warrants such a response?


he talks alot of his presidental powers.. in case people forgot.. we are the power because "we are the people" and any power he has is from us.. i say its time we take the power back.


Brian that is true, we do hold the power to decide who becomes President and who doesn’t. The majority deiced that in 2004. Bush is going to be the President for the next 3 years because we put him there. If you want to take your “power” back I suggest you do so in future congressional or President elections.
That’s the way to exercise your “power”, calling for people to be booted out only makes you look like some kid who doesn’t know much.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



well i seem to remember that when clinton had the sex scandle people tried to impreach him maybe they should have waited as well till the next election. IMO what bush did is illegal and this isnt the only mess he has made. Nixion was impeached and maybe they should have all waited to the next election as well. and by taking back our power i am refering to limiting what they can do to us as a population. and calling me some kid who doesnt know much deservers no responce because it can be directed at you as well and gets us no place.

brian



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I'll put it in plain English, this is not a Bush or Clinton issue, no matter how bad a few lefties in this post would like to prove.

They both used this to gather information and i do not see any links to any people, US citizens, rotting in a jail or bieng harrassed. Not one link. It was reported recently that the US used spy satelittes following the OK city bombing. to spy on domestic terror groups, namely white supremists with supposed ties to the bombing. You cannot tell me that the President at the time did not have to authorize or at least knew about it in his PDB. This means that Bill Clinton was authorizing the surviellence of US citizens long before anyone tried to use 9/11 as an excuse.

Look at the big picture, and don't belive the party specific hype. These men and other presidents are and have used the rights given to them, by law, to protect our country and prevent further attacks and past attacks from occuring.

Comments such as "Bushs regime is spying on us to control us" come from the same people who would blame Bush if there was another attack due to poor intelligence gathering. Tell us how to win, or please offer a solution on how our government should handle it.

What is the CIA/FBI/DHS supposed to do, stand on a corner with a sign saying, "If you are a terrorist, we would like to talk to you?" Domestic survilence is nothing new folks, they have done it since the Revolutionary war in America. (read "1776", great book).

Drudge does not slant, he just reports....



[edit on 22-12-2005 by esdad71]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by atomic811
i will state i am not a dem or repub. so reguardless of which party was in office i will state this ......because bush did this i think its time people wake up and boot him out of office. he talks alot of his presidental powers.. in case people forgot.. we are the power because "we are the people" and any power he has is from us.. i say its time we take the power back.

Brian


The people had their chance in 2004 to "boot" bush and he won the election by a pretty big majority. So that truly is the power of the people. So go ahead now and post you lame fraudulent election replies

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zoso28]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28

Originally posted by atomic811
i will state i am not a dem or repub. so reguardless of which party was in office i will state this ......because bush did this i think its time people wake up and boot him out of office. he talks alot of his presidental powers.. in case people forgot.. we are the power because "we are the people" and any power he has is from us.. i say its time we take the power back.

Brian


The people had their chance in 2004 to "boot" bush and he won the election by a pretty big majority. So that truly is the power of the people. So go ahead now and post you lame fraudulent election replies

[edit on 22-12-2005 by zoso28]



"lame fraudulent election replies" i dont have any i am not like that .. my point is even if he was voted in and does something illegal like any other president rep. or dem. he should be removed from office. now i am not going to debate all day if it was legal or illegal with you. I am by far not the only person in this country that thinks it was illegal.. its not just dems saying it was there are 6 of the repub. saying it as well.

brian



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Brian says:


well i seem to remember that when clinton had the sex scandle people tried to impreach...


They didn't try to impeach him; they did impeach him, but it wasn't for having sex, it was for lying under oath, which is a felony. And even though he was impeached, he wasn't convicted.


IMO what bush did is illegal and this isnt the only mess he has made.


Your opinion as to what is "illegal" doesn't count, any more than my opinion counts. If Congress says that he broke a law, then they can impeach him, and if he's found guilty, it's out the do' for that mo-fo'!

But no one in Congress -- oir at least, not many in Congress -- think what he's done is "impeachable", so there you go.

Now for what it's worth, I didn't vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and I don't like the way he's running the country. But I believe he won both elections, and I also believe he hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. Here in the United States, the crime of "Upsetting Off_The_Street" is not grounds for trial.


however, Nixion was impeached...


No, he wasn't impeached, although he might've been had he not resigned.


... and calling me some kid who doesnt know much deservers no responce ...


Well, I didn't call you a kid, but as to "not knowing much", you don't seem to have your facts or your history straight. If you go into an argument with falsehoods to bolster your opinion, someone is going to hoo-raw you for it!



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Brian says:


well i seem to remember that when clinton had the sex scandle people tried to impreach...


They didn't try to impeach him; they did impeach him, but it wasn't for having sex, it was for lying under oath, which is a felony. And even though he was impeached, he wasn't convicted.


IMO what bush did is illegal and this isnt the only mess he has made.


Your opinion as to what is "illegal" doesn't count, any more than my opinion counts. If Congress says that he broke a law, then they can impeach him, and if he's found guilty, it's out the do' for that mo-fo'!

But no one in Congress -- oir at least, not many in Congress -- think what he's done is "impeachable", so there you go.

Now for what it's worth, I didn't vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and I don't like the way he's running the country. But I believe he won both elections, and I also believe he hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. Here in the United States, the crime of "Upsetting Off_The_Street" is not grounds for trial.


however, Nixion was impeached...


No, he wasn't impeached, although he might've been had he not resigned.


... and calling me some kid who doesnt know much deservers no responce ...


Well, I didn't call you a kid, but as to "not knowing much", you don't seem to have your facts or your history straight. If you go into an argument with falsehoods to bolster your opinion, someone is going to hoo-raw you for it!


ok i agree i was wrong on the nixon thing i had forgot he resigned.. as for clinton i knew it wasnt for sex i knew it was because he lied about it under oath...the reason why i said IMO it was illegal was because i have not heard all the facts yet but from what I have heard it seems it was illegal.. IMO there is no reason just not to have a judge approve it ..judges are on call 24/7 they each take shifts with that. a judge would not sit there and not approve something if it had to do with terrorists or possible terrorist activity..however they would if it was something shady or illegal activity. my point is we have to go after the bad people yes i agree with that ..but there has to be some checks on this..personally if they listened to me they arent going to hear anything but the point is we have to be very careful how much power we give the gov. and not let them run rampant..we have no idea who the next president or others in the future will be and if we get a nut case in there they could use our own laws and "powers" we have allowed them to have against us and that would be very dangerous... in the future i am not writing anymore posts when i havent slept all night so i make less errors. but i hope now i have been more clear i'm going to bed nite 4 now


brian



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   


The people had their chance in 2004 to "boot" bush and he won the election by a pretty big majority.


51% to 49% is not a "pretty big majority". IIRC It was the 7th closest election in US history by electoral votes, and closer by the popular vote. More a "squeaker" than a "landslide".



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Occurs we may have some Bush emissaries here in ATS doing the dirty work of cleaning up his reputation.



Really, marg? If that was possibly true (like the government really cares what we say here
), it begs the question of how much Bush's enemies are paying you to bash him with post after post after post after post ...?




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Brian my intention was not call you a little kid, if you were offended I apologize. What I was trying to say is that if you come into an argument with an “In my Opinion” followed by a “boot him out” sentence not may people will give any value to your point.

As for your second point Brian, any law can be abused, that however does not mean that they will or are being abused. Since we do not know what the government is trying to accomplish, we cannot say with certainty that they did not need to use a certain law, or that they abused a certain law.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion
Really, marg? If that was possibly true (like the government really cares what we say here
), it begs the question of how much Bush's enemies are paying you to bash him with post after post after post after post ...?



Really Centurion, I love Bush he is as good as apple pie is for America.


All crusty outside and gooey inside.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Nothing like a moldy piece of pie


Bush's handling of this sinister plot to check out all Americans is going above and beyond what would be necessary. He's establishing his base for his dictatorship- I wonder when he will once and for all come out with this bit of news...? Before OR after the Russian/Chinese/UN invasion of the United States? My guess is during.....

What a gem. And even when this happens there will be Seekerof, screaming from the rooftops...and waving his flag.."You cant touch me. Bush is my lord"





posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Again, I ask, in all of your infinite wisdom, what should we do? If you could tell the president right now, how would you correct and obtain the information he has allowed to be recieved?



(crickets) (more crickets)






(more crickets)





PS.

Do you truly think we would be better off with a presidnet who wants to dismantle the military, so that when the Chinese do say goodbye to Wal mArts, they invade but the democrats closed all the bases. Oh, gosh darn.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join