Benjamin Franklin rolls in his grave.

Now this is fundamentally contrary to very concept of limited government, whatever debate their might be over the Patriot Act -- here, the executive unilaterally engaging in action specifically forbidden by the Legislature rather than faithfully executing the laws.

What disturbs me more is that the President - any President - can simply make shit up and it becomes law. Oh, excuse me, a "secret order."

Long live the king, or what? I think I just shortened my odds on the 2008 election being cancelled to 2-1 against.

By the way: If the president consciously orders a violation of federal law, might not that act be a high crime?

The Bush Haters' Syndrome has become a pandemic.

GWB did nothing more than what a prudent leader who wants to defend this country would have done. FDR did the same thing.

Look, if you don't have anything hidden up your rectum you have no reason to fear the cavity search. Right Tbrosz?

The Bush Haters' Syndrome has become a pandemic.

This is a more revealing statement than you probably intended...

even if fdr did it, it would have been wrong. either you're above the law or you're not. but shrub can do no wrong in wingers' eyes.

I think the best way to prevent terrorism is to do random pick-ups of US citizens and exposing them to torture just on the off-chance that they might know something about someone. Tbrosz, would that kind of thing bother you because it certainly would be effective. Of course it might mean you get picked up too, but you know, if that's what it takes.

Well if that is not grounds for impeachment I don't know what is!!!

Fake tbrosz, people. And obviously so - it sounds more like "Al."

Save your bile.

GWB did nothing more than what a prudent leader who wants to defend this country would have done. FDR did the same thing.

Tbrosz, I wonder if you can tell me something. At what point does the "they did it too, so that makes it ok" rationalization get removed from the conservative toolbox of sleazy excuses?

Ever?

Tbrosz, I am kind of curious. What exactly do you think would be out of bounds in this respect? Is there anything Bush could do in the name of fighting the war on terror that would cause you to actually say, "Well, I think he's over the line on that one?" Seriously, where is the sideline for you?

It was necessary to destroy freedom in order to save it.
.

That was the fake tbrosz. Geez. But I think we should all be saying how "Bush Haters' Syndrom" has become a pandemic. This is also a moral crossroads for all of those "I'm-really-a-libertarian-but-it-just-so-happens-I-love-Bush" people out there. Are they going to be upset about this, or will their Bush-loving ways get the better of them.

Can't our Prudent Leader already order the pickup of anybody he wants and indefinitely detain them if he just alleges that they're a terrrrrist? Isn't that what the Supremes are considering right now?

It's fun living in a police state! Every day's a new adventure.

Of course, Sister could have mentioned that the law allows exceptions to be made, that the Bush administration claims that they used the exceptions in the law, that the situation is some murky, and while troubling, it's not exactly unprecedented.

That wouldn't go over well in a liberal blog, however.

This should be investigated carefully. It's not earth-shattering, and it isn't like we haven't seen this sort of thing before from both parties.

I wondered how long it would take for some wingnut idiot to bring up the "they did it too so it's OK" argument.

And Steve shows up right on time.

Looks like Dems are confused about the day on which you are supposed to scare everyone with boohoo. It was at least six weeks ago.

Steve:
the Bush administration claims that they used the exceptions in the law

OOOHHH! Well if the BUSH ADMINISTRATION says that it used the exceptions, then it must be ok! You really voted for this guy? What were you thinking? Of course, you don't point out what these exceptions are or where the Bush administration claimed they used them. I'd wonder if Steve White has a stalker, but he's too much of a mediocre personality to attract one.

it isn't like we haven't seen this sort of thing before from both parties.

Specific names?

And, echoing the question of the guy above:
At what point does the "they did it too, so that makes it ok" rationalization get removed from the conservative toolbox of sleazy excuses? Do tell us, Steve. Do tell us.

... and it isn't like we haven't seen this sort of thing before from both parties.

Maybe you could answer the same question I asked of (fake) Tbrosz, then?

Good Christ, I wish there'd been a big terror attack when I was President.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

G.W. Bush, Washington, D.C., 12/19/00

Looks like Dems are confused about the day on which you are supposed to scare everyone with boohoo. It was at least six weeks ago.

No, that's coming up in about a week and a half.

Oh, wait - did you say the day that conservative pundits are trying to scare their base about religious persecution and the "ban" on christmas? No? Oh, my mistake then.

None of this should surprise anyone, seeing as how people like this guy are advising the administration.

Atrios puts it quite well today: "Why? At a certain point one has to wonder why people do things. There are no legitimate national security needs which require warrantless spying by the government on its own citizens. How hard it is to get a damn warrant? The reason do such a thing is to simply assert that you can."

Steve White: This should be investigated carefully.

I eagerly await the Bush Administration's investigation of its own malfeasance....

Yes, this should be investigated, but it won't be, not as long as Republicans control the Congress and the White House. They'll simply deny, delay and obstruct any investigation, the same as they did to the investigation into their 9/11 failures.

We need to impeach Bush over this brazen violation of US law.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I've always just assumed that the NSA was monitoring all international calls in/out the US. As well as all email. wtf do we think they are using all those computers for? It's concerning, but not at all surprising.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is "dismayed" by the report.

Dismayed?

I am outraged.

1. Lie about foreign threat.
2. Start a war over fake foreign threat.
3. Use war as a justification to cut social programs, silence dissent, eliminate oversight, and ignore civil rights.
4. PROFIT!!!!

Republican Culture of Corruption.

Reading the WaPo article what is really clear is that the operation was extra illegal; it began days after the 9/11/2001 attacks and the required authorization -- which certainly appears, from the description of the activities, to far exceed anything that could lawfully be authorized under FISA anyway -- was issued in 2002.

The described aim exceeds the range of warrantless surveillance that the President can authorize under FISA -- the article describes the aim as being "to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials."

But FISA allows the President, through the Attorney General if (along with simultaneously meeting additional requirements), the target communications are "exclusively between or among foreign powers". A "suspected associate of al-Qaeda" or another terrorist group is at least suspected of being a "foreign power", a person who merely has contact with such an associate is not.

I think there is clear call for a criminal investigation into whether the President, members of the NSA and DIA, and others committed, solicited and/or conspired with each other and others to commit federal felonies under 50 USC § 1809 by intentionally engaging in electronic surveillance under color of law without statutory authority.

I am outraged.
Posted by: Thinker on December 16, 2005 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I have come to the conclusion that the one idea that seems to be common across the entire spectrum of Republican policy is: if it makes Liberals Angry, do it.

Among my Republican freinds, that's the first thing they want to know from me about anything that happens. "aren't liberals all angry about this? (Rush said they were)."

This should be investigated carefully.

I agree. And, hey, there is already a special prosecutor available that can be counted on to investigate it carefully if given the authority. The Justice Department should take steps to do that -- and hey, the Administration has nothing to fear from that if they aren't breaking the law, right?

the Administration has nothing to fear from that if they aren't breaking the law, right?

Some "coericive" interrogation techniques might be warranted. After all, this investigation is a national security issue.

And all of this is because of an attack that could have been prevented by an FBI that read its own memos and a president who gave a damn about an obvious threat.

If this doesn't finally separate the libertarian republicans from the bush-lickers, I don't know what will.

The debate is over.

Bush and his supporters are nazis.

I'm not sure anything will; a lot of mostly-libertarian Republicans seem to have a very expansive (nearly totalitarian) view of executive authority where even a specter of an external threat is waved around to justify internal controls. Looks to me a lot like they got some xenophobia mixed into their liberalism, but perhaps there is another excuse.

POed:

I knew that in January 2000.

Anybody who runs as a "compassionate conservative" is hiding something too ugly for political discourse.

Bob

Unfortunately, every aspect of what the President authorized is legal under FISA. There is plenty of cover under that, the powers authorized under the Patriot Act, whatever they want to throw up there.

They have cover.

What should trouble and sicken every American is that the Congress did not provide oversight and either stop or place a check on the President's power to do this.

A lack of oversight has allowed the administration too much power. You can call this Bush hating if you simply want to run and hide from the truth, but it isn't. It's a failure of our checks and balances system due to one political party having too much power and too many crooks running the show.

Bush has never in his life had to really face the consequences of his actions, is it no surprise that he can't see the consequences of this. Because he has no forsight so seeing the potential abuses of this is beyond his ability.

I wonder what the Republicans would be saying if Clinton or another Democrat had done this? The only excuse I can come up with that more Republicans aren't more outraged is because they are either so whipped, so lilly-livered, and/or so hooked on the Kool-Aid.

cmdicely:

In fairness, cm, those aren't true libertarians. Maybe they were prior to 9/11 and all the attendant scare tactics, but they've reverted to their true colors.

If they hate Congressional and SCOTUS power but love Executive power, their political philosophy is incoherent.

Which is essentially true of most Republicans, anyway.

Bob

cmdicely says:

a lot of mostly-libertarian Republicans seem to have a very expansive (nearly totalitarian) view of executive authority where even a specter of an external threat is waved around to justify internal controls.

Yes--that's exactly right. However, no one in the right mind would concede that President Clinton was granted the same pass that Bush43 has been granted.

Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole would be doing indignant backflips were this 1995 and if Clinton had told the NSA and the other agencies to conduct this type of intelligence gathering.

Can you say "chimpeachment"?
Wow, 9/11 DID change everything. We now have US-sanctioned torture, illegal spying on domestics by the govt, secret gulags...

I'm so proud.

Steve:
the Bush administration claims that they used the exceptions in the law

That's all well and good except there are many legal experts who don't believe any exceptions exist.

Alek:

Don't bother pointing out the fake. They've fallen for it dozens of times, and they always will. There's a reason for that.

As for the "secret order," the New York Times had this:

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. After a 2003 briefing, Senator Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who became vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that year, wrote a letter to Mr. Cheney expressing concerns about the program, officials knowledgeable about the letter said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

Big secret. Democratic leaders and many other officials have known about this for at least two years. It just wasn't politically useful to leak it back then. Or financially, for that matter.

The story basically breaks down to "this is legal, but nobody is really sure that the program is actually staying within legal limits."

Modern libertarianism, in its Ayn-Rand-tainted form, is ultimately about the worship of power. The modern "libertarian" believes that he is a superior being who is owed the "freedom" to use his economic and political power over others, and that the government is impinging on his "freedom" if it prevents him from doing so. That's why so many so-called "libertarians" are so attached to Bush and defend his executive abuses. He's only doing what they wish they had the power to do.

Impeach.

Democratic leaders and many other officials have known about this for at least two years. It just wasn't politically useful to leak it back then. Or financially, for that matter.

It's probably just a shock to your system, but the fact that Democrats didn't leak the information and kept a secret that was vital to our national security should probably cheer you up, Tom.

Well, unless you start comparing it with the track record of Republicans who use classified information to ruin people.

Yeah--and I haven't forgotten the whole PJ Media thing about having all of its start up capital raised by the AIPAC trustee, either. AIPAC, espionage? Ring a bell?

Stupid Democrats--don't they know classified information is best used to destroy enemies and win friends?

I'm not sure they aren't "true libertarians"; there's something of a "no true scotsman" feel to that, and, if you look back to some of the foundational philosophical writings of libertarianism -- Locke is a general favorite of right-libertarians -- there is quite a bit of support for expansive executive power in the security arena.

I will agree that there are plenty of libertarians who reject that kind of view, as well.

Constantine:

Well that's not libertarianism; that's fascism -- a person who overidentifies with the power of the state is a fascist.

Ayn Rand provided a cartoon version of Libertarianism befitting a refugee from a totalitarian state. But that Ubermensch crapola is not what motivates Libertarian Party members.

Libertarians have a cogent critique of political power in a modern state. While yes, they tend to be corporate apologists and do have a darwinist analysis of social problems, they are not investing their own egos in the appurtenances of the state.

This is a critical distinction.

Bob

I think I just shortened my odds on the 2008 election being cancelled to 2-1 against.
Posted by: craigie on December 16, 2005 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

I have never given odds, but shortly after Bushco stole the 2000 election and the populace rolled over, I began thinking the same thing. Given the DLCs capitulatory proclivities, it may not be necessary. Keeping the illusion alive is less messy. The protection offered any true populist liberal with a chance, from lone gunmen may, however, leave something to be desired.

cmdicely:

It would be wise not to appropriate too much of John Locke as a philosophically consistent Libertarian. His approach to foreign policy was veritably Napoleonic.

And he also authored the South Carolina colonial constitution, which was a masterpiece of modern feudalism.

John Locke's concern for liberty was pretty well-restricted to men of his own social class. He had a whopping contempt for both foreigners and the domestic poor.

Bob

Surely we can expect the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, to make sure that the illegal spying against the citizens of this country will be fully investigated and that he will bring this corrupt government to its knees. Certainly Gonzalez will do the right thing and not be tainted from the influence of the Bush Administration. Won't he?

Keeping the illusion alive is less messy.

I think that's exactly right. The only reason they wouldn't just cancel democracy in this country is because then they'd be out in the open.

Better to nurse along the illusion of democracy.

Unfortunately, every aspect of what the President authorized is legal under FISA.

No, if the description of what was authorized in the WaPo is correct, it is not legal, but in fact criminal -- or at least, it was criminal in the context (i.e., without a warrant) in which it was authorized. And the action (beginning "days after the attacks") prior to the authorization (issued in 2002) was criminal in any case, since there was no authorization, in the form of either a warrant or Presidential authorization.

There is plenty of cover under that, the powers authorized under the Patriot Act, whatever they want to throw up there.

Really? Where, exactly?

"This should be investigated carefully."

cmdicely:

I agree. And, hey, there is already a special prosecutor available that can be counted on to investigate it carefully if given the authority. The Justice Department should take steps to do that -- and hey, the Administration has nothing to fear from that if they aren't breaking the law, right?

Be careful what you wish for. Given the news stories over the past few weeks, there's obviously a healthy flow of supposedly-classified information coming from certain sources in our national security organizations. I'm pretty sure our laws on classified information don't include a clause that says "unless I personally decide it should be passed to the New York Times."

Ayn Rand provided a cartoon version of Libertarianism befitting a refugee from a totalitarian state. But that Ubermensch crapola is not what motivates Libertarian Party members.

Well, my above critique of "libertarians" was not of the Libertarian Party members, but more of the casual "I consider myself a libertarian" sort of person one tends to encounter. Ron Paul is in a completely different category than, say, Instapundit. Libertarian Party members are, at least, people who come from the "leave-me-alone" strain of libertarianism, rather than the "I wish the government would stop preventing my inalienably rights to control others" strain that one sees more often.

I don't understand what the dems have against bushlickers. I thought they are tolerant of what happens behind closed doors.

It would be wise not to appropriate too much of John Locke as a philosophically consistent Libertarian. His approach to foreign policy was veritably Napoleonic.

I don't consider Locke to be "philosophically consistent"; I do recognize that actual self-described libertarians, especially those I think of as right-libertarians, tend to be fairly fond of Locke (well, aside from the collegiate-right-libertarian of the "I took the WSPQ and read an Ayn Rand book or two" sort), and real people are rarely all that "philosophically consistent".

John Locke's concern for liberty was pretty well-restricted to men of his own social class. He had a whopping contempt for both foreigners and the domestic poor.

And, in that attitude, he fits in quite well with a lot of modern libertarians, particularly right-libertarians, whether or not they are quite as totalitarian as he could be in foreign and security matters.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am.

Given the news stories over the past few weeks, there's obviously a healthy flow of supposedly-classified information coming from certain sources in our national security organizations.

So?

I'm pretty sure our laws on classified information don't include a clause that says "unless I personally decide it should be passed to the New York Times."

Yes, and people who reveal classified information without legal excuse or justification ought to be investigated, identified, prosecuted, and punished. Why do you act as if this would bother me?

Pale Rider:

You're not thinking again. Tell me exactly what made this monitoring situation a "crime" today that wasn't true two years ago, or why the Democrats feel that suddenly something changed to make revealing this to the public important after sitting on it for that long.

The answer, of course, is that back then it wasn't useful as a political weapon.

Do you even have any idea what a "trustee" is?

So, exactly which phone calls were monitored? I heard that it was calls in which one end was in the US. Is that true or not?

Constantine:

Well, they're not really separate strains. I'm not talking about the difference between libertarianism and civil libertarianism. A libertarian definitely believes in the free market and accepts powerful actors that wind up lording it over vast swaths of the public. It's why they're against e. g. environmental regulations -- and the Interstate Commerce Clause, for that matter.

What a libertarian *doesn't* do is invest his ego in *any* apparatus of the state, including (perhaps especially) the Executive Branch.

And yes, Glenn Reynolds is a different animal than a lot of the so-called "libertarians" who like to speak in its name (I'm a civ-libber, btw; I admire the intellectual cogency of libertarianism, but I think it's ultimately utopian idiocy which shares the same Rousseauvian analysis of human nature as Marxism).

At least Ron Paul has an isolationist analysis of the Iraq war, which he shares with the Cato Institute.

Bob

BTW, invoking Benjamin Franklin in this issue is hilarious. Look up his own espionage career.

"Specific names?"

How about Clinton's use of the IRS? Why exactly did Hillary have those FBI files of their enemies anyway?

By the way, that post is not intended as a Clinton did it too defense of Bush. I just think that you guys would happily vote for W.J. Blythe Clinton again if given the chance, despite what you know about his regard for the civil liberties of his enemies, because, well, they're your enemies too.

Big secret. Democratic leaders and many other officials have known about this for at least two years.

Your excerpt does not support that claim. Particularly, it says:

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program.

So, all we know from the article is that members of Congress were aware that some eavesdropping was going on. But FISA allows some eavesdropping. We don't have any reason to believe from your excerpt that Congress new that warrantless eavesdropping was going on, under circumstances in which such eavesdropping is prohibited by FISA without a warrant, and that the eavesdropping began months before the Presidential authorization. Since the first two unknown parts are what making even Presidentially-authorized eavesdropping illegal, and the last makes the earlier eavesdropping illegal, we don't know if Congress knew the pertinent facts.

It just wasn't politically useful to leak it back then.

Per the WaPo story, the NY Times article was held, after it was written, for over a year by national security concerns. There are political interests served by that delay -- consider an event that occurred a little over a year ago throughout the USA that might have been influenced by revelations of massive and illegal spying on US citizens by the Bush Administration -- but not those of Democrats.

although I have concerns about this -- it's not clear that it's illegal...it might take a court challenge to determine (if there is one). They appear to have received opinions from attorneys as well as having disclosed this to both Congress and a court. There's a measure of cover in that.

cmdicely makes too much of it being done days after 9/11 before having received opinions deeming it legal. the context of that period provides a pragmatic justification that won't be overcome.

Tell me exactly what made this monitoring situation a "crime" today that wasn't true two years ago, or why the Democrats feel that suddenly something changed to make revealing this to the public important after sitting on it for that long.

Um, it wasn't revealed by "the Democrats", and there is precisely zero evidence that "the Democrats" controlled the timing of the revelation, so the fundamental premise of the question is a lie.

So, exactly which phone calls were monitored? I heard that it was calls in which one end was in the US. Is that true or not?

Second paragraph of the NYT article:

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said.

The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

There's also this:

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

I'm pretty sure our laws on classified information don't include a clause that says "unless I personally decide it should be passed to the New York Times."

Not worried at all. On the one hand, if I apply the Tbrosz Standard on the Plame case then by definition it's impossible to break the law by leaking classified information.

On the other hand, if it turns out Bush did break the law in this instance, then I'm sure whatever concerned patriot who leaked this will be able to cut a deal with the prosecuter so he can get at the bigger fish. Either way I'm covered.

It's refreshing to see you up front in your support for government spying on citizens without oversight. When comes the revolution, will you volunteer to be a citizen spy, ratting out your neighbors for eating falafels or reading Rumi?

If just once you expressed outrage or even true concern over any questionable Bush/Republican activity, you might have a shred of credibility.

As it is, you have none.

By the way, that post is not intended as a Clinton did it too defense of Bush. I just think that you guys would happily vote for W.J. Blythe Clinton again if given the chance, despite what you know about his regard for the civil liberties of his enemies, because, well, they're your enemies too.

Wow. I've never heard "It's not a non sequitur, its tu quoque" used as a justification of an argument before.

cmdicely:

Well, I disagree with you there. I think Libertarian Party libertarianism is quite philosophically consistent. But it's a very well-developed analysis; not the sort of half-assed political label one wears without giving quite a lot of thought to it.

I think you're confusing the results of Libertarian policy with their intentions, which are decidedly un-Lockean in the sense that they really *do* believe in the free market as the great social leveller, if only the government would stop meddling in it.

Of course, in the real world that makes Libs say that the answer to environmental disasters is "may the most well-argued lawsuit win." Which, of course, is absurd and produces inequities, which Libs then observe and allow to reinforce their basic darwinist view of social problems. Ultimately, yes, it exposes a contradiction.

They rationalize it ultimately with "equal opportunity, unequal results."

Bob

cmdicely: read the NY Times article. it's clear that senior members of Congress were aware that such warrantless intercepts were being performed. it shouldn't be a secret to any of you that the NSA intercepts (with a warrant) international communications with one end in the U.S....the only reason for Congress to be briefed was that warrantless intercepts are now also taking place.

Tell me exactly what made this monitoring situation a "crime" today that wasn't true two years ago, or why the Democrats feel that suddenly something changed to make revealing this to the public important after sitting on it for that long.

Lack of oversight and compliance with established laws. In fact, it was President Reagan who signed most of the current policies into law. Ignorant fools usually hide behind the so-called 'Gorelick memo' when, in fact, what makes everything that was going on illegal is a thing called USSID 18. Google USSID 18 and then come back and explain why Bush cannot be impeached.

Here's some useful info for the kids:

USSID 18 excerpt:
5.4 (S-CCO) Nonforeign Communications.

a. Communications between persons in the UNITED STATES. Private radio communications solely between persons in the UNITED STATES inadvertently intercepted during the COLLECTION of FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS will be promptly destroyed unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

b. Communications between U.S. PERSONS. Communications solely between U.S. PERSONS will be treated as follows:

(1) Communications solely between U.S. PERSONS inadvertently intercepted during the COLLECTION of FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS will be destroyed upon recognition, if technically possible, except as provided in paragraph 5.4.d below.
(2) Notwithstanding the preceding provision, cryptologic data (e.g., signal and encipherment information) and technical communications (e.g., circuit usage) may be extracted and retained from those communications if necessary to:

(a) Establish or maintain intercept, or
(b) Minimize unwanted intercept, or
(c) Support cryptologic operations related to FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.

c. Communications involving an Office or Employee of the U.S. Government. Communications to or from any officer or employee of the U.S. Government, or any state or local government, will not be intentionally intercepted. Inadvertent INTERCEPTIONS of such communications (including those between foreign TARGETS and U.S. officials) will be treated as indicated in paragraphs 5.4.a. and b., above.

d. Exceptions: Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5.4.b. and c., the DIRNSA./CHCSS may waive the destruction requirement for international communications containing, inter alia, the following types of information:

(1) Significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, or
(2) Evidence of a crime or threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person, or

(3) Anomalies that reveal a potential vulnerability to U.S. communications security. Communications for which the Attorney General or DIRNSA/CHCSS's waiver is sought should be forwarded to NSA/CSS, Attn: P05 P02.

5.5 (S-CCO) Radio Communications with a Terminal in the UNITED STATES.

a. All radio communications that pass over channels with a terminal in the UNITED STATES must be processed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx unless those communications occur over channels used exclusively by a FOREIGN POWER.

b. International common-access radio communications that pass over channels with terminal in the UNITED STATES xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx may be processed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if necessary to determine whether a channel contains communications of FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE interest which NSA may wish to collect. Such processing may not exceed two hours without the specific prior written approval of the DDO and, in any event, shall be limited to the minimum amount of time necessary to determine the nature of communications on the channel and the amount of such communications that include FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. Once it is determined that the channel contains sufficient communications of FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE interest to warrant COLLECTION and exploitation to produce FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE [1 line redacted.]

c. Copies of all DDO written approvals made pursuant to 5.5.b. must be provided to the General Counsel and the Inspector General.

END of Excerpt
-------

More tbrosz shenanigans:

The answer, of course, is that back then it wasn't useful as a political weapon.

Shorter tbrosz: Only Republicans can use classified information as a 'political weapon'

Do you even have any idea what a "trustee" is?

trustee
Definition

An individual or organization which holds or manages and invests assets for the benefit of another. The trustee is legally obliged to make all trust-related decisions with the trustee's interests in mind, and may be liable for damages in the event of not doing so. Trustees may be entitled to a payment for their services, if specified in the trust deed. In the specific case of the bond market, a trustee administers a bond issue for a borrower, and ensures that the issuer meets all the terms and conditions associated with the borrowing.

Nothing about that seems disinterested and unconnected, but whatever.

Oh, and remember why John Bolton's nomination to be represent the US at the United Nations never made it to the floor of the Senate?

One of the sticking points centered around the NSA information that Bolton was requesting and receiving. It is known that Americans were listed as being in the transcript information that Bolton was being given. No one wanted to reveal what the names were and why Bolton had access to it and to what use that information was being put.

Given what we know now, and given that little nugget--when do we start the impeachment proceedings? Which members of Congress are getting ready to manage the impeachment of President Bush?

Spin, spin, spin little trolls. Spin til this goes away.

although I have concerns about this -- it's not clear that it's illegal...it might take a court challenge to determine (if there is one).

Well, of course, it always takes a court to determine whether something is illegal in practice. However, it could hardly be more clear that it is outside the scope of FISA.

They appear to have received opinions from attorneys as well as having disclosed this to both Congress and a court.

And received, apparently, objections about concerns of illegality from the latter two sources, even though it is not clear how complete a picture of the facts either received.

There's a measure of cover in that.

No, neither, "my lawyer told me it was okay" nor "I told Congress after the fact", or "I informed a judge that I did it" is, either in the text of the statute or any case law I am aware of, a defense or even mitigating factor to violations of the criminal provisions of FISA.

cmdicely makes too much of it being done days after 9/11 before having received opinions deeming it legal. the context of that period provides a pragmatic justification that won't be overcome.

I disagree as a matter of law; as a matter of prosecutory discretion -- or political viability of use of the pardon power -- you may be correct. The language narrowly requiring specific statutory authorization expresses clear legislative intent to forbid the common law defense of necessity to criminal violations of FISA.

There is no excuse for unilateral abrogation of constitutional protections. It is blatantly illegal, and he should be impeached now. This is a very serious crime against the nation. You must understand, "keeping the nation safe" has been a shifting target for them. It is really about "keeping power with Republicans." We have to trust that these abrogations of civil rights are for the "right reason." "Trust us." Why wouold anyone trust anything these people do? Karl Rove is still in the White House for God's sake. At least they're reading Brosz's overseas e-mail . . .

the only reason for Congress to be briefed was that warrantless intercepts are now also taking place.

That's not true; for instance, Congress is, presumably, from time-to-time briefed on what the Administration is doing to fight al-Qaeda -- and, no doubt, the use of FISA surveillance, despite being known that it goes on generally, would be mentioned in such briefings, perhaps without specificity over whether the searches were conducted with or without a warrant, but only reference to the general numbers and kinds of surveillance and the information gained at a high level.

It's refreshing to see you up front in your support for government spying on citizens without oversight.

There was oversight. There is now. This program has been running for four years with the full knowledge of members of Congress and several agencies.

The New York Times withheld this story at government request for a year. You tell me what's happening today to suddenly make it worth overriding that request. Clue: there's at least two answers.

No, neither, "my lawyer told me it was okay" nor "I told Congress after the fact", or "I informed a judge that I did it" is, either in the text of the statute or any case law I am aware of, a defense or even mitigating factor to violations of the criminal provisions of FISA.

You can't even begin to proceed collecting and storing classified information on a US person without the knowledge of the General Counsel for the agency carrying this out and the Attorney General of the US. That is absolutely crystal clear in all of the rules and regulations regarding this issue.

A Presidential Directive that contravenes these regulations and reverses previous findings of law and previously established policies WITHOUT being subjected to review breaks the law. The President of the US cannot simply do whatever he wants to do. The law has been broken and the civil liberties of every American have been violated.

These are the people protecting us? Who's protecting us from them?

Here's how you handle the proles who dare question the tactics of the War of/on Terror:

1. War is important for consuming the products of human labor. If this work would be used to increase the standard of living, the control of the party over the people would decrease. War is the economy basis for a hierarchical society.
2. There is an emotional need to believe in the ultimate victory of Big Brother.
3. In becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. The continuity of the war guarantees the permanence of the current order. In other words "War is Peace."
4. There have always been three main grades of society; the High, the Middle and the Low, and no change has brought human equality an inch nearer.
5. Collectivism doesn't lead to socialism. Wealth belongs to the new "high-class", the bureaucrats and administrators. Collectivism has ensured the permanence of economic inequality.
6. Wealth is not inherited from person to person, but it is kept within the ruling group.
7. The masses (proles) are given freedom of thought, because supposedly they don't think. A Party member is not allowed the slightest deviation of thought, and there is an elaborate mental training to ensure this, a training that can be summarised in the concept of doublethink.

tbrosz is exactly right. We should spy on our own citizens, jail them if necessary w/o civil rights, and generally shoot anyone else who disagrees. Amerika Uber Alles!

"my lawyer told me it's ok"...helps with any mens rea requirements.

"I disagree as a matter of law; as a matter of prosecutory discretion -- or political viability of use of the pardon power -- you may be correct. The language narrowly requiring specific statutory authorization expresses clear legislative intent to forbid the common law defense of necessity to criminal violations of FISA."

well, prosecutorial discretion is what I was primarily referring to..but regardless of whether you think there's a clear legislative intent or not, necessity in the days after 9/11 (it's awfully hard to obtain 500 warrants in a few hours) would be raised as a defense and it would be more than politically tenable (regardless of what they're teaching you in law school, courts do keep an eye on political opinion and that will inevitably figure into whether a necessity defense carries the day).

"The law has been broken and the civil liberties of every American have been violated."

if this is true, then you have standing and can sue. so why don't you?

There was oversight. There is now. This program has been running for four years with the full knowledge of members of Congress and several agencies.

Really? Why did it shock the hell out of them to find this out?

Two Bush Administration allies had this to say:

From CNN:

Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.

"We need to look into that," McCain told reporters at the White House after a meeting on Iraq with President Bush. "Theoretically, I obviously wouldn't like it. But I don't know the extent of it and I don't know enough about it to really make an informed comment. Ask me again in about a week."

McCain said it's not clear whether a congressional probe is warranted. He said the topic had not come up in the meeting with Bush.

"We should be informed as to exactly what is going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for," he said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also said he needed more information.

"Of course I was concerned about the story," said Lieberman, who also attended the White House Iraq meeting. "I'm going to go back to the office and see if I can find out more about it."

Spin any harder tbrosz and you might put yourself into orbit!

if this is true, then you have standing and can sue. so why don't you?

Unlike Republicans, I don't file nuisance lawsuits. I vote for people who will protect my civil rights.

Oh, and Tom: there is a specific mandate for people to report criminal activity in government. The fact that there have been so many leaks is because there have been scores of crimes--very serious ones, from treason to the abrogation of Constitutional rights. A dictatorship always needs apologists like these trolls to get people to look the other way. Our society is breaking down one disaster at a time.

Paranoia reins supreme here.

Even if the reports are true, why would anybody at NSA waste the agency's precious resources on someone who is wholly innocent?

ok, it looks like the best guess for legal authority is the 2001 AUMF....at least that's the speculation right now.

"my lawyer told me it's ok"...helps with any mens rea requirements.

Uh, no, it doesn't, unless you get a court that, contrary to the interpretation of virtually every other law with similar language, interprets the intent requirement to apply not only to the act itself being intentional, but also to the "without statutory authorization" requiring intent. Ignorance of the law is not, generally, a defense and does not defeat mens rea.

well, prosecutorial discretion is what I was primarily referring to..but regardless of whether you think there's a clear legislative intent or not, necessity in the days after 9/11 (it's awfully hard to obtain 500 warrants in a few hours) would be raised as a defense and it would be more than politically tenable (regardless of what they're teaching you in law school, courts do keep an eye on political opinion and that will inevitably figure into whether a necessity defense carries the day).

I had a political science degree with some coursework in judicial politics long before starting law school; I'm hardly ignorant of the fact that political context can have an effect on court decisions in practice. OTOH, what you are suggesting is that a court would construct, essentially from whole cloth a Constitutional defense of necessity -- with no apparent textual basis -- that could not be closed by statute. This is, IMO, highly improbable and would be stunningly dangerous precedent.

Yeah, what Sparko said.

Otherwise John McCain and Joe Lieberman might have done something to stop this; the fact is, they were in the dark about it.

When you can't tell John McCain and Joe Lieberman what you're doing, you can be damn sure what you're doing is illegal as hell.

I suggest we start getting used to the idea of impeachment proceedings in the Spring.

And fake tbrosz,

Shut the fuck up. It is just not even remotely interesting or funny anymore.

Even if the reports are true, why would anybody at NSA waste the agency's precious resources on someone who is wholly innocent?

AHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man, what a comedian.

"Even if the reports are true, why would anybody in the police department waste the department's precious resources on arresting someone who is wholly innocent?"

"Even if the reports are true, why would anybody in the prosecutor's office waste the office's precious resources on trying and jailing someone who is wholly innocent?"

After all, we know the government never makes mistakes and never goes after the innocent by mistake -- right?

Wonder if this would have impacted a 2004 presidential election? For thsoe moderates and liberterians who gave the right wing your vote, time to take it back in 2006. These guys are without question the most corrupt, least competent, and dangerous "leaders" in American history. Staggering. And they have apologists? Rocket scientists my ass.

"OTOH, what you are suggesting is that a court would construct, essentially from whole cloth a Constitutional defense of necessity -- with no apparent textual basis -- that could not be closed by statute. This is, IMO, highly improbable and would be stunningly dangerous precedent."

It would be highly improbable and won't happen. However, what they could do (and which is likely) is simply not read the provision as forbidding a necessity defense. As much as you may read it that way (and it may be the obvious implication)...they could easily not take that interpretation.

Even if the reports are true, why would anybody at NSA waste the agency's precious resources on someone who is wholly innocent?

Like Ed Meese said, if you're innocent then you're not a suspect, right?

...thus proving that inefficiency in human affairs is not possible.

Even if the reports are true, why would anybody at NSA waste the agency's precious resources on someone who is wholly innocent?

Actually, I take back what I said. I like this new standard. After all, by this reasoning we know that Cheney and Rove and Libby and DeLay and Frist are guilty, since Pat Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle and the SEC wouldn't waste the government's resources on someone who is wholly innocent.

There was oversight. There is now. This program has been running for four years with the full knowledge of members of Congress and several agencies

If you'd read the article without your blinders on Tommy, you'd see that it was members of Congress themselves who were concerned there was no oversight for this program, including the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In addition, an official involved in the program was so disturbed by it he contacted a Congressman asking for some oversight, and got no answer.

Knowing a thing exists does not equal oversight, except maybe in Republican governing theory.

Flanders: Clue: there's at least two answers.

Is one of them "Japan"?

However, what they could do (and which is likely) is simply not read the provision as forbidding a necessity defense.

Now you're charging that they'll simply gloss over what they don't want to apply to a serious crime. Boy, if that's not whistling past the graveyard, I don't know what is.

As much as you may read it that way (and it may be the obvious implication)...they could easily not take that interpretation.

Which tune are you whistling? Live Forever by Oasis or My Generation by the Who?

After reading the comments for a long, long time, I have a theory. It's this:

If the pro-bush posters - tbrosz, conspiracy nut, the al-bot, Charlie, etc - were all suddenly to replace the Republicans in Congress, I think the actions and statements of that new set of Republicans would be 99% the same as it is now.

Whereas if you took the pro-democracy posters, and replaced the Democrats in Congress with them, I think the result would be a very different set of behaviours.

In other words, the pro-bush side has essentially no argument at all with the Republicans, whereas the rest of us, while no fans of the GOP, are not necessarily thrilled with the performance of the Dems either. Even though we (mostly) vote for them.

Not sure what that means, but there you are...

Stefan:
BINGO

Spin any harder tbrosz and you might put yourself into orbit!

I thought that's what he got paid to do.

Listening to the WGN Chicago news (via cable) I heard two interesting things today: one was that a 12-year-old Michigan girl has been arrested for making a terrorist threat and the other was that there had been a round-up of dangerous types somewhere in Iraq at some time in the past (I wasn't listening closely at that moment and didn't get the place and time) and that surprisingly Musab Al Zarqawi was amonst them and was released with a lot of them. Now my interest was piqued.

Does anyone have futher info on these two incidents?

Apparently freedom IS on the march in Iraq; why even Zarqawi gets to go free.

But, contrary-wise, here in America, a 12-year-old girl isn't going free.

Pale Rider:

Rockefeller knew about it. So would any ranking member of the intelligence committees, including Democrats. Where have they been all this time?

You're obviously not paying attention to the facts of the story. And again, what makes it essential to override security today that wasn't true a year ago?

"Now you're charging that they'll simply gloss over what they don't want to apply to a serious crime. Boy, if that's not whistling past the graveyard, I don't know what is."

I don't think you understand what we're discussing.

The question is -- assuming that these intercepts are illegal and that they may no longer have been illegal, is there a necessity defense for the intercepts conducted immediately after 9/11 before both the courts and Congress had been notified that these intercepts were being carried out?

cmdicely believes that the relevant statute implicitly bars a necessity defense. he might be right. however, since it does not explicitly bar a necessity defense...considering the political and practical justifications for the intercepts undertaken immediately after 9/11...its not hard, in my view, to see a court finding that a necessity defense is tenable.

Law is a social contract, which is something this administration doesn't do. They believe in the principle of, "We do what we want."

(Does anyone know of any evidence that invasion of Iraq was one of the topics discussed by Cheney's energy task force? Just asking.)

Tell me exactly what made this monitoring situation a "crime" today that wasn't true two years ago,

It was a crime then too. As I understand it, the NY Times was asked to postpone running this story for a year for "national security" reasons. Tbrosz, you seem to think there is something nefarious in publishing this now...Gosh, I wonder what would have happened if it was released prior to the 2004 elections?

After 9/11, it was appropriate to use all legal methods to deter another attack. If a valuable method was of likely (but uncertain) legality, it made sense to use it. How would we have felt if thousands more Americans had been slaughtered in more attacks that could have been prevented?

I would credit Al Gore that if he had been President, he would have done the same as Bush.

craigie:

In other words, the pro-bush side has essentially no argument at all with the Republicans, whereas the rest of us, while no fans of the GOP, are not necessarily thrilled with the performance of the Dems either. Even though we (mostly) vote for them.

If Joe Lieberman didn't know about this program, which other Democrat would? I would love to find fault with my two lameass Senators (Sarbanes and Mikulski) but they simply weren't being told what was going on.

When the Senate wanted the information that Bolton was accessing, they were blocked from getting that as well. The administration has repeatedly and systematically blocked every single effort to submit itself to the oversight of the Congress.

There's not much to applaud the minority party for, but come on. It's not like the Bush Administration was respecting the law or anything.

MarkH: yeah, it appears that Iraq forces may have caught AZ sometime ago and not realized it. Not really surprising...if he was in disguise and no one had fingered him (maybe it was a routine roundup of guys with weapons)...its not hard to see how they might have missed it until later.

ok, it looks like the best guess for legal authority is the 2001 AUMF....at least that's the speculation right now.

As there is no expansion of internal surveillance authority in the AUMF, the only sensible argument is that the AUMF acted as a declaration of war and triggered the FISA provisions allowing 15-day Presidentially-authorized surveillance during time of declared war; however, the usual interpretation of provisions triggered by declared war is that they are triggered only by explicit declaration of war, even if other acts of Congress may be recognized as exercising its Constitutional power to declare war -- the form has statutory even if not Constitutional implications.

After 9/11, it was appropriate to use all legal methods to deter another attack. If a valuable method was of likely (but uncertain) legality, it made sense to use it.

With neither a warrant nor a Presidential authorization -- the case when the surveillance began, and for some number of months thereafter -- the method was of certain, not merely questionable, illegality.

Where have they been all this time?

So protecting the classified information they were responsible for is wrong all of a sudden?

In closed door proceedings, classified information is revealed to members of Congress. They are then required to keep that information secret.

Way too much of it is leaked. Obviously, the members of Congress briefed on this program KEPT THE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL SECRET as they were required to do so.

So let's take your premise to a logical conclusion and put it to the test. I'm Senator Rockefeller, I call a press conference on the steps of the Capitol. I say:

"Today, in a closed door session, it was revealed that an unnamed agency is doing something that is illegal by Executive Order of the President. I cannot tell you what that is or why it is being done, but there you have it. The President is breaking the law, but I'm not at liberty to tell you what it is. It's big. It's related to fighting terrorism. I just can't tell you how big or how it's being used to fight terrorism. I can't even tell you in pig latin."

Cue wingnut smear machine.

Sister quotes Caroline Fredrickson of the ACLU: "It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort , to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity."

This mischaracterizes the Bush administration. The Bush administration is not "willing" to "sacrifice" civil liberties "to exercise its authority on terrorism."

Rather, the Bush administration urgently wants to abolish civil liberties and establish authoritarian, unaccountable, secretive government as a permanent state of affairs in the USA, and uses the grossly overhyped threat of "terrorism" to justify doing what it already wanted to do.

Pale Rider: The administration has repeatedly and systematically blocked every single effort to submit itself to the oversight of the Congress.

Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com reports today that Senator Feinstein asked the non-partisan Congressional Research Service to look into the latest Bush apologist claim that Congress sees the same intelligence as the White House. Their conclusion? Of course it doesn't:

TO: Sen. Dianne Feinstein
FROM: Alfred Cumming, Specialist in Intelligence and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
SUBJECT: Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information

This responds to your request for a discussion of Congress and its role as a consumer of national intelligence, and for a listing and a description of some of the U.S. Intelligence Community's principal intelligence products, including an identification of those which the executive branch routinely shares with Congress, and those which it does not.

Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority - which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) - to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

And again, what makes it essential to override security today that wasn't true a year ago?

I dunno--we have Rove implicated and Libby indicted in the Plame case, the President acknowledging that the intelligence was bad, the Downing Street Memo. Take your pick.

I dunno--we have Rove implicated and Libby indicted in the Plame case, the President acknowledging that the intelligence was bad, the Downing Street Memo. Take your pick.

Plus the Iraqi rebellion becoming more violent, more American troops dying, the Katrina debacle revealing that the Bush regime is wholly unprepared to deal with a terrorist attack....

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials. Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. Before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president.

Nope, everything's above board. Nothing to see here.

Except those who were worried that they might be prosecuted for participating in the program.

Unfortunately they were not privy to Tom's reassuring knowledge that by definition anything this administration does is legal, and any questioning of it purely partisan politics.

Why do I have the feeling this is only the tip of the "Presidential Finding" iceberg.

tbrosz,

The NY Times article you think I didn't read:

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

If the way the VP handled the dissemination of intelligence to members of Congress is any indication, I doubt very much whether these people were told the truth. A track record of lying to Congress has been laid out, established and proven.

Later briefings were held for members of Congress as they assumed leadership roles on the intelligence committees, officials familiar with the program said. It could not be determined if he received a reply. Mr. Rockefeller declined to comment. Aside from the Congressional leaders, only a small group of people, including several cabinet members and officials at the N.S.A., the C.I.A. and the Justice Department, know of the program.

Rockefeller was probably told, "Go Fuck Yourself."

So yeah, it's all Rockefeller's fault that Dick Cheney was systematically blocking the oversight of Congress.

Yeah--that's the ticket. That's how we'll spin this one.

Rep Murtha wrote letters to the President and didn't even get a reply. A whole lot of people have been asking questions about the use of intelligence, the planning for the Iraq war, whatever else.

And they're not even getting answers.

Spin, spin, spin little trolletariat.

The saddest thing is that despite the outrage expressed here, not very many people who have been watching the Bushistas even with eyes wide shut would really be surprised or shocked by this revelation.

Boiling the frog in a pan by increasing the temperature ever so slowly etc.

At least the timing of this report may help sink the Patriot Act renewal, not that it sounds like this was actually authorized by the Patriot Act. Some slopes really are slippery.

Is one implication that Bushco and the Senate Repubs will want to rush to get Alito on the Supreme Court, ASAP? That is, will any law (or un-law) matter if the SCOTUS rules for the POTUS?

Spin, spin, spin little trolletariat.

Reminds me of that great Russ Meyer movie "Faster, Chickenhawk, Spin, Spin!"

Stefan,

Hey--why did all the Bush apologists flee the thread in terror? They seem to be on the movie thread...

I am not sure why everyone is so shocked about this. After all he won the reelection, partly due to his bigger than life endowment for his campaign.

Bigger d*** = bigger guns = "I can do anything I want. I am your imperial majesty, dammit."

But that Ubermensch crapola is not what motivates Libertarian Party members

Well, having been involved in the libertarian movement for about 15 years, I'd have to say in my experience, you're wrong. I've met "small l" libertarians, and members of the party. Almost every one of them felt that they were (or were going to be) part of the elite, and therefore should be allowed "freedom" (as defined by them).
The ubermensch mentality is simply part of what the right plays on.

Tbrosz how's your back? Have you slipped a disc carrying water?

Rockefeller knew about it. So would any ranking member of the intelligence committees, including Democrats. Where have they been all this time?\

Perhaps they've been obeying the law? And not disclosing classified information? And as far as I can tell from the article, none of the information came from Rockefeller.

Rockefeller is from the minority party in a Congress that sets a new standard for disregard of the minority. So he hasn't been able to do much.

You're obviously not paying attention to the facts of the story. And again, what makes it essential to override security today that wasn't true a year ago?

Well, the story said the NYT delayed publication for a year, out of concern for national security. That delay may have helped Bush get re-elected, mightn't it? Isn't that just as strong an argument the other way from anything you're hinting at?

Hey--why did all the Bush apologists flee the thread in terror? They seem to be on the movie thread...

All this cutting and running, I don't know. Whatever happened to staying the course?

Pale Rider:

Hey--why did all the Bush apologists flee the thread in terror? They seem to be on the movie thread...

Some of us work for a living, even if it is at the same computer. I've often wondered what everyone else here does that keeps them posting through a whole workday.

tbrosz:The answer, of course, is that back then it wasn't useful as a political weapon.

and
The New York Times withheld this story at government request for a year. You tell me what's happening today to suddenly make it worth overriding that request. Clue: there's at least two answers.

ME:
Been sitting on it for a year....say, what was going on just over a year ago now?
Oh wait! An election! But nah, why would the MSM (who you characterize as democrat butt monkeys) sit on these Nixonian antics?

You're not thinking at all are you?

And by the way, cross any reference to Libertarian off your resume.

Cheers,
Tony

Some of us work for a living, even if it is at the same computer. I've often wondered what everyone else here does that keeps them posting through a whole workday.

I'm head of the Ethics Committee for the RNC.

Mike B.:

If you read all my comments on Libertarianism (and I have a few up in this thread), I don't think we're really disagreeing.

The Ubermensch mentality I'm talking about is part of a cartoonish Ayn Rand libertarianism that isn't strictly speaking libertarian because it would identify strongly with fiat executive power. That's closer to fascism than libertarianism and even Rand would be appalled.

Nonetheless, that's the motivation of a lot of otherwise small-government Bush supporters who get exercised, as others have said, by external threats. It's contradictory, but it's a big strain of the Bush base.

Otherwise, Libertarians are schizophrenic about power. I really do believe that at heart they're utopians and they sincerely think that a free market benefits everybody.

On the other hand, they're all closet elitists as you said (when they're not overt elitists) no matter how they try to do the Milton Friedman thing and argue that free markets promote social mobility.

Once again, they rationalize it at the end of the day by "equal opportunity, unequal results."

Bob

tbrosz - since you asked, I'll put in another 2 cents worth:

1. According to Drudge, this New York Times story was tied in to a book deal. See http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

2. There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. There have been some horrendous ones abroad: Madrid, Bali, London, etc. It seems a bit much to for those of us who spent the last four years uninvolved with security to claim moral superiority to the people who kept us safe.

Would the US would have been attack-free without this surveillance program, as well as other bete noirs, like the Patriot Act, arrests of illegal immigrants, rough questioning of al Quada prisoners, detention of Jose Padilla, etc.? I doubt it.

There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. There have been some horrendous ones abroad: Madrid, Bali, London, etc. It seems a bit much to for those of us who spent the last four years uninvolved with security to claim moral superiority to the people who kept us safe.

Um, the NSA is specifically authorized and tasked with monitoring foreign communications of our nations enemies and, for that matter, foreigners in general. Since they have blatantly failed to head off the terrorist attacks of foreign terrorists-- which is their actual job-- what makes you think they have had anything to do with preventing terrorist attacks in the USA-- something they weren't even formed to deal with?

There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.

And what happened on 9/11?

Somehow the rabid Republicans always love to start the timeline on 9/12, as if to ignore the fact that Bush was in charge on 9/11 and for the nine months prior and that it occurred on his watch. So yeah -- since Bush failed to protect 3,000 Americans, four airliners, nine New York office towers and the Pentagon the first time, he hasn't done it again. High marks indeed.

I've often wondered what everyone else here does that keeps them posting through a whole workday.

Oh, we're mainly government contractors, most of us engaged in aerospace research but some of us also working in the military procurement and law enforcement fields.

For myself, though, I'm a lawyer at the RNC. I post when I can grab a minute from dealing with the latest indictment of one of our members for corruption and/or espionage charges.

Trex, I didn't read your post before I put mine up. It seems we're thinking along the same lines....and we're colleagues.

Stefan and Trex
You are fired.
The job is mine, not yours.

There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11.

Not counting the anthrax attacks and the LAX attack by a single al-Qaeda-linked terrorist.

Now, if you mean there hasn't been a single-location mass-casualty terrorist attack since 9/11, or there hasn't been a multiple-casualty terrorist attack where the responsible party has been identified since 9/11, then you would be correct. But, as you put it, the statement is undeniably false.

Stefan questions my starting the timeline at 9/11. We're debating the effectiveness certain programs which began after 9/11, not Bush's degree of blame. Since these programs were introduced, no successful terrorist attacks have taken place.

Constantine asserts that the NSA has "blatantly failed to head off the terrorist attacks of foreign terrorists." [I suspect he means "patently" rather than "blatantly".] The trouble is, we don't know how many attacks the NSA has headed off. The only ones we read about are those that actually occurred.

"monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mails"

So let's review. If someone makes a call to the US from Germany, and then it forwards to Syria, they can be confident that the NSA cannot monitor their calls? Fine.

Kind of like you guys defense a couple of days ago that Saddam was under no obligation to hand over a WTC bomber that he claimed to have in custody, because he had no extradition treaty.

OK, I trust you guys to run the country.

The trouble is, we don't know how many attacks the NSA has headed off.

A number that could easily be "none." At least, it's a claim with as much validity as your claims. Since the NSA can't do its own job, why are you claiming that they're successful at performing a task that is outside its jurisdiction, to say nothing the fact that doing so is illegal?

Flanders: Clue: there's at least two answers.

Is one of them "Japan"? - Stefan

And Poland, you're forgetting about Poland!

Since these programs were introduced, no successful terrorist attacks have taken place.

Except, of course, that, as noted, that's not actually true.

Since these programs were introduced, no successful terrorist attacks have taken place.

Except, of course, that, as noted, that's not actually true. - cmdicely

*************************

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, dear.

Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Oh, how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Well, I for one am glad that the ACLU occasionally does something moderately useful. This morning's SF Chron brought the news that they are suing the NFL for patting down fans entering a football stadium. A spokesperson is quoted as saying, well, they don't do this at baseball games, or hockey games, or the opera, or the theater, and shouldn't every large public gathering be treated the same way? And anyway, a pat-down violates the privacy right in the CA Constitution.

The NFL being, I take it, an arm of the state of California.

I do wish these people would grow up and confine themselves to serious stuff, like the subject of this thread.

As a matter of logic I agree with Eric Paulsen. One cannot prove that terrorist attacks in the US would have succeeded in the absence of various security programs. (At least, those of us not privy to government secrets can't prove it.)

We can only deal in likelihood. We known that successful attacks have taken place in a number of other countries during the last 4 years. We know that al Qaeda has said that the US is their primary enemy. Nevertheless, no attacks have succeeded here.

I think it's reasonable to give credit to Bush, Ashcroft, the military, etc. for protecting us. However, if anyone wants to believe the US was just lucky, one cannot absolutely prove them wrong.

One cannot prove that terrorist attacks in the US would have succeeded in the absence of various security programs.

Perhaps one cannot prove that. One can, however, prove that terrorist attacks did occur and kill people in the US despite those security programs, including, most notably, the anthrax attacks.

We can only deal in likelihood. We known that successful attacks have taken place in a number of other countries during the last 4 years. We know that al Qaeda has said that the US is their primary enemy. Nevertheless, no attacks have succeeded here.

Well, yes, attacks have succeeded here. And, more importantly, attacks have suceeded against US targets overseas, carried out by al-Qaeda.

Stefan questions my starting the timeline at 9/11. We're debating the effectiveness certain programs which began after 9/11, not Bush's degree of blame. Since these programs were introduced, no successful terrorist attacks have taken place.

A fine example of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

tool of some sort: So let's review. If someone makes a call to the US from Germany, and then it forwards to Syria, they can be confident that the NSA cannot monitor their calls?

Pay attention. The calls can be monitored, just as your house can be searched for illegal drugs or child pornography. In order to do it legally though a warrant is required. See US Constitution, Amendment IV. It's one of the things that's supposed to distinguish the US from theocracies or other totalitarian governments. Given that this system has worked well for over 200 years, my conservative nature says that we should stick with it a while longer.

David: I think it's reasonable to give credit to Bush, Ashcroft, the military, etc. for protecting us.

Why? Don't you think that if they had foiled any terrorist plots, they would say so?

Please don't tell me that secrecy requirements would prevent them from doing so, as I'm confident that political points come out on top of supposed secrecy requirements. No secret was made during the Clinton administration when Project Bojinka [sp?] or the Millenium Bomb plot were foiled, nor should there have been. In fact announcing that you've foiled a plot makes it less likely that others will try, just as announcements of criminal convictions or military victories act as deterrents.

I've often wondered what everyone else here does that keeps them posting through a whole workday.

I don't know anything about your modern ways. I was running along a crevasse ten thousand years ago, being hunted by a rival tribe who wanted to use my head as a totem of their power. I fell into the crevasse and was frozen. Scientists unthawed me and now I comment on blog threads.

[props to the genius of Phil Hartman]

I was running along a crevasse ten thousand years ago, being hunted by a rival tribe who wanted to use my head as a totem of their power. I fell into the crevasse and was frozen. Scientists unthawed me and now I comment on blog threads.

... and I may not know much about blogs or internets or these bright, noisy things you call computers. But one thing I do know is that the government should not be using the NSA to spy on the American people without a warrant!

By all means I think the Dems should freeze all action on everything in Congress and host a great big circus show of impeaching Bush and Cheney.

As that drags out into next summer I anticipate there will be a lot of military coming home from Iraq, especially if the Sunnis continue to become invested in the new Iraq, the economy continues to surge, and a lot of voters start to contemplate the question, "Hmmmm, basically Bush was willing to break the law after 9/11 in order to find out if there was a terror cell about ready to launch an attack on MY city. . .hmmmm."

By all means I think the Dems should start this impeachment. Please, please, please, don't wimp out. Let a thousand flowers of your intense hatred of Bush/Cheney bloom openly in the light of day! Then next November we will deal with you.

BUSH STRIKES BACK [Byron York]

The president just delivered a very tough radio address -- live, not on tape, as is the usual practice -- responding to the controversy over the New York Times report on National Security Agency surveillance. The gist: the surveillance program is critical to security, legal, and carefully reviewed at various intervals -- and the leak of its existence was illegal:

This is posted on nationalreviewonline for those of you interested. There will not be an impeachment. Congress will 1st have to investigate itself and then the NY Times. We know from all of the court cases the Times lost in the Plame case we cold have a few more reporters going to jail.

Constantine,

Your modern ways frighten me and your large buildings resemble Gods raining mayhem down upon a simple people.

Actually, this extraordinary assertion of an executive power to spy upon electronic communications really has me excited, because I strongly suspect that in the paranoid months right after 9/11 some very excited thinking was going on within the Bush administration.

It is one thing to assert a right to do something, but another to actually do it. If it turns out that Team Bush sought the extraordinary power because there was some specific target they had in mind that was too delicate to get any other way--who could it be?

Who was actually spied on? If it turn out no one was spied on, impeachment seems a little excessive. Was it some peacenik leftist group that was making like cheerleaders for the enemy only months after 9/11?

Were individual American citizens being spied on like Ramsey Clark or Michael Moore? Were the prime targets naturalized American citizens from middle-eastern backgrounds? Were there international corporations with American employees that actually came under suspicion?

Here's a mind twister--suppose the people Team Bush really wanted to spy on in the most delicate way manageable were citizens with dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship?

I suspect I am going to love this story as it unfolds. . .

Didn't we throw tea into the bay a couple centuries ago for a lot less than what the government is getting away with today?