Bill Clinton in fatigues

“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S. Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday. Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

“MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime,” Noonan wrote in the memo, obtained by Secrecy News, a newsletter from the non-profit Federation of American Scientists in Washington.

Defense Department and Army regulations “allow collection about U.S. persons reasonably believed to be engaged, or about to engage, in international terrorist activities,” Noonan continued.

“Remember, merely receiving information does not constitute ‘collection’ under AR [Army Regulation] 381-10; collection entails receiving ‘for use,’ ” he added. (Army Regulation 381-10, “U.S. Army Intelligence Activities,” was reissued on Nov. 22, 2005, but had not previously been disclosed publicly.) “Army intelligence may always receive information, if only to determine its intelligence value and whether it can be collected, retained, or disseminated in accordance with governing policy,”

The distinction between “receiving” and “collecting” seems “to offer considerable leeway for domestic surveillance activities under the existing legal framework,” wrote editor Steven Aftergood in Tuesday’s edition of Secrecy News.

Oh, well, that’s okay then. There’s nothing like the creative use of a thesaurus to ensure national security and civil liberties. This sort of slow nibbling-away at limitations on central power isn’t going to end, indeed, the pace has quickened noticeably ever since George Delano came into power and there are no indications that it is going to slow down under any of his likely successors.

Mailvox: consider yourselves brainwashed

LL is back with a vengeance:

Like I care what your ass kissing, brainwashed cheerleaders think. You are the joke. I see you pick and choose which emails you post on your website. You don’t post the ones that reveal things about you that you don’t want people to know, but yo post emails of people that don’t know and don’t intend for them to be posted.

There is no joke on me. Knowing latin or greek or quoting from obscure books does not make you right. You are just a wise fool. You have knowledge (and you love to pat yourself on the back about in every sentence), but you have no wisdom

No matter how many misspellings or typos I have, that does not make me wrong and you right. You are wrong-about most things, and the more I see of your actions, writings and ideas, the more I am convinced that you are certainly no Christan. You are the one claiming to be a Christian. I never said I was, and I never said I wasn’

You would have done yourself a favor by not trying to make an example out of me You will be laughing out the other side of your ass now.

This latest missive certainly is amusing. I can’t help but wonder, though, if one finds it embarrassing to be quoted in public, is pouring more gasoline on the fire really the most reasonable response?

UPDATE: LL decides to get threatening in two subsequent emails.

You are the one pouring fuel of the fire. I couldn’t care less if I am quoted in public. You seem to be under the delusion your fan club is the world and you are God. You are the one that posts my emails. You don’t post emails with information about your past.

I am not a talker-I am a doer. Antone who knows me would tell you that it woud be better for you to not taunt me or laugh at me. I have my ways of making a point, and I have my ways of getting even.

Hey, you’re saying it, not me. Simply shutting your mouth is always an option, you know.

Not exactly a hard one

Veronique de Rugy answers her own question on NRO:

So which speech should we believe: The small-government or big-government speech? Do we believe the message of budget restraint from the White House or the calls for spending increases on the president’s favored programs? The track record does not leave much room for optimism. In the last five years, total spending has risen 40 percent — a figure larger than Clinton’s two terms combined. Moreover, real discretionary spending increases in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005 are 4 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.

The president may be a domestic disaster, but at least he’s bringing democracy to places like Iraq and Palestine. Because if Hamas and a new Shiite government doesn’t add up to a brave new world ahead, well, I don’t know what does.

Aren’t you excited that the Three Monkey’s Dear Leader harbors a desire to bring it to Zimbabwe as well now? It seems to be working so well in South Africa, after all.

The funny thing is that the ad headline on NRO said A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IS ESSENTIAL! For what, I ask. For what, exactly?