April 19th, 2008 08:30am
Administrator
Over the course of the last 15 years the internet has grown from a smattering of techies sharing information to the largest outlet for free trade and the trade of new ideas the world has ever known.
Anybody, regardless of level of income, race, religion, political affiliation or sex can market a product/service or exchange ideas for an incredibly affordable cost with increasing ease. This means that small businesses and individuals can more easily generate revenue, little known causes can more easily get the word out and every day citizens can more readily voice and share their concerns. The internet is literally the culmination of freedoms in every way shape and form.
For those of you who are not tech buffs, you may not know that there is a reason this is allowed to occur. The reason is net neutrality. Net neutrality is the technical and philosophical premise the entire internet is based on. In laymen’s terms, net neutrality ensures that all information being passed across the vast network that is the internet is treated this same. This means that the physical relays that are exchanging information pay no attention to where the information is coming from when they grab it and send it on its way. This concept is what prevents companies from blocking traffic they do not like and showing preference to traffic they do like.
This delicate concept is being challenged right now by various companies that own much of the infrastructure the internet is based on (AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon etc.). These companies want to change the regulation of how the internet works so they can control the flow of data that goes through their networks. This means that if you are in Washington and trying to access a website AT&T doesn’t like in New York, and your traffic happens to pass through one of their networks, AT&T will actually be able to restrict or block you from accessing that website. The plan these companies have is two fold. 1) Block users from accessing websites that are counter to their companies interests and 2) Charge websites to be on “proffered” lists that will allow their traffic to move through faster. This means that the mom and pop jewelry maker selling products on the internet that can’t afford the thousands of dollars a month all of these companies plan to charge will have access to their website be filtered, slowed or blocked all together. This also means that if you write a blog or share a file one of these companies doesn’t like they can simply prevent anyone from accessing it.
“But wait a minute, these companies own the hardware, they invested their money into it, shouldn’t they be able to use it as they see fit?” Being a conservative and a strong proponent of Laissez-faire I would normally be inclined to agree with that statement. However, in this case I do not. Let me draw an analogy for a moment to help you understand how the internet got to where it is today.
Let’s say the internet is like the “Relay for Life”. The Relay for Life is a non-profit gathering where people come together to raise awareness about cancer through a non-profit event. So, I and my friends get together and we decide we want to put on a Relay for Life at the local fairgrounds. We raise the money, come up with the plan and the infrastructure to put on the event. Some companies sponsor us, some people contribute their know-how and after a while the event kicks off. The event is extremely successful and hundreds of people attend every year. Then, a local restaurant approaches us and asks if they can sell food at the relay. We say “sure, no problem, all you have to do is contribute to the overall rent of the fairgrounds and you can sell whatever you want. Keep in mind though, this event is open to the public, everyone gets equal access to parking and seating!” The restaurant agrees and starts selling food every year. It is so successful for them that all kinds of stores and companies pop up to sell to the attendees of the event. Other non-profit groups see the event as a great way to get the word out so they join in too. Big companies start to show up and before you know it you have wal-mart booths next to free press booths, everyone enjoying the success of this new open marketplace of ideas and commerce. But, after a while there are too many people. The parking lot gets crowded, there is no seating, and everything is a mess. So the big companies, the ones with the money, hire on landscapers and contractors to expand the fairground so it can take all of the heavy traffic. All the while, everyone agrees to the conditions that no one has preference in the parking or the event space. Then, out of the blue, the big companies and construction companies decide “Hey, we can make more money if we force all of these small business people out of the event and get rid of all these non-profit groups.” So they decide that they are taking control of the event, and that their customers get preferred parking and small businesses/people that compete with their interests aren’t even allowed to attend. At the end of the day, everyone has forgotten that the event is the “Relay for Life”.
The same goes for the internet. The internet exists today as the intellectual property of thousands of developers and engineers that worked (in many cases for free) to set-up the concepts and the standards that the entire internet operates under. In essence, we (the collective developers and engineers that conceptualized the internet) are allowing these companies to expand on our idea to make money. Owning the wires does not mean they own the internet, and they have no right to take the internet away from the people. Allowing them to do so would be the greatest violation of civil liberties and free commerce to occur in modern times. And no, I do not think that is an exaggeration. With the internet, we have a chance to be truly free. Free to say what we want, free to make money, and free to be who we want to be.
You, every single one of you, can prevent this from happening. Call your local congressman, your governor, your senator. Write e-mails and letters to these companies protesting what they are doing. Trust me when I say our elected representatives are ignorant to the true impact of this. Educate them. They are being told by AT&T and Time Warner and all the others that ending net neutrality is a way to save the internet¡ convince them otherwise. For those of you with liberal representatives, convince your representatives this is an example of big business and “the man” coming down on the little man and big rich white men trying to hinder free speech. For those of you with conservative representatives, convince them that this restricts a free market and comes down on small business.
I seriously think that we can make a difference here; we just have to let our voice be heard. I first got on the internet when I was in 5th grade, and I knew right away that I wanted to be a part of it. Since then, I have spent 12 years studying and learning everything I can about it. It is my life’s passion. It represents everything I believe in, people working together to build a better future. Researchers are able to pool from millions of users to help find cures for diseases, law makers are able to coordinate massive searches for missing people in a matter of seconds, writers are able to share their literature with the whole world at next to no cost¡ the list goes on and on. We, the people, made the internet what it is today and we, the people, have the ability to save it.
Don’t let the internet die.
October 12th, 2007 03:15am
Administrator
I have been a Pirate Maddox fan for years now, but never has he ever blogged about something that I so completely agree with.
Its not that I hate Mac users, I really don’t. Some very attractive women have Macs, and very attractive women are fun to have sex with. Not only that, but gaming online eats up a lot of bandwidth at T-Mobile hotspots. Since 90% of the starbucks drinkers use Macs, I never have to compete with bandwidth because their MacBooks aren’t capable of doing anything that eat up real bandwidth. As long as there are Mac users in the world, Student loans will have a purpose and the unemployed will always have something to do.
read more | digg story
January 12th, 2007 08:03am
Administrator
I recently dugg an image on Digg.com (http://digg.com/general_sciences/Graph_Image_of_Nuclear_Weapons_Strengths) that showed the strengths of various nuclear weapons. I redrew that graph in photoshop, feel free to download the large format JPG here (http://www.leihai.com/bomb.jpg).
I thought it was worth re-drawing to iterate an important point. North Korea is weak and we should not fear them. When looking at this graph keep in mind that the underground test North Korea conducted was about 550 tons (or .55 kilotons) [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-test.htm].
January 4th, 2007 09:14am
Administrator
Illegal immigration is a problem, plain and simple. I could cite about a thousand reasons why, but instead I am going to cite two specific ways that illegal immigration has impacted me personally.
Several years ago, while living in Monterey California, my wife was pregnant and I was a nervous nineteen year old soon to be father. Our medical insurance referred us to a wonderful facility in Salinas known as the Natividad Medical Center.
Before I go any further, let me tell you a little bit about Salinas. According to the Census Bureau (census.gov), at the time Salinas had a population of 393,000 souls. The Census Bureau’s statistics are used for many things, among them helping to determine how to allocate State and Federal funds for various facilities (such as community Hospitals like Natividad). According to the same article, Salinas has 121,000 households. This means that there are a little over 3 people to every 1 household. Anyone who has spent time in Salinas, however, would confidently tell you that the average house holds a family of 5 or more members of the Latino persuasion. A quick glimpse at google maps (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=salinas&ie=UTF8&z=12&ll=36.686041,-121.654358&spn=0.120864,0.346069&om=1) would show you that the city and outlying areas has much more than 121,000 households. In fact, spend enough time there, and you would guess that the number of the population would be closer to 600,000. Why would observation and statistics differ so greatly? Because it is impossible for the Census Bureau to count how many illegal immigrants live in every legal house. So for every house hold with 3 legal residents, there could easily be 3 or more non-legal residents coming out of the wood works.
Back to Natividad… So, now we have a medical facility built to service a population of about half the size of what the actual population is. On top of that, illegal immigrants (because of low income work and a lack of ability to acquire legal health insurance) are much more likely to use public medical facilities. This raises the percent of population estimated to use such facilities.
We arrived (my wife and I) to our first pre-natal appointment to find a small waiting room with a line of close to 100 (mostly teen) expecting mothers waiting for the same thing. We were shuffled through a chain gain and brought into a room where an overworked burse took our information, took our vitals, and told us to come back if there were premature contractions.
“Who will our doctor be?” we asked, ignorantly.
“YOUR doctor?” the nurse said in a demeaning tone, “Whatever doctor happens to be here when you come in for complications or birth will handle any issue you might have.”
“How will you keep track of our baby’s progress?” we asked.
“If there are any complications, you can come in and we will see.”
Shortly after that, we began to speak with friends about their experiences at the hospital. One young mother had been “forgotten” for a day after she gave birth. No post-natal care was done during that 24 hour period, and as a result she has had several corrective surgeries to correct various problems. Another told us of how the suture operation was botched and she almost died of an infection in the weeks following the birth. After about a half dozen first hand stories, we decided to seek care elsewhere.
Fortunately, we were able to finagle our medical insurance (at nominal personal expense) to transfer us to a better hospital with (my word) a doctor who would track our baby’s progress. Not as many tax paying, law abiding citizens were so lucky.
So, in that case, we have a facility paid for with taxpayer money being abused and overrun by non-taxpayers. When it comes time for a citizen to cash in on the fruits of their taxes, they have already been picked clean by those “just here to find work”.
Page 2…. I was sitting at my computer the other day, and I get an e-mail from a credit reporting website I subscribe to saying “potentially negative information has been posted to your credit report.”
When I looked at this information, low and behold I apparently have a Victoria Secret account that has hundreds of dollars charged and is months past due. A little further inquiry and I found out that a woman by the name of Amelia Gutierrez had opened an account (using my social) in late 2005 in Las Angeles, California.
That is funny because (1) I am not a woman, (2) My name is not Amelia Gutierrez and (3) I was in Hawaii during that entire period.
Turns out that this woman was able to exploit a loop hole in World Financial Network National Bank’s credit application process allowing her to open a credit account with my social without them actually running a credit report to verify her identity. (as a side note, my fraud claim id was the day’s date plus the number 16. I had filed the claim at about 8am California time. “Does this number mean that I am the 16th fraud claim today?” I asked. “Yes, it appears it does.” The WFNB representative replied.)
Stolen Social Security number + Las Angeles + Amelia Gutierrez = illegal immigrant? I think so.
The long and short of it is, these people have already displayed disrespect for us and our laws by being here and working illegally. What makes people think they will stop at that? If they are so hard working and industrious, why don’t they try to put that effort into fixing their own countries?
Furthermore, they are using OUR money that we worked hard to earn to benefit their families and livelihood. This may seem noble, unless you have ever been in a position that requires you to use a public service you have paid for in taxes. Everything from schools to hospitals to public transportations to the prison system has been raped by the flood of illegal immigrants.
Not to mention the fact that 30% of our inmate population is comprised of illegal immigrants. That means that 30% of the people who are robbing you, murdering you and raping you are illegal immigrants (not to mention the money spent to keep them in prison).
This issue has nothing to do with Xenophobia. My entire family legally immigrated from Greece, Italy and Ireland. They all went to the effort to learn the language and assimilate legally into society. My wife’s entire family worked for 20 years from 1980-2000 to legally emigrate every member of their family from China. You think it is hard to legally emigrate from Mexico? Try adding a commnunist country and a $2000 plane ride to the equation.
Add to the mix the startling number of Middle-Eastern red-listed terrorists that have been caught coming in from Mexico, and the fact that illegal immigrants are starting to TAKE skilled labor jobs away from Americans (carpenters, plumbers, construction workers etc.) and you have a cut and dry conclusion. Illegal immigration is an evil thing that is ruining the very fabric of our society.
September 17th, 2006 09:08am
Administrator
An Examination of the Legality of the NSA’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program
By Stephen Curtis
Earlier this year it was leaked to the press that the National Security Agency was conducting wiretaps on United States persons without obtaining a warrant. The program was conducted under the name “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and sanctioned by President Bush himself. After the information was leaked to the press, the President assured the American public that the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” (also knowing as the “Domestic Eavesdropping Program”, the “Domestics Wiretapping Program” and the “Warrantless Wiretapping Program”) was completely legal and well within his authority as President. Although the Attorney General and certain members of congress were briefed on the program, the revelation of this program took most of congress and the American people by surprise. As soon as the news hit the stands it stirred up nation wide controversy, causing citizens and politicians to suggest things even as extreme as the President’s impeachment. The controversy of the program centered on its ethical violation of civil liberties and proposed illegality. This controversy recently culminated in a Circuit Court decision which declared the program to be unconstitutional. The volume of opposition to this program is all founded on one assertion, the program is illegal. Despite the volume of popular support for the assertion of illegality, is this assertion accurate? The legality of the NSA’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program” can best be determined by examining the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and US Code enacted by acts of Congress. When all factors are taken into consideration, there is a large amount of evidence to support President Bush’s assertion that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is legal.
Almost every major news organization and Democrat politician has asserted that the Terrorist Surveillance Program is completely illegal. The case for illegality is primarily based on sections of US Code 50 (also known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The current way the program is being conducted allows the president to use NSA intelligence collection assets to monitor American citizens without obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This allegedly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811, 1821-29, 1841-46, and 1861-62) which outlines the provisions for obtaining a warrant to use foreign intelligence assets (i.e. the NSA) to electronically survey US citizens (50 U.S.C. § 1804). Critics also argue that the program violates the illegal search and seizure clause in the fourth amendment to the constitution which very clearly protects the “…right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Many legal experts, such as John W. Whitehead and Steven H. Aden, use these two arguments to support the assertion that the fourth amendment itself “does not permit the use of warrantless wiretaps (even) in cases involving domestic threats to national security” (1108). If nothing but these facts were taken into consideration, the case for illegality would seem to be undeniable.
The most compelling and direct source of the President’s legal authority to conduct the Terrorist Surveillance Program without obtaining a warrant is the US Constitution. The President’s constitutional authority to gather intelligence comes from the President’s constitutional power to reserve any “judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers within or without this country.” (United States vs. United States District Court, 1972). This case’s reference to intelligence collection applies to the Terrorist Surveillance Program because it is limited to the collection of intelligence on foreign powers by only monitoring conversations between US persons and persons outside of the United States (Moschella, 7). There is nothing in the constitution which precludes the President from collecting foreign intelligence by way of domestic sources (i.e. a wiretap on a US Citizen). The presidential authority to collect foreign intelligence domestically was upheld in the case of United States vs. Brown (1973) by the majority opinion which asserted that “because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the US in the filed of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect the national security in the context of foreign affairs, the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.” Many critics have put forth the argument that because the 1973 decision was made before the passing of the FISA Act (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) it is not valid, however this is ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court makes it’s decision purely based on constitutionality, not on laws passed by congress. Furthermore, despite the fact that the US vs. Brown decision was passed before the FISA Act of 1978, the constitutional power it interprets cannot legally be removed by any act of congress. Several Supreme Court cases have upheld that Congress may not remove any power granted to the President by the constitution, including In Re Sealed Case 310. F. 3d (2002) which asserts that “the President has inherent constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence – authority Congress may not circumscribe”. This case clearly upholds that even if the FISA Act were to make the President’s actions illegal, this illegality is invalid because it removes a power granted to him by the constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the President’s authority to conduct warrantless domestic collection of foreign intelligence, coupled with the fact that this power cannot be removed by congress, clearly gives the President constitutional authority to conduct the warrantless wiretap program.
Constitutionality aside, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself has a caveat in it which allows for foreign intelligence collection agencies to conduct domestic collection without obtaining the warrant. US Code § 1802 states that “the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year”. Although there was no warrant acquired from the FISA Court to conduct the wiretaps, Attorney General’s approval was sought and given. It is not clear why the press has chosen to completely omit this section in the law during it’s reporting, but the nomenclature is very clear. If there were any confusion about the wording of that section of the FISA Act, the process of obtaining Attorney General approval for domestic intelligence collection is re-iterated in Executive Order 12333 Section 2.5 (1980) which states that “The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes”. This Executive Order was passed 26 years ago and was not challenged until the recent actions of the Bush Administration. In addition to the President seeking approval of the wiretaps before conducting them, he also sought the legal counsel of the Attorney General before the start of the program in order to ensure it’s legality. The fact that President Bush followed outlined provisions from US Code and Executive Order to conduct warrantless wiretaps, in addition to the fact that legal counsel was sought in advance, denotes a clear intent to conduct the program legally by the President himself. Even if the program were proven to be illegal, the President’s actions could never be because he was operating within established procedure and precedence.
The third argument that can be made for legality stems from Congress’s “Authorization for the use of Military Force” against Al-Qaeda. The “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (AUMF) passed by Congress Section 2(a) authorizes the President to “use all necessary… force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the [9/11] terrorist attacks.” This authorization, much like ones in the past, puts the President in similar executive position as previous Presidents during time of war. The Attorney General (in a letter to congress, 28 February 2006) asserts that this AUMF, authorizes the President to use “all necessary force” against Al-Qaeda includes the conducting of “foreign surveillance”. Furthermore, domestic surveillance can be triggered if an executive-branch official has reasonable grounds to believe that a communication involves a person “affiliated with al-Qaeda or part of an organization or group that is supportive of al-Qaeda.” (28 February, 2006). This assertion was reiterated in a Department of Justice memorandum which explains that the President was purposefully given broad authority to combat Al-Qaeda because of the nature and uniqueness of the threat (2). That authority can be used “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.” (3). The President was given broad authority to combat Al-Qaeda’s domestic threat, and part of that domestic threat includes Al-Qaeda’s domestic conduct. The only way to wage war against an enemy which operates on American soil is to use the tools of war on America soil. One of the most vital tools of waging war is intelligence surveillance.
Contemporary issues notwithstanding, history has provided precedence for conducting programs such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The war against Al-Qaeda is the first congressionally sanctioned war since World War II in which the United States is combating an enemy that has the capability of directly attacking the United States of America. The act of warrantless wiretapping itself has been engaged in by three previous US Presidents. Woodrow Wilson conducted wiretaps on all incoming wires from outside of the country during World War I under the guise of special “War Powers”. Franklin Roosevelt authorized a similar warrantless program during World War II, even after the Supreme Court had established the need to obtain a warrant for such actions in 1924. The “War Powers” President Bush is afforded to fight Al Qaeda should at least be considered partially as strong as those of Wilson and Franklin. This is not only because of the AUMF’s language, but also because Al Qaeda is the only foreign power to threaten US soil since World War II. More recently, President Richard Nixon conducted warrantless wiretaps outside of the declaration of war during the 1970s, citing his intelligence collection authority and nothing else as justification (Halperin, 2). These actions are consistent with the historical trend of Presidents taking on special powers, sometimes at the expense of civil liberties or outside of the scope of presidential authority, to combat temporary and unique threats. From Abraham Lincoln’s declaration of martial law to Roosevelt’s seizure of the steel industry (Fisher, 106), Presidents have exercised special powers specifically tailored to unique threats. These threats are not limited to security threats, and the expansion of power in the time of crisis is not limited to powers of war or violation of civil liberties. One especially compelling example of this was the expansion of the scope of Presidential power during the administrations of Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson to force state and local authorities to enforce anti-discrimination laws (Fisher, 107). Although this is often argued as being well outside of the scope of Presidential power, it was necessary to combat the uniqueness of the problem at hand. President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program is more regulated, smaller in scale and more within the scope of Presidential powers than the majority of “War Powers” exercised by his predecessors. Presidents have used “War Powers” and “Special Powers” to do things such as falsely imprison citizens, take power away from States, violate privacy and seize private companies for government use. It is clear that, from a historical standpoint, President Bush’s program falls well within the traditional scope of appropriate presidential power during times of national crisis. Furthermore, it pales in comparison to the actions taken by his predecessors in similarly grievous times of crisis.
Despite the evidence presented, the question of the programs legality is as of yet undetermined. Circuit Court Judge Taylor recently ruled the program was illegal in the case of ACLU vs NSA on the 4th of September, 2006. This decision, although suspended and not yet an established precedence, could be taken to show that there are still many questions remaining about the legality of the program. This is called into questions by many critics of the decision that have argued Judge Taylor failed to address the specific statues authorizing the President’s actions as well as established judicial precedence. The largest problem with the decision stems from it’s blatant failure to address the President’s constitutional intelligence gathering authority (Taylor, 2-3). The judge’s argument focuses on the ideological aspects of the fourth amendment, but fails to address the issue of powers afforded to the President specifically by the constitution. The decision will not be final until it is upheld or overturned by the Supreme Court in appeal, so for now the question of the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program is still up for debate.
In the end, the question of the Terrorist Surveillance Program’s legality is one that includes many long standing legal debates. These debates include how to interpret the Constitution, presidential power in times of war and subtleties in the nature of the balance of power between the three branches of government. The nature of presidential power during times of crisis is one of those often debated issue. There, however, may never be a definitive interpretation of the constitution which determines what the scope of the President’s special powers is during times of crisis. Despite the gray areas in issues such as War Powers and Authorization for use of Military force, the constitution and US Code are very clear. The President has the established constitutional authority to conduct this program. Not only that, the President clearly followed established statutes in the way he chose to conduct the program. Many quickly dispel the arguments of constitutional presidential power and presidential “War Powers” in a time of war by saying the nature of our nation’s understanding of the Constitution has changed. In response to those that would argue the nature of presidential power has changed over time, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales points out that even as recently as the Clinton administration this type of conduct was acceptable for a President, “During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994 that the President has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment” (2). President Bush conducted the terrorist program within the scope of his power as determined by the constitution, congressional acts, judicial rulings and historical precedence. Therefore, until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue, the Terrorist Surveillance Program will have to remain innocent until proven guilty.
Works Cited
“ACLU vs. NSA judgment.” Wikisource, The Free Library. 3 Sep 2006, 14:19 UTC. 4 Sep 2006, 09:35
Halperin, Morton H. “A Legal Analysis of the NSA Warrantless Surveillance Program” (17 Jan, 2006) Washington D.C.
United States Congress. “Authorization for Use of Military Force” Public law 107-40. (18 Sep 2001) Washington D.C.
Fisher, Louis. Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President University of Kansas Press (1991) Lawrence, Kansas
President Regan, Ronald W. “Executive Order 12333–United States intelligence activities” (December 4th, 1981) Washington D.C.
Whitehead, John W. “Forfeiting ‘ENDURING FREEDOM’ for ‘HOMELAND SECURITY’: A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act” American University Law Review 51 (2002): 1081-1153
U.S. Supreme Court. In Re Sealed Case, 310 F. 3d 717, 792 (2002) Washington D.C.
Department of Justice “Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President”. (19 Jan, 2006) Wasghinton D.C.
Moschella, William E. “Letter in Response to Questions From Chairman Sensenbrenner.” US Department of Justice (March 24, 2006) Washington D.C.
Gonzales, Alberto R. “Prepared Statement of Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States” US Department of Justice. (February 6, 2006) Washington D.C.
Gonzales, Alberto R. Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. CongressDaily (28 Feb, 2006) Washington, D.C.
Kozak, David C. and Ciboski, Kenneth N. The American Presidency Nelson Hall Inc. (1985) Chicago, Illinois
5th Circuit Court of Appeals. United States Vs. Brown, 484 F. 2d 418 (1973) New Orleans, Louisiana
U.S. Supreme Court. United States Vs. United States District Court (”Keith”), 407 U.S. 197, 308 (1972) Washington D.C.
U.S. Congress. “U.S. CODE TITLE 50 CHAPTER 36—FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE” (1978) Washington D.C.
