Category Archives: NSA

National Supermarket Association Florida Logo Guidelines

As a general rule, third parties may not use the National Supermarket Association (NSA) Florida (logo). On this page are the limited circumstances under which third parties may use the logo. The logo must always be used pursuant to the specifications on this page. Any use that falls outside of these specifications is strictly prohibited.

Third parties may only use the logo without a license only under the following circumstances:

The following guidelines must be followed for all use of the logo:

Any graphic elements may not be separated from the logotype.

To properly stage the logo, a minimum clearance between the logo and other elements must be maintained.

The logo may be resized depending on usage, however, when resized, logo may not be scaled down to a size where the text portion of the logo is not readable. Scaling must be proportionate and not cause any distortion.

The logo may not be used in a manner that would disparage the National Supermarket Association, NSA Florida or its services.

Logo usage in the ads:

Deadlines:

Deadline for all ads will be posted on our website (and updated here). Only ads submitted and approved before the deadline will be included in the magazine.

We recommend you submit your ad at least 14 days before our deadline to allow for any revisions to be applied if needed.

2015 DSD Trade Show Marketing Materials:

See the rest here:
National Supermarket Association | NSA Florida | Media

Mar 12-13 NSA Season Kick OffMarch 12-13 2016 / Salisbury / 4GG - $300.00Howard Edwards

Full with 5

lost field to college game

Mar 19-20 South Carolina Season OpenerMarch 19-20 2016 / 295 Complex Spartanburg / 6GG - $325.00Chuck Laney

Mar 19 March MadnessMarch 19-2016 / Statesville/Saratoma / 3GG - $235.00Howard Edwards

11 Diamond Crushers 12 Lady Rattlers 02 13 Piedmont Predators

FULL

Mar 26 Bunny Hop 1-dayMarch 26-2016 / Statesville / 3GG - $235.00Howard Edwards

Apr 2-3 Louisville Slugger World QualifierApril 2-3 2016 / Huntersville/Mooresville / 4GG - $300.00Chuck Laney

Apr 2-3 Swing into Spring April 2-3 2016 / Tyger River Spartanburg / 5GG - $300.00Howard Edwards

Apr 9-10 NSA Super Girl 10U-12UApril 9-10 2016 / Thomasville/East Davidsion complex / 4GG - $225.00Howard Edwards

Apr 9-10 NSA YETI TournamentApril 9-10 2016 / Locust / 4GG - $225.00Colt Butler

Apr 9-10 NSA Super Girl 14UApril 9-10 2016 / Statesville / 4GG - $225.00Howard Edwards

Apr 16-17 Spring Super BashApril 16-17 2016 / Salisbury/Mooresville/Cornelius / 4GG - $225.00Howard Edwards

View post:
NC NSA Softball - Who's Playing

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure.

Critics claim that the program was in an effort to attempt to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines despite campaign promises to end warrantless wiretapping.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[4]

All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency requires a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the President broad powers to fight a war against terrorism. The George W. Bush administration used these powers to bypass the FISA court and directed the NSA to spy directly on al-Qaeda in a new NSA electronic surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications that were purely domestic in nature.[5] This action was challenged by a number of groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.

The exact scope of the program remains secret, but the NSA was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's largest telecommunication companies' major interconnected locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic.[6] Critics said that such "domestic" intercepts required FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[7] The Bush administration maintained that the authorized intercepts were not domestic but rather foreign intelligence integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).[8] FISA makes it illegal to intentionally engage in electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act or to disclose or use information obtained by electronic surveillance under appearance of an official act knowing that it was not authorized by statute; this is punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or up to five years in prison, or both.[9] In addition, the Wiretap Act prohibits any person from illegally intercepting, disclosing, using or divulging phone calls or electronic communications; this is punishable with a fine or up to five years in prison, or both.[10]

After an article about the program, (which had been code-named Stellar Wind), was published in The New York Times on December 16, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed its existence.[11][12][13]The Times had posted the exclusive story on their website the night before, after learning that the Bush administration was considering seeking a Pentagon-Papers-style court injunction to block its publication.[14]Bill Keller, the newspaper's former executive editor, had withheld the story from publication since before the 2004 Presidential Election, and the story that was ultimately published was essentially the same as reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau had submitted in 2004. The delay drew criticism from some in the press, arguing that an earlier publication could have changed the election's outcome.[15] In a December 2008 interview with Newsweek, former Justice Department employee Thomas Tamm revealed himself to be the initial whistle-blower to The Times.[16] The FBI began investigating leaks about the program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.[17]

Gonzales said the program authorized warrantless intercepts where the government had "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda" and that one party to the conversation was "outside of the United States."[18] The revelation raised immediate concern among elected officials, civil right activists, legal scholars and the public at large about the legality and constitutionality of the program and the potential for abuse. Since then, the controversy has expanded to include the press' role in exposing a classified program, the role and responsibility of the US Congress in its executive oversight function and the scope and extent of presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution.[19]

In mid-August 2007, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in two lawsuits challenging the surveillance program. The appeals were the first to reach the court after dozens of civil suits against the government and telecommunications companies over NSA surveillance were consolidated last year before the chief judge of the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker. One of the cases is a class-action lawsuit against AT&T, focusing on allegations that the company provided the NSA with its customers' phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation. Plaintiffs in the second case are the al-Haramain Foundation Islamic charity and two of its lawyers.[20][21]

On November 16, 2007, the three judgesM. Margaret McKeown, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Harry Pregersonissued a 27-page ruling that the charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could not introduce a key piece of evidence in its case because it fell under the government's claim of state secrets, although the judges said that "In light of extensive government disclosures, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret."[22][23]

In an August 14, 2007, question-and-answer session with the El Paso Times which was published on August 22, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector helped the warrantless surveillance program. McConnell argued that the companies deserved immunity for their help: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies".[24] Plaintiffs in the AT&T suit subsequently filed a motion with the court to have McConnell's acknowledgement admitted as evidence in their case.[25]

The program may face an additional legal challenge in the appeal of two Albany, New York, men convicted of criminal charges in an FBI anti-terror sting operation. Their lawyers say they have evidence the men were the subjects of NSA electronic surveillance, which was used to obtain their convictions but not made public at trial or made available in response to discovery requests by defense counsel at that time.[26]

In an unusual related legal development, on October 13, 2007, The Washington Post reported that Joseph P. Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest Communications, is appealing an April 2007 conviction on 19 counts of insider trading by alleging that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal. According to court documents unsealed in Denver in early October as part of Nacchio's appeal, the NSA approached Qwest about participating in a warrantless surveillance program more than six months before the Sep 11, 2001, attacks which have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its efforts. Nacchio is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.[27] According to a lawsuit filed against other telecommunications companies for violating customer privacy, AT&T began preparing facilities for the NSA to monitor "phone call information and Internet traffic" seven months before 9/11.[28]

On August 17, 2007, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court said it would consider a request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union which asked the intelligence court to make public its recent, classified rulings on the scope of the government's wiretapping powers. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding judge of the FISC, signed an order calling the ACLU's motion "an unprecedented request that warrants further briefing."[29] The FISC ordered the government to respond on the issue by August 31, saying that anything involving classified material could be filed under court seal.[30][31] On the August 31 deadline, the National Security Division of the Justice Department filed a response in opposition to the ACLU's motion with the court.[32]

In previous developments, the case ACLU v. NSA was dismissed on July 6, 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[33] The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, its 65-page opinion declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case including academics, lawyers and journalists did not have the legal standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.[34] Detroit District Court judge Anna Diggs Taylor had originally ruled on August 17, 2006 that the program is illegal under FISA as well as unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments of the United States Constitution.[35][36][37]Judicial Watch, a watchdog group, discovered that at the time of the ruling Taylor "serves as a secretary and trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case."[38] On February 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, letting stand the earlier decision dismissing the case.[39]

On September 28, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (H.R. 5825).[40] That bill now has been passed to the U.S. Senate, where three competing, mutually exclusive, billsthe Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the DeWine bill), the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S.2455) (the Specter bill), and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006 (S.3001) (the Specter-Feinstein bill) were themselves referred for debate to the full Senate by the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 13, 2006.[41] Each of these bills would in some form broaden the statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, while still subjecting it to some restrictions. The Specter-Feinstein bill would extend the peacetime period for obtaining retroactive warrants to seven days and implement other changes to facilitate eavesdropping while maintaining FISA court oversight. The DeWine bill, the Specter bill, and the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act (passed by the House) would all authorize some limited forms or periods of warrantless electronic surveillance subject to additional programmatic oversight by either the FISC (Specter bill) or Congress (DeWine and Wilson bills).

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter that the program would not be reauthorized by the President.[2] "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," according to his letter.[42]

On September 18, 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an Internet-privacy advocacy group, filed a new lawsuit against the NSA, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other government agencies and individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless surveillance. They sued on behalf of AT&T customers to seek redress for what the EFF alleges to be an illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. An earlier, ongoing suit by the EFF may be bogged down by the recent changes to FISA provisions, but these are not expected to impact this new case.[43][44]

On January 23, 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama adopted the same position as his predecessor when it urged U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, et al.[45] The Obama administration also sided with the former administration in its legal defense of July 2008 legislation that immunized the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of complicity in the eavesdropping program, according to testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.[46]

On March 31, 2010, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, ruled that the National Security Agency's program of surveillance without warrants was illegal when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been "subjected to unlawful surveillance", the judge said the government was liable to pay them damages.[47]

In 2012, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment against the United States and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim against Mueller.[48]

The Trailblazer Project, an NSA IT project that began in 2000, has also been linked to warrantless surveillance. It was chosen over ThinThread, which had included some privacy protections. Three ex-NSA staffers, William Binney, J. Kirke Wiebe, and Ed Loomis, all of whom had quit NSA over concerns about the legality of the agency's activities, teamed with Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, to ask the Inspector General to investigate. A major source for the IG report was Thomas Andrews Drake, an ex-Air Force senior NSA official with an expertise in computers. Siobhan Gorman of The Baltimore Sun published a series of articles about Trailblazer in 20062007.

The FBI agents investigating the 2005 The New York Times story eventually made their way to The Baltimore Sun story, and then to Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Roark, and Drake. In 2007 armed FBI agents raided the houses of Roark, Binney, and Wiebe. Binney claimed they pointed guns at his head. Wiebe said it reminded him of the Soviet Union. None were charged with crimes except for Drake. In 2010 he was indicted under the Espionage Act of 1917, as part of Obama's unprecedented crackdown on leakers.[49][50] The charges against him were dropped in 2011 and he pled to a single misdemeanor.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulates U.S. government agencies' carrying out of physical searches, and electronic surveillance, wherein a significant purpose is the gathering of foreign intelligence information. "Foreign intelligence information" is defined in 50 U.S.C.1801 as information necessary to protect the U.S. or its allies against actual or potential attack from a foreign power, sabotage or international terrorism. FISA defines a "foreign power" as a foreign government or any faction(s) of a foreign government not substantially composed of US persons, or any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. FISA provides for both criminal and civil liability for intentional electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.

FISA provides two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant for the electronic cameras if "there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(3). Second, FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". 50 U.S.C. 1802(a)(1).[51]

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA (see 50 U.S.C.1802 50 U.S.C.1809 ). The complete details of the executive order are not known, but according to statements by the administration,[52] the authorization covers telephone calls originating overseas from or to a person suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US. The legality of surveillance involving US persons and extent of this authorization is at the core of this controversy which has steadily grown to include:

About a week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) which authorized the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The administration has argued that the language used in the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to exercise those powers "incident to the waging of war", including the collection of enemy intelligence, FISA provisions notwithstanding.[8]

On January 20, 2006, 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."[55][56] This non-binding resolution died in the Senate without being brought up for debate or being voted upon.[57]

Because of its highly classified status, little is publicly known about the actual implementation of the NSA domestic electronic surveillance program. Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit including limited technical details known to him personally in support of a class-action lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in federal district court in San Francisco in January 2006 on behalf of AT&T customers who alleged that they had been damaged by the telecommunications corporation's cooperation with the NSA. The lawsuit is called Hepting v. AT&T.[60][61]

A January 16, 2004 statement by Mr. Klein includes additional technical details regarding the secret 2003 construction of an NSA-operated monitoring facility in Room 641A of 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, the site of a large SBC phone building, three floors of which are occupied by AT&T.[62][63]

According to Klein's affidavit, the NSA-equipped room uses equipment built by Narus Corporation to intercept and analyze communications traffic, as well as perform data-mining functions.[64]

In an article appearing in the January/February 2008 issue of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers journal of Security and Privacy, noted technology experts from academia and the computing industry analyzed potential security risks posed by the NSA program, based on information contained in Klein's affidavits as well as those of expert witness J. Scott Marcus, a designer of large-scale IP-based data networks, former CTO at GTE Internetworking and at Genuity, and former senior advisor for Internet Technology at the US Federal Communications Commission.[65] They concluded that the likely architecture of the system created serious security risks, including the danger that such a surveillance system could be exploited by unauthorized users, criminally misused by trusted insiders, or abused by government agents.[66]

Journalist Barton Gellman reported in the Washington Post that David Addington who was at that time legal counsel to former Vice President Dick Cheney was the author of the controlling legal and technical documents for the NSA surveillance program, typing the documents on a TEMPEST-shielded computer across from his desk in room 268 of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and storing them in a vault in his office.[67][68][69]

The NSA surveillance controversy involves legal issues that fall into two broad disciplines: statutory interpretation and Constitutional law. Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to the facts of a given case. Constitutional law is the body of law that governs the interpretation of the United States Constitution and covers areas of law such as the relationship between the federal government and state governments, the rights of individuals, and other fundamental aspects of the application of government authority in the United States.[70]

However, there are analogies between the NSA Spying Scandal (20012007) and Hewlett-Packard spying scandal (2006)[71] that may ease to predict the court outcomes. HP, in order to find the leak source of its board strategic minutes revealed to press, employed several contractors to investigate the leak issue but without engaging any external legal firm and supervisory stakeholder. Contractors, under supervision of the HP's internal investigation team, confidentially used false pretense and social security numbers a spying technique namely Pretexting for obtaining phone records of suspicious board members and several journalists. Later on, the HP's surveillance extended beyond the board of directors leaking issue and became a conspiracy for interest of the probe initiators; through which it was claimed that the informational privacy rights of even innocent employees and directors of the board, who had nothing to do with the board leaks, were violated.

In October 2006, HP's chairwoman Patricia Dunn and HP's former chief ethics officer Kevin Hunsaker and several private investigators were charged for criminal cases under California Penal Code such as

All of these charges were dismissed.[72]

18 U.S.C.2511(2)(f) provides in relevant part that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C.1801(f) ... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted." The interpretation of this clause is central to the controversy because both sides agree that the NSA program operates outside of the procedural framework provided by FISA. The interpretive conflict arises because other provisions of FISA, including the criminal sanctions subpart 50 U.S.C.1809 include an "unless authorized by statute" provision, raising the issue of statutory ambiguity. The administration's position is that the AUMF is an authorizing statute which satisfies the FISA criteria.

The U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar issue in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where the government claimed that the AUMF authorized the President to detain U.S. citizens designated as an enemy combatant despite its lack of specific language to that intent and notwithstanding the provisions of 18 U.S.C.4001(a) which requires that the United States government cannot detain an American citizen except by an act of Congress. In that case, the Court ruled:

[B]ecause we conclude that the Government's second assertion ["that 4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained "pursuant to an Act of Congress" [the AUMF] is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals ... and that the AUMF satisfied 4001(a)'s requirement that a detention be "pursuant to an Act of Congress"

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld however, the court rejected the government's argument that the AUMF implicitly authorized the President to establish military commissions in violation of the UCMJ. The opinion of the Court held:

Neither of these congressional Acts, [AUMF or ATC] however, expands the President's authority to convene military commissions. First, while we assume that the AUMF activated the President's war powers, see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)) (plurality opinion), and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances, see id., at 518; Quirin, 317 U. S., at 2829; see also Yamashita, 327 U. S., at 11, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of the AUMF even hinting that Congress intended to expand or alter the authorization set forth in Article 21 of the UCMJ. Cf. Yerger, 8 Wall., at 105 ("Repeals by implication are not favored")

Determining when explicit congressional authorization is and is not required appears by this decision to require a court to first determine whether an implicit authorization would amount to a "repeal by implication" of the governing Act.

The exclusivity clause also raises a separation of powers issue. (See Constitutional law issues below)

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

Common to both of these views is the argument that the participation of "US persons" as defined in FISA 50 U.S.C.1801 renders the objectional intercepts "domestic" in nature.[73] Those advocating the "no constitutional issue" position, argue that Congress has the authority it needs to legislate in this area under Article I and the Fourth Amendment[74] while those who see a constitutional conflict[75] acknowledge that the existing delineation between Congressional and Executive authority in this area is not clear[76] but that Congress, in including the exclusivity clause in FISA, meant to carve out a legitimate role for itself in this arena.

The administration holds that an exception to the normal warrant requirements exists when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent attack from a foreign threat. Such an exception has been upheld at the Circuit Court level when the target was a foreign agent residing abroad,[77][78] a foreign agent residing in the US,[79][80][81][82] and a US citizen abroad.[83] The warrantless exception was struck down when both the target and the threat was deemed domestic.[84] The legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country has not been addressed by the US Supreme Court, but has occurred at least once, in the case of Aldrich Ames.[85]

The Administration's position with regard to statutory interpretation, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is to avoid what it has termed the "difficult Constitutional questions" by

This argument, as outlined in the DOJ whitepaper, is based on the language of the AUMF, specifically, the acknowledgment of the President's Constitutional authority contained in the preamble; "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States", and the language in the resolution itself;

[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The administration also adds that the program is legal under Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act entitled Enhanced Surveillance Procedures,[citation needed] although it is not relying upon the domestic law enforcement provisions of the PATRIOT Act for authorization of any of the NSA program activities.[citation needed] The President had said prior to this, that Americans' civil liberties were being protected and that purely domestic wiretapping was being conducted pursuant to warrants under applicable law, including the Patriot Act.[87]

These arguments must be compared to the language of the FISA itself, which states:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.[88]

Because the law only authorizes the President to bypass the FISA court during the first 15 days of a war declared by Congress (see "Declaration of war"), the administration's argument rests on the assumption that the AUMF gave the President more power than was understood as absolutely implicit in any Congressional "declaration of war" at the time of the statute's enactment. However, as a "declaration of war by the Congress" encompasses all military actions so declared, no matter how small, brief or otherwise constrained by Congress, the above citation could be seen as setting not a default or typical level of Presidential wartime authority, but instead a presumptive minimum, which might more often than not be extended (explicitly or implicitly) by Congress's war declaration.

According to Peter J. Wallison, former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan: "It is true, of course, that a president's failure to report to Congress when he is required to do so by law is a serious matter, but in reality the reporting requirement was a technicality that a President could not be expected to know about."[89] In regard to this program, a Gang of Eight (eight key members of Congress, thirteen in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional Sessions) have been kept informed to some degree:

Under the National Security Act of 1947, 501503, codified as 50 USC 413-413b,[90] the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed of U.S. intelligence activities, "consistent with ... protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." For covert actions, from which intelligence gathering activities are specifically excluded in 413b(e)(1), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the so-called "Gang of Eight".[91]

The administration contends that with regard to the NSA surveillance program, the administration fulfilled its notification obligations by briefing key members of Congress (thirteen individuals in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional sessions) have been briefed on the NSA program more than a dozen times[citation needed] but they were forbidden from sharing information about the program with other members or staff.[citation needed]

On January 18, 2006 the Congressional Research Service released a report, "Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions".[92][93] That report found that "[b]ased upon publicly reported descriptions of the program, the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall more closely under the definition of an intelligence collection program, rather than qualify as a covert action program as defined by statute", and, therefore, concluded there was no specific statutory basis for limiting briefings on the terrorist surveillance program to the Gang of Eight.[94] However, the report goes on to note in its concluding paragraph that limited disclosure is also permitted under the statute "in order to protect intelligence sources and methods".[95]

Thus, although the specific statutory "Gang of Eight" notification procedure for covert action would not seem to apply to the NSA program, it is not clear if a limited notification procedure intended to protect sources and methods is expressly prohibited. Additionally, should the sources and methods exception apply it will require a factual determination as to whether it should apply to disclosure of the program itself or only to specific sensitive aspects.

The constitutional debate surrounding executive authorization of warrantless surveillance is principally about separation of powers ("checks and balances"). If, as discussed above, no "fair reading" of FISA can be found in satisfaction of the canon of avoidance, these issues will have to be decided at the appellate level, by United States courts of appeals. It should be noted that in such a separation of powers dispute, the burden of proof is placed upon the Congress to establish its supremacy in the matter: the Executive branch enjoys the presumption of authority until an Appellate Court rules against it.[citation needed]

Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The U.S. Supreme Court has used the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I to affirm broad Congressional authority to legislate as it sees fit in the domestic arena[citation needed] but has limited its application in the arena of foreign affairs. In the landmark Curtiss-Wright decision, Justice Sutherland writes in his opinion of the Court:

The ["powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs"] are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature. The broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.

Article II vests the President with power as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and requires that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

The U.S. Supreme Court has historically used Article II to justify wide deference to the President in the arena of foreign affairs.[citation needed] Two historical and recent Supreme Court cases define the secret wiretapping by the NSA. Quoting again from the Curtiss-Wright decision:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relationsa power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

The extent of the President's power as Commander-in-Chief has never been fully defined, but two U.S. Supreme Court cases are considered seminal in this area:[96][97]Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer and Curtiss-Wright.

In addition, two relatively new cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, have clarified, and in the case of Hamdan limited, the scope of executive power to detain and try suspected terrorists as enemy combatants.

In Hamdan, the Court's opinion in footnote 23, rejected the notion that Congress is impotent to regulate the exercise of executive war powers:

Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise.

Whether "proper exercise" of Congressional war powers includes authority to regulate the gathering of foreign intelligence, which in other rulings[citation needed] has been recognized as "fundamentally incident to the waging of war", is a historical point of contention between the Executive and Legislative branches.[8][98]

As noted in "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information", published by The Congressional Research Service:

A review of the history of intelligence collection and its regulation by Congress suggests that the two political branches have never quite achieved a meeting of the minds regarding their respective powers. Presidents have long contended that the ability to conduct surveillance for intelligence purposes is a purely executive function, and have tended to make broad assertions of authority while resisting efforts on the part of Congress or the courts to impose restrictions. Congress has asserted itself with respect to domestic surveillance, but has largely left matters involving overseas surveillance to executive self-regulation, subject to congressional oversight and willingness to provide funds.

The same report makes clear the Congressional view that intelligence gathered within the U.S. and where "one party is a U.S. person" qualifies as domestic in nature and as such completely within their purview to regulate, and further that Congress may "tailor the President's use of an inherent constitutional power":

The passage of FISA and the inclusion of such exclusivity language reflects Congress's view of its authority to cabin the President's use of any inherent constitutional authority with respect to warrantless electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence.

The Senate Judiciary Committee articulated its view with respect to congressional power to tailor the President's use of an inherent constitutional power:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and helps guard against "unreasonable" searches and seizures by agents of the government. It is solely a right of the people that neither the Executive nor Legislative branch can lawfully abrogate, not even if acting in concert: no statute can make an unreasonable search reasonable, nor a reasonable search unreasonable.

The term "unreasonable" is deliberately imprecise but connotes the sense that there is a rational basis for the search and that it is not an excessive imposition upon the individual given the motivation for and circumstances of the search, and is in accordance with customary societal norms. It is conceived that a judge will be sufficiently distanced from the authorities seeking a warrant that they can render an impartial decision unaffected by any prejudices or improper motivations they (or the legislators who enacted a law they are seeking to enforce) may harbor.

An individual who believes their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by an unreasonable search or seizure may file a civil suit for monetary compensation and seek a court-ordered end to a pattern or practice of such unlawful activities by government authorities, although the plaintiff will need to have evidence that such a wiretap is taking place in order to show standing (Amnesty International v. Clapper). Such civil rights violations are sometimes punishable by state or federal law. Evidence obtained in an unlawful search or seizure is generally inadmissible in a criminal trial.

The law countenances searches without warrant as "reasonable" in numerous circumstances, among them (see below): the persons, property, and papers of individuals crossing the border of the United States and those of paroled felons; in prisons, public schools and government offices; and of international mail. Although these are undertaken as a result of statute or Executive order, they should not be seen as deriving their legitimacy from these, rather, the Fourth Amendment explicitly allows reasonable searches, and the government has instituted some of these as public policy.

The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations within the United States constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must generally obtain a warrant before undertaking such domestic recordings.

The Supreme Court has also held in Smith v Maryland (1979) that citizens have no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the business records (sometimes termed metadata) of their communications. This means that the court can subpoena data such as the numbers that an individual has phoned, when and, to a limited degree, where (subject to Jones v. United States) the phone conversation occurred, although a full judicial warrant would be required for the government to acquire or admit audio content from the telephone call. Under Section 215 of the PATRIOT act, the FBI can subpoena some or all such records from a business record holder using a warrant applied for in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The protection of "private conversations" has been held to apply only to conversations where the participants have not only manifested a desire but also a reasonable expectation that their conversation is indeed private and that no other party is listening in. In the absence of such a reasonable expectation, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and surveillance without warrant does not violate it. Privacy is clearly not a reasonable expectation in communications to persons in the many countries whose governments openly intercept electronic communications, and is of dubious reasonability in countries against which the United States is waging war.

The law also recognizes a distinction between domestic surveillance taking place within U.S. borders and foreign surveillance of non-U.S. persons either in the U.S. or abroad.[99] In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution does not extend protection to non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States, so no warrant would be required to engage in even physical searches of non-U.S. citizens abroad.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of warrantless searches targeting foreign powers or their agents within the US. There have been, however, a number of Circuit Court rulings upholding the constitutionality of such warrantless searches.[100] In United States v. Bin Laden, the Second Circuit noted that "no court, prior to FISA, that was faced with the choice, imposed a warrant requirement for foreign intelligence searches undertaken within the United States."[101] Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in his written response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee explained that in the administration's view, this unanimity of pre-FISA Circuit Court decisions vindicates their argument that warrantless foreign-intelligence surveillance authority existed prior to FISA and since, as these ruling indicate, that authority derives from the Executive's inherent Article II powers, they may not be encroached by statute.[102] In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an opinion (In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001) which seems to echo that view. They too noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was constitutional power for the president to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. Furthermore, based on these rulings it "took for granted such power exits" and ruled that under this presumption, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." Professor Orin Kerr argues in rebuttal that the part of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding obiter dicta and that the argument does not restrict Congress's power to regulate the executive in general.[103]

Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, Suzanne Spaulding, former general counsel for the Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate, and former Counsel to the President John Dean, contend that FISA clearly makes the wiretapping illegal and subject to the criminal penalties of FISA,[104] (in seeming disagreement with the FISA Court of Review finding above) and that the president's own admissions already constitute sufficient evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment, without requiring further factual evidence. Professor John C. Eastman, in his analysis, prepared at the behest of the House Judiciary Committee, comparing the CRS and DOJ reports, concluded instead that under the Constitution and ratified by both historical and Supreme Court precedent, "the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in time of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies. Moreover, it should go without saying that such activities are a fundamental incident of war."[105]

Orin S. Kerr, associate professor of law at The George Washington University Law School[106] and a leading scholar in the subjects of computer crime law and internet surveillance,[107] points to an analogy between the NSA intercepts and searches allowed by the Fourth Amendment under the border search exception.

The border search exception permits searches at the border of the United States "or its functional equivalent." (United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985)). The idea here is that the United States as a sovereign nation has a right to inspect stuff entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests, and that the Fourth Amendment permits such searches. Courts have applied the border search exception in cases of PCs and computer hard drives; if you bring a computer into or out of the United States, the government can search your computer for contraband or other prohibited items at the airport or wherever you are entering or leaving the country. See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (Wilkinson, J.)...At the same time, I don't know of a rationale in the case law for treating data differently than physical storage devices. The case law on the border search exception is phrased in pretty broad language, so it seems at least plausible that a border search exception could apply to monitoring at an ISP or telephone provider as the "functional equivalent of the border," much like airports are the functional equivalent of the border in the case of international airline travel...the most persuasive case on point: United States v. Ramsey, [held] that the border search exception applies to all international postal mail, permitting all international postal mail to be searched.

Evidence gathered without warrant may raise significant Fourth Amendment issues which could preclude its use in a criminal trial. As a general rule of law, evidence obtained improperly without lawful authority, may not be used in a criminal prosecution.[citation needed] The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the constitutionality of warrantless searches (which has been broadly defined by the court to include surveillance) targeting foreign powers or their agents, the admissibility of such evidence in a criminal trial nor whether it is permissible to obtain or use evidence gathered without warrant against US persons acting as agents of a foreign power.[citation needed]

The National Security Act of 1947[108] requires Presidential findings for covert acts. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) (5) of that act states: "A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States."

On August 17, 2006, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unconstitutional under the Fourth and First Amendments and enjoined the NSA from using the program to conduct electronic surveillance "in contravention of [FISA or Title III]".[36] In her ruling,[109] she wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.

Even some legal experts who agreed with the outcome have criticized the reasoning set forth in the opinion.[110] Others have argued that the perceived flaws in the opinion in fact reflect the Department of Justice's refusal to argue the legal merits of the program (they chose to focus solely on arguments about standing and state secrets grounds).[111]

On October 4, 2006, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously ruled that the government can continue the program while it appeals the lower court decision.[112][113]

On July 6, 2007 the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs had no standing.

The Court found that:[114]

[T]he plaintiffs do not and because of the State Secrets Doctrine cannot produce any evidence that any of their own communications have ever been intercepted by the NSA, under the TSP, or without warrants. Instead, they assert a mere belief, which they contend is reasonable and which they label a well founded belief,...

Implicit in each of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries is the underlying possibility which the plaintiffs label a "well founded belief" and seek to treat as a probability or even a certainty that the NSA is presently intercepting, or will eventually intercept, communications to or from one or more of these particular plaintiffs, and that such interception would be detrimental to the plaintiffs' clients, sources, or overseas contacts. This is the premise upon which the plaintiffs' entire theory is built.

But even though the plaintiffs' beliefs based on their superior knowledge of their contacts' activities may be reasonable, the alternative possibility remains that the NSA might not be intercepting, and might never actually intercept, any communication by any of the plaintiffs named in this lawsuit.

Corporate secrecy is also an issue. Wired reported: In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."[115] However, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker stated, during the September 12, 2008 hearing in the class-action lawsuit filed by the EFF, that the Klein evidence could be presented in court, effectively ruling that AT&T's trade secret and security claims were unfounded.

The majority of legal arguments supporting the NSA warrantless surveillance program have been based on the War Powers Resolution. There have not been any other noteworthy types of supporting legal arguments. The War Powers Resolution has been questioned as unconstitutional since its creation, and its adaptation to the NSA warrantless surveillance program has been questionable.

Go here to see the original:
NSA warrantless surveillance (200107) - Wikipedia, the free ...

NSA fun tonight!!! (Phoenixville, 19460, PA , Delaware Valley) I'm smart thick and pretty and I wanna have fun tonight with any hot guy who can treat me like the lady I am!! I'm 24 ur age and race isn't important erotic services bring a friend if you like the earlier the better cause I can host! P2P is a must. So let's goooo

Sexy legs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Phoenixville, Pennsylvania , Delaware Valley) Friends complain me to be soft, small., with kinda thin legs, but my ass has meat. Now, I wana be voted. And want to show them that even if I'm chicken legs I know guys would want me. Mail me fast, if erotic services want me.

need sex and fun (19460, PA, Chester County) i m looking fro someone again for may be a one night stand or something more if its a good experience. sex classified ads do it

Freaky DSexy bbw looking for a man to keep up! (19460, Phoenixville, PA, Chester County) I am a very attractive very clean plus size woman looking for a regular fwb. not into looking for sex if you are married thats fine but if the only free time u have is few and far between, dont bother! prefer white only. just my preference, 28-40. you host. m

complication faults. sdotrdwm tyrahzuqnq (19460, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania) ***Saxophone playing some jazzy music, backed only by a piano and drums, in the shadows of a dive down on the docks. Looks and feels like something from a Mickey Spillane novel. erotic services sits at a table, wearing nothing but a trench coat and hat tipped to

Okay, babe, you can have any hole you want. (19460, Phoenixville, PA) hi.. I am looking for someone who satisfy me whole night , free classified ad sites pleasure & meet up my sex , suck my body as well

Someone come play with me (Phoenixville, Pennsylvania , Delaware Valley) I'm bored, and looking for someone who is up late like me, and looks just as good as me. lets play !!! i'll adult service ads you a picture when you send me yours...

Let's go on a date (Phoenixville, 19460 , Chester County) I have a wild sexual fantasy which I would love to try in real life. I am looking for a daring guy to help me out. Hit me back with a message erotic services you are interested.

View original post here:
erotic services Phoenixville, PA, 19460

Wilmington University is a private, non-profit doctoral research institution[5][6] located in New Castle, Delaware, United States.

As of 2016, the university serves a total student body of 20,522 undergraduate and postgraduate students in nearly 100 degree and certificate programs. The university's programs are offered at its main campus in historic New Castle as well as at six additional campuses in Delaware, several partnership locations in New Jersey, and a single partnership location in northeastern Maryland.[7]

Wilmington University was founded just outside historic New Castle, Delaware, in 1968 by Dr. Donald E. Ross, who served as the institution's president until 1977.[8] The school began with a charter class of 194 students in 1968; between 1979 and 2006, the university grew to more than 10,000 students under the leadership of president Dr. Audrey K. Doberstein. Doberstein was inducted into the Hall of Fame of Delaware Women in 2011 in recognition of her contributions to Wilmington University and the community.[9] The university now offers graduate and doctoral degrees, and serves more than 20,000[3] students enrolled annually in online and on-campus classes[10] at campuses in three states.

Founded as Wilmington College, the institution officially became Wilmington University on September 10, 2007, after the approval of the Board of Trustees and the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. The name was changed to reflect the emphasis on undergraduate and postgraduate degree programs.[3]

Wilmington University offers nearly 100 degree and certificate programs across its seven academic colleges and 14 campus locations throughout Delaware, New Jersey, and Maryland, as well as dozens of academic minors and concentrations that specialize its degree offerings.

USNWR Online Programs Rankings[13]

Forbes Lists[14]

Specializing in a traditional, liberal arts education, the College of Arts & Sciences features undergraduate programs in liberal studies and communication, with minors in art, drama, history, mathematics, and natural science. The college offers an Associate of Arts degree program as well as a traditional, four-year course of study in these fields.[15]

Accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) in 2007,[16] the College of Education is one of the largest academic colleges at Wilmington University and offers teacher preparation programs that range from elementary education to specialized secondary education fields, school leadership, innovation, and much more.[17] At any given time, there are more than 1,000 Wilmington University education students performing supervized field work, such as student teaching instruction, throughout Delaware and the wider Philadelphia metropolitan area.[18]

The College of Business, accredited by the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education,[19] offers 10 undergraduate, 4 graduate, and 1 doctoral program in fields like business administration, accounting, finance, economics, marketing, and analytics. Certificate programs, as well as six concentrations, are also offered.[20] The College of business maintains an active chapter of the Sigma Beta Delta international honor society for students in business, management, and administration programs.

The College of Health Professions is unique among universities in the region, in that its undergraduate programs are offered only as "completion" programs for students who have already attended a two-year nursing program and become a Registered Nurse. The college, which has full accreditation by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) for its undergraduate and graduate programs, enrolled its first class of RN-to-BSN students in 1986. In 1993, the unviersity approved the addition of a Master of Science in Nursing program, which today features three distinct concentrations that fit students' unique needs. In 2005, an undergraduate completion program in Allied Health was approved, giving students access to one of the fastest-growing academic and professional practice areas in the health professions.[22] The College of Health Professions also offers a Doctor of Nursing Practice program.[23]

With degree programs ranging from political science and legal studies to clinical mental health counseling and organizational dynamics, the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences is one of the largest colleges at Wilmington University. Many programs offered by the college are professionally accredited; the Bachelor of Science program in legal studies has been approved by the American Bar Association (ABA), while the college's graduate program in clinical mental health counseling has achieved accreditation by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).[24] Students in the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences often participate in the CAP co-op program, which offers academic credit in exchange for a semester-long internship relevant to the student's course of study.

The College of Technology was awarded in 2011 by the National Security Agency as a National Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education (CAE/IAE).[25] The CAE/IAE designation from the NSA applies to the College of Technology undergraduate Computer and Network Security degree program and the Information Systems Technologies, Information Assurance graduate program.[26]

The College of Online and Experiential Learning houses all of Wilmington University's more than 95 online degree programs, concentrations, and certificates.[27] The college serves 41 percent of the student body, as of 2016, with distance education programs in business, education, technology, and many other fields.[7] Online programs at Wilmington University have received recognition from several major publications. U.S. News and World Report ranks the online program 161st nationally, while a more comprehensive study of online degree programs in 2015 ranked Wilmington University 10th in the nation.[28]

The main campus of Wilmington University is located along U.S. Route 13, just outside historic New Castle, Delaware. The main campus hosts more than 80 degree programs at the undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral levels. The main campus in New Castle is also home to the Wilson Graduate Center, where all of the university's graduate and doctoral degree programs are housed. In addition to classroom facilities, the main campus in New Castle features the Pratt Student center, opened in 2013 after an extensive renovation of a former university gymnasium.

Wilmington University's athletic teams are known as the Wildcats, and are represented by the school's mascot, named "Wiley D. Wildcat." The university's teams compete in NCAA Division II and the Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference for all sports.

Athletic teams at the university are served by the Wilmington University Athletic Complex in Bear, Delaware.[29] Opened in 2013, this sports complex includes outdoor fields as well as an indoor, multi-purpose playing court for basketball and volleyball. The complex provides athletic facilities and a home field to the men's and women's basketball and soccer teams as well as the women's lacrosse and volleyball teams.

The university's present mascot was unveiled in 2009. Following the announcement of the school's new mascot, the university involved students and faculty in a popular poll to suggest and choose a name for this new addition to Wilmington University's athletic presence. In late 2009, it was announced that the name "Wiley D. Wildcat," suggested by one of the students of Wilmington University, had won the poll and would become the mascot's official name.[30] In addition to the mascot's presence at most NCAA Division II athletic events, the Wildcat mascot has become an instrumental part of the university's national-champion cheerleading team.

The university's men's baseball team was named NCAA Division II East Regional champions in 2015 after a historic season.[31] Additionally, the men's golf team earned an NCAA Division II Atlantic/East Super Regional title in both 2012 and 2015.[32]

In addition to its NCAA Division II men's and women's athletic teams, Wilmington University is also home to a successful, co-ed cheerleading team. The university's cheerleading team was named the Universal Cheerleading Association's national champions for five consecutive years between 2012 and 2016.[33][34]

View original post here:
Wilmington University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the National Security Agency's (NSA's) Business Registry, sponsored by the Acquisition Resource Center (ARC). We have established this service so that vendors can register for possible future business opportunities with NSA and other Intelligence Community Agencies (IC). We encourage you to tell us about your organization and its capabilities so we can contact you for any future acquisition that would suit your products and services. Please do not submit any information that you consider proprietary, as the government currently will not protect information so provided. By registering in this database, you will receive notification of specific NSA/IC acquisition efforts, Broad Area Announcements (BAA) and Requests for Information (RFI). This Web-based tool is the front door for business opportunities with NSA and the IC. We look forward to learning more about your business.

The information contained in the ARC Business Registry is intended solely to advise the government, cleared vendors, and prospective vendors of the possible sources of supplies and services to be acquired by NSA/IC and to establish a single database for the dissemination to vendors of certain current and future NSA/IC acquisition information. Any government generated e-mails or internet announcements may simply advise a vendor to visit the ARC located in Hanover, Maryland or to contact the Agency concerning a particular unclassified acquisition. The messages will all have a return address of nsaarc@nsaarc.net, where more details related to the announcement will be available.

Click here to visit ARCnet with a valid PKI certificate.

Click here to visit ARCnet without a PKI certificate.

Original post:
NSA ARC Business Registration

Welcome to Naval Support Activity Annapolis! NSA Annapolis is located across the Severn River from the US Naval Academy and is charged with delivering base operating support services to tenant commands. These include the United States Naval Academy, North Severn complex, Chesapeake Bay Detachment in Randle Cliff, MD, and Navy Operational Support Center in Baltimore, MD. NSA Annapolis includes over 1,500 acres and more than 400 buildings.

The Fleet & Family Readiness (FFR)Programs at NSA Annapolis can help you make the most of your visit or choice of relocation in the Annapolis area. Whether you're here for just a short time or more permanently, we know you'll enjoy working and recreating in this beautiful area. FFR facilities are here for use by active duty, retired military, active reservists, current and retired Department of Defense civilian employees (Civil Service and non-appropriated), active duty Coast Guard, family members in all of these categories, Midshipmen at the Naval Academy and USNA DoD contractors. We hope you'll visit our facilities and take advantage of the many and varied activities and services we offer. FFR programs include Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR), Child and Youth Programs, Fleet and Family Support Program, Family and Bachelor Housing, and Navy Gateway Inns and Suites. We hope that you will become active in our FFR programs at NSA Annapolis. The staff at our facilities welcome you!

See the rest here:
NSA Annapolis

May 4th, 2012, by admin

Welcome to Kentucky NSA!

Kentucky NSA tournament brackets and information will be posted below this year. Draws will occur on the Tuesday proceeding the tournament start date and brackets will be posted no later than Wednesday evening.

Additional tournament information such as hotel information, team check in times and procedures and managers meetings will be posted here as well. Please be sure and check this drop down for your tournament before heading to the park!

All tournament results will be posted at http://www.playnsa.com under the Tournaments button.

TOURNAMENT UPDATES:

Good luck to all teams! Thanks for playing!

REMINDER: If you drop out of a tournament after the draw is completed, you are still responsible for full payment of the tournament entry fee. Failure to pay this fee may result in the team being suspended until paid.

BRACKETS AND PACKETS

ADULTS Brackets

GIRLS FAST PITCH Brackets

WORLD SERIES Brackets Packets

Categories: Uncategorized

The rest is here:
Tournament Information and Brackets Kentucky NSA Softball

The following levels of play will be instituted for the men's slow pitch program

Elite - Gold - Silver - Bronze

THE APPEAL PROCESS IS THE SAME as in the past -AND- The National Classification Committeeis still reviewing all appeals.

DEADLINE to APPEAL Upgrade is MAY 1st!See - How to AppealAPPEAL FORMS: Click button forAPPEAL FORM - EXCEL to SAVE the Appeal Form to your computer tobe able to type in the information and then email to your State Director- USE Excel Format. -OR- Use thePDF VERSION of the APPEAL FORM to PRINT & WRITE IN to Mail or Fax for a listing of Upgraded teams select Link on Left

This list may change at any time due to State Directors or Zone VP's Reclassifying the Teams. The bylaws for reclassification may change at this years convention and may affect the teams UPGRADED (moved up) for the following year.

NSA National UPGRADE Rules for2015

The entire roster of the Super World Champions for Mens GOLD - SILVER - BRONZE must ALLbe UPGRADED (moved up) in classification. Individual Players from the Super World Champions MUST play UP in Class the following year.No matter if they have 5 or more players returning. If your team WON the Super World Series and are moved UP in CLASS, ALL Individual players MUST move up, you cannot stay the same class thefollowing year.

Players from a Mens "GOLD or Mens "SILVER MOVE UP team (Mandatory or with Appeal) CAN NOT move down in classification the following year.

ALL PLAYERS on a Mens "GOLD or "SILVER Upgraded team -MANDATORY or WITH APPEAL can move up with their team at least one (1) Classification OR- if leaving the teamMUST REMAIN AT THEIR CURRENT LEVEL of CLASSIFICATION.Individual Players from a Mens Gold or Silver UPGRADED team can ONLY participate atthe SAME or HIGHERClass for the following year.Players on an UPGRADED TEAM on the Upgrade list from Men's "Gold" or "Silver" CANNOT move downin Class the following year!If your team participated in "Gold and is upgraded to "Elite next year (with or without an appeal),Individual Players from this team Can ONLY participate in the "Gold or Higher Class programs next year.

Players from a Mens "Bronze Mandatory Upgrade team must have the entire roster moved to "Silver AND must participate at the "Silver level for a minimum of one year before they can appeal to the classification committee to be down graded back to class "Bronze.

TEAMS on a MANDATORY Upgrade with NO APPEALmust move up at least one (1) classification.Note: If they have 5 or more returning players or any combination of 5 players from upgraded teams from the preceding years rosters. The coachs name should also be included on the roster.Note:If you have LESS than 5 players returning or combination of 5 upgraded players,you stillMUST APPEAL in writing to be allowed to STAY in the same classification.SeeHow to Appeal Important Notes: Players and/or teams not participating in the NSA program for one (1) or more seasons willretain the Classification they were upgraded to prior to taking an absence from theNational Softball Association.

Teams that are a mandatory UPGRADE must play in a Qualifier,STATEandeither the Super Regional or World Series in order to be eligible to appeal their classification the following year. Failure to do all of the three validations will result in the team being ineligibleto appeal their UPGRADE.Teams not qualifying for the Super Regional or World Series can appeal to the classification committee.

Players are LIMITED to dropping no more than one classification per calendar year and must beapproved by the State Director and /or Zone VP for proper team classification. (The NSA calendar year is from January 1st to December 31st). EXCEPTION: Gold & Silver players from a Move Up team (Mandatory or with Appeal) CAN NOT move down in classification. EXCEPTION: Mens Class Bronze players listed on a Mandatory Move Up team roster -ALL PLAYERS MUST move up.

The State Director and/or Zone Vice-President have the authority to move any team up or UPGRADE in Class at any time, due to the advanced play of the team in question.

How to APPEALto be DOWNGRADED-OR- to APPEAL to STAY IN SAME CLASS:DEADLINE TO APPEAL is May 1st - Appeals received after this date will automatically be denied.Teams must appeal your classification upgrade in writing or via email to your State Director with the following information: 1. Completely Fill Out the Official APPEAL FORM - include Reason you should be Downgraded and Rationaleanddocumentation to support your being Downgraded. 2. Roster of players you will have on NEXT YEARS Team. If players are coming from another team besidesthe team you are appealing for reclassification, please include what team they played for and team class. 3. STATE DIRECTOR WILL then include a letter/email with your application and forward it to the NationalReclassification Committee. ALLOW THE STATE DIRECTOR at least 10 days for review of the appeal! DO NOT WAIT A FEW DAYS BEFORE A TOURNAMENT! ANY TEAM RECEIVING AN APPROVED APPEAL will be based on this information.Additions or changes to your approved roster could result in reclassification at ANY TIME!Click button forAPPEAL FORM EXCEL to SAVE the Appeal Form to your computer tobe able to type in the information and then email to your State Director- Excel Format.-OR- Use thePDF VERSION of the APPEAL FORM to PRINT & WRITE IN to Mail or Fax

The State Director and/or Zone Vice-President have the authority to reclassify a team at any time.

Read the rest here:
Tennessee NSA

Newmarket Consulting Services help customers realize the value and maximize the benefits of their Newmarket technology solutions. Newmarket business consultants use a proven methodology and framework to ensure that expected results and ROI are achieved, including benchmarks against industry best practices and standards.

Since 1985, Newmarket has worked closely with the world's leading hospitality organizations, analyzing how to best do business in the ever-changing market. Over time, Newmarket has developed a set of best practices as the hospitality industry's leading supplier of business services. Newmarket client statistics include:

Organizations should know their competitive position relative to industry best practices. Work with Newmarket to conduct a SCORE Assessment. This in-depth evaluation measures group sales and catering business processes to create an action plan for change. Increase efficiency and profitability - know the SCORE!

The Newmarket SCORE Assessment introduces a new way to analyze current organizational standards and procedures against industry leaders. From capturing account information and distributing BEOs to performance measurement and reporting, sales and service practices are compared to optimum industry processes.

Customers receive a comparative score, a set of recommendations, and an actionable change plan to implement needed improvements.

Learn more about the SCORE Assessment.

Newmarket offers low-cost Remote NSA Servicesfor the ongoing administration of Delphi. Remote NSA Services allow hotel sales professionals to delegate system tasks to an experienced administrator on the Newmarket services team. The on-staff, certified NSA manages and administrates Delphi using remote access tools.

Key Benefits to utilizing Remote NSA Services include:

Learn more aboutRemote NSA Services.

Room diagrams are a valuable tool, enhancing communication with clients by allowing them to envision events in a function space. Newmarket CAD Services add value by creating dimensionally accurate diagrams (2D and 3D) that are then deployed using tNewmarket diagrams solution.

Diagrams WebView is an interactive website tool designed specifically for hospitality to better showcase property features to clients and prospects by using an interactive, dynamic rendering of the venue, as well as improving search engine optimization (SEO). With Diagrams WebView, clients and prospects navigate the property layout, meeting room floor plans, configurations, and capacities.

Newmarket understands the data management challenges that arise during times of change, including system upgrades, new implementations, mergers, and changes in ownership. In response, the experienced Data Services team can assist by seamlessly navigating change during many different circumstances, including:

Today, more than half of new business in group sales for hotels, conference centers, and other event venues is generated via Internet. Hospitality organizations must have a clear strategy in order to capture business from multiple online channels, including website, search engines, social networks, and third party lead sources. With an Internet Presence Evaluation, Newmarket helps customers improve their online presence to ensure they are maximizing their reach and connectivity while capturing valuable, targeted online leads.

Continue reading here:
Consulting Services - Newmarket