The charge that this revelation harms national security is entirely without merit. The fact is these kooks could go to the special court for a warrant whenever they had some suspicion and I can't imagine they'd be turned down. And I can't imagine that any bad guys wouldn't be aware they might be tapped if the US found some connection to terrorism.

They didn't go to the court because they wanted to push the idea that they didn't need to. We'll see how that stands up to Congressional scrutiny. Even Spector sounds pissed off. And eventually this will wind up in court. Which by the way shows why Meiers was a reasonable choice by Bush's lights, he knew this kind of stuff would end up in the Supreme Court eventually.

Worse. Than. Nixon.

larry -
I've been wondering why they chose to go this route and not another. Maybe it's trying to push the boundaries of executive power out. The other possibility is that they knew the wouldn't be able to get the warrants from the judges. Either because the evidence they had was THAT thin, or because the people they were spying on were clearly not valid terrorism suspects. Like, say, some political opponents.

And hey, during the whole Bolton confirmation thing, wasn't there some NSA intercepts that they WH didn't want to give up? Huh.

I don't quite recall, but it seems like there was some speculation that those Bolton intercepts were somehow Plame related. Nothing more than speculation, but wouldn't that be funny; I bet you'd have a tough time getting a FISA warrant on a NOC CIA operative.

The program was legal. The NSA has, in its writ, the responsibility to intercept international communications. If it crosses a border, it's international. Shakesepeare's sister doesn't seem to understand this, but it's in the law Congress wrote to authorize the NSA.

Further, note the care taken: periodic reviews, vetting by the Justice Department, and review by White House counsel. I suppose you could charge the Bush administration with something illegal and demand impeachment, but it's going to be awfully hard to claim that somehow care wasn't taken to understand the law. That's the statement in GWB's 'consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution' phrase.

Finally, you might remember how the 9/11 Commission slammed our government for not connecting the dots. Here the government is going to great lengths to get information and connect dots, and -- yup, once again -- getting slammed for it.

The NSA doesn't have the time or equipment to listen to every conservation. They used common sense and the intel generated by their work, and the work of others, to focus on telephone calls, e-mails, etc that had a legitimate security interest. That's the 'clear link' that GWB notes.

So a question for all the PA commenters: should we never intercept the conversations and e-mails that our declared enemies are having?

The NSA is authorized to intecept international communications, even if one end is in the U.S. Again, there's nothing illegal or criminal in any of this. Except the leak, of course. And we have the Plame affair as an example of how to handle leaks, right?

It will be interesting to see what Congress will do. Bush has essentially issued a direct challenge to their authority. Will this be sufficient to wake them up to their oversight responsibilities? I wish I could be sure that it would.

God bless our preznut!

I bet many of my friends have been wire-tapped.

I bet my family has been wire-tapped.

We're Quakers after all and do not believe in wars as ANY kind of answer, ever.

Sheesh. I bet having a sign "Peace is Patriotic" in my front yard has meant wire-tapping by the NSA.

Folks...this is not about national security, it's about abuse of power.

Digby at Hullaballoo posted a link to this story about a Dartmouth senior who was visited by the FBI because he was doing a research paper on Communist and totalitarian governments and requested a copy of Mao's Little Red Book from the library:

http://tinyurl.com/d6sgu

Talk about fighting the last war ...

How many people think this is just the first excuse for this action we are going to get? It is my understanding that the authority the adminsitration would go to in order to authorize wiretaps, the FISA court, is set up just for cases like this so that authorization can be quickly granted and requests are rarely denied. The administration is even able to approach the court after wiretapping has begun and request a retroactive authorization. If the administration is able to do legally what they are chosing to do illegally, why? Is it their intention to never build cases that would be able to go to trial and why? All this information does is bring together bits of information that has been leaking out for several months to form a pattern.

Steve:

The hounds are in full cry once again. Injecting logic or facts into this is probably going to have to wait a while.

As with the frequent "lies!" shouting, the hope is that if they yell "illegal!" hard enough, nobody will pay any attention to whether it actually was or not.

More on the timing of this story from the Washington Post.

As I argued in the previous thread, a key point in the politics of this issue is why the Dems on the Intel committee have never raised any kind of public fuss over Bush's actions.

What's really baffling to me is that others in Congress, like Republican Senator Spector, seem to be pretty much up in arms about this. Presumably, they were left out of the loop entirely earlier on.

What the hell was going on with that Intel committee all these years?

What the hell was going on with that Intel committee all these years?

The short answer is that the political winds were blowing a different direction back then.

Oh, Steve. Just take your dishonest bullshit somewhere else. Don't make me go cut and paste the relevant section of the law right here so you have no excuse for not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

The short answer is that the political winds were blowing a different direction back then.

If that's simply a way of saying that the Dems were cowed into not saying boo to something plainly illegal, that's not going to make either the Dems or Bush look any good in these very different times.

tbrosz, amusingly, wrote: "The hounds are in full cry once again. Injecting logic or facts into this is probably going to have to wait a while."

Oh, you mean like your "logic" and "facts" in the earlier thread -- the "logic" that wasn't and the "facts" that weren't? Your glass house is pretty fragile for you to be casting those stones, tbrosz. You got taken to the cleaners on that earlier thread. Care to try again?

"As with the frequent 'lies!' shouting,"

Dear heart, since we have documented that the Bush administration did, in fact, repeatedly lie, I'm afraid that statements such as these just make you look foolish.

"the hope is that if they yell 'illegal!' hard enough, nobody will pay any attention to whether it actually was or not."

Why no, dear, we're simply calling attention to an illegal operation and a president who continues to insist that he is above the law. Care to actually look at the facts in the case or did you just want to remain mindlessly partisan?

Gotta love Steve's reply. He doesn't know anything about the relevant statutes but he's heard a talking point somewhere, so he obediently regurgitates it here. Hilarious!

phleabo:

I think better legal minds than yours or mine are looking at those laws, and apparently have been doing so all along the way.

The part of the speech that was not quoted by Shakespeare's Sister:

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland.

During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the attorney general and the counsel to the president. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups.

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

Oh, and I really loved this particular bit of idiocy from dear little Steve: "So a question for all the PA commenters: should we never intercept the conversations and e-mails that our declared enemies are having?"

Steve, dear, what a love strawman you have created. Did you do it all by yourself?

tbrosz, dear, why on earth would you think that the additional paragraphs from the speech mattered one iota? Gee, the same Bush administration attorneys who decided that he was above the law continue to insist that he is above the law. What a surprise.... Yeah, I'm really encouraged by that "review" -- a review held entirely in secret, most of whose participants are kept secret, whose deliberations, if such there are, are kept secret, and whose conclusions are kept secret. And this is supposed to make me feel better? What color is the sky in your world?

PaulB: It's those attorneys and the Department of Justice, which was also in the loop, that are going to be arguing this case if it ever comes to that, not a bunch of blog commenters. Like the other flaps, the Left is going to have to try and push this on sheer volume and bluster. Hey, it might even work.

That, and a lot of Democratic politicians are going to have to explain why they were quiet on this for so long if it was illegal, and the New York Times is going to have to explain why they blew the whistle on it if doing so was a breach of national security.

If you think about it for a few minutes, the answers to both of those questions are mutually exclusive.

tbrosz,

Did you go and read the relevant sections of FISA?

I bet you haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be quoting that crap. Because the law is pretty specific. If you're a US citizen, resident alien (among other protected entities), you can't be spied on without a warrant. To get a warrant, the government must show evidence that the entity is or is an agent of foriegn power. There's a specific proviso against first amendment protected activities being considered evidence.

Oh, and regarding the Democratic senators keeping this quiet:

I could give a rats ass about either of them. If any Democratic senators really did know about this, and said nothing, I'm perfectly willing to see the guys hang. You may only concern yourself with partisan politics, but on the left, we actually like laws and freedom. This is purely unacceptable.

From what I understand in the NYT piece, they wanted to avoid getting warrants because of both a time factor (even if they can get them in a few hours) and because they like to do mass simultaneous listening/reading on a whole bunch of emails and phones they find connected to the original perp. Like they finger the original guy and hack into his address book.

Sheesh, you've heard of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon?

I wnoder just how many degrees of separation *any* of us have with Osama, if you consider the odds of connection go up exponentially with every new layer ...

For WIW, there's their rationale for circumventing the law, anyway ...

Bob

I want just one of these wingnuts here to answer this:

What if Hillary was the one doing this stuff?

Dollars to doughnuts they won't respond.

Bottom line: The "War on Terror" is designed purely to crush internal dissent. Nothing more.

Proof of that is their inability to get ANY convictions of ANY terror suspects.

The reason they have to do so much secret shit is that none of it would stand up otherwise.

tbrosz, still gamely trying to defend the indefensible, writes: "PaulB: It's those attorneys and the Department of Justice, which was also in the loop, that are going to be arguing this case if it ever comes to that,"

No shit, Sherlock. Did you have a point to make? We've seen the results of their work in the past, tbrosz, particularly with respect to claims about presidential power. I'm not impressed, nor are most experts on Constitutional law.

"not a bunch of blog commenters."

Which is why I don't pay attention to blog commenters like you or Steve, who quite clearly know nothing about the relevant statutes and have not bothered to do your homework.

"Like the other flaps, the Left is going to have to try and push this on sheer volume and bluster."

Nice to see you've completely made up your mind on this, even though you know nothing about it.

"Hey, it might even work."

It seems to be. How odd that people don't seem to like the fact that Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants, including ordering warrantless spying on U.S. citizens with no oversight of any kind. Weird, that.

"That, and a lot of Democratic politicians are going to have to explain why they were quiet on this for so long if it was illegal,"

Of course they are, although it's not clear just how many Democratic Congresscritters were actually informed. Did you have a point to make?

"and the New York Times is going to have to explain why they blew the whistle on it if doing so was a breach of national security."

You did read the article, right? Go ahead, tbrosz; tell me in what way the publication of that article harmed "national security?" I'll be right here waiting.

"If you think about it for a few minutes, the answers to both of those questions are mutually exclusive."

ROFLMAO.... No comment necessary.

I believe fron the NYT piece that the reason they're letting this out now is because some of their NSA sources have gotten completely disgusted. Whatever the reason it's different now from then -- blame it on the NSA sources, not the NYT.

Bob

rmck1 wrote: "From what I understand in the NYT piece, they wanted to avoid getting warrants because of both a time factor (even if they can get them in a few hours) and because they like to do mass simultaneous listening/reading on a whole bunch of emails and phones they find connected to the original perp. Like they finger the original guy and hack into his address book."

The trouble with this excuse is that it is completely bogus. The law currently allows them to begin surveillance without waiting for permission so long as they seek permission within 72 hours of that surveillance. Moreover, the FISA process was explicitly designed to avoid delays and it almost never denies surveillance permission.

PaulB:

We've seen the results of their work in the past, tbrosz, particularly with respect to claims about presidential power. I'm not impressed, nor are most experts on Constitutional law.

I'm sorry, did the Department of Justice suddenly fall off its "Fitzmas" pedestal around here?

tbrosz, hilariously, wrote: "I'm sorry, did the Department of Justice suddenly fall off its "Fitzmas" pedestal around here?"

ROFL... tbrosz, dear, is this really the best you can come up with? Nice evasion, dear. Too bad I don't feel like playing along.

Oh, and tbrosz, dear, you do realize the difference between Fitzgerald and the Justice Department, don't you? That truly was a hilarious response. I'll have to remember that one.

It isn't an evasion. Either all the organizations, politicians, and legal people that cleared this are the tools of the administration you seem to think they are, or they aren't. You don't get to switch back and forth as it's convenient.

I was always baffled by some posters' insistence here that tbrosz may be a Bush defender, but he is a reasonable and not a mindless rabid conservative.

The foolishness of this assessment by my fellow posters here is for all to see.

Thanks tbrosz.

PaulB:

I'm just relaying what I read in the NYT piece, hardly making any "excuses."

You know, though as a fellow lefy I generally agree with your points -- but I find the way you debate extremely obnoxious and I tend to skip over most of what you write because of it.

Dear heart :)

*muah*

Bob

tbrosz,

I notice you didn't comment on the FISA regulation, but then I noticed that I rudely neglected to give you a link to the code:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

Further, note the care taken: periodic reviews, vetting by the Justice Department, and review by White House counsel.

Yeah, that six-weekly confab went something like this:

"So, Alberto, okay to keep with the spying?"
"Sure, Mr President, and throw in a bit of torture."
"You feel the same way, Harriet?"
"Whatever you say, Mr Best President Ever!"

tbrosz, still digging that hole deeper, writes: "It isn't an evasion."

Yes, dear, it was, and a rather lame one at that, since you still can't bring yourself to actually discuss the facts of this case, the law, the Constitution, or anything in any way relevant. All you can do is bleat that, "gee, Bush has said that this was all carefully reviewed so golly, that must mean that everything is hunky-dory." Pathetic....

"Either all the organizations, politicians, and legal people that cleared this are the tools of the administration you seem to think they are, or they aren't."

No, dear, it's not that simple, as even a moment's thought would reveal. Fitzgerald is not the Justice Department and it was really stupid to bring his name into this. Morever, you're wrong on the substance, as well, since it is possible for some Justice Department and White House attorneys to be completely off-base in their assertions about presidential privilege while being semi-rational when it comes to other matters.

"You don't get to switch back and forth as it's convenient"

Actually, tbrosz, I do. Had you bothered to actually think, you'd have seen this.

lib:

I agree. I've always found the real throsz to be a fairly reasonable debater, and a lot less full of rhetorical trickery than some of the regular lefties here.

I also prefer genuine debate to mere partisan slugfests.

Bob

Wanted to throw this out for thought, although I need to research it further. I have read, or heard, that classification of an illegal activity, in order to hide that illegal activity, is a crime.

Is that what Bush is angry about when he cries out about whoever leaked this? By hiding this illegal activity behind a secret or TS classification, is Bush party to a crime?

rmck1 wrote: "You know, though as a fellow lefy I generally agree with your points -- but I find the way you debate extremely obnoxious and I tend to skip over most of what you write because of it."

When I'm trolling, which is when I use the obnoxious turns of phrase and the condescending tone that you dislike, I fully expect you to ignore what I write. I assure you that the tone is deliberate and I only employ it when the person I'm arguing with has shown himself to be completely impervious to logic or reason, leaving me free to just have fun rather than engage in a serious debate. On those rare occasions when there is someone or something worth debating, I do not, and would not, engage in such tactics.

For the record, the information I present is always valid, so far as I know, but in those cases where I know that no matter what tone I use, I have no chance of convincing the person with whom I'm disagreeing, I don't even try. I simply amuse myself at their expense.

Since Steve and tbrosz quite clearly have done not even a smidgen of homework on this, know nothing about the relevant statutes, and have already made up their minds that this is just another left-wing conspiracy, I see no reason to take them seriously, particularly with the pathetic shit they've written thus far.

What proof do any of you lefty fools have that Bush did something illegal concerning the wiretaps? I would wait for an answer but you have NO PROOF. All you have is an assertion by some anonymous buffon in the NYT and there is pretty minimal credibility in the biased and news manufacturing NYT. I love it!

Keep pissing into the wind. It is what you lefties do best.

rmck1 wrote: "I've always found the real throsz to be a fairly reasonable debater, and a lot less full of rhetorical trickery than some of the regular lefties here."

I don't think that lib wrote what you think he or she wrote. In any case, on this thread and on the earlier thread on this topic, I would have to argue that your assessment of tbrosz is incorrect.

Fat White Guy is another case in point. I see no reason to pretend that he is a reasonable or rational debater and have no intention of treating him as such.

Well, of course, Bush will insist that it was ILLEGAL to reveal his criminal activities!! Duh! Of course, of course, "national security" has been hurt.

What continues to be interesting is why Bush authorized spying on Americans in the first place. There was a legal mechanism in place that would have given Bushco everything they needed. Why the evasion?

Incompetence? Sleight of hand??? They are busy, busy, busy pretending to do something important while doing nothing?

And why do they think anyone trusts them anymore?? My God, three more years???

Oh, and those "reviews" that tbrosz is so proud of?

During the reviews, government officials have also provided a fresh assessment of the terrorist threat, showing that there is a catastrophic risk to the country or government, the official said.

"Only if those conditions apply do we even begin to think about this," he said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the intelligence operation.

Whew ... I feel better now.

PaulB:

First of all, why are you making *excuses* for the way you come across? You come across the way you come across, dude. It's obnoxious. And others don't feel the need to participate in it. Most of the time it just makes me leave the thread, truthfully, because it's so tediously monopolizing.

Secondly, there are people who respond to throsz and Steve who are perfectly reasonable while making the same points that you do. Or maybe someone will flame them in a one-off, but they don't proceed to tag-team the whole thread for the sake of their "own amusement."

Which is, of course, the textual equivalent of masturbation. And while, of course, everybody does it -- it's an art best practiced behind closed doors.

Third, you just make the more reasonable lurkers and fence-sitters doubt your case because nobody who's *that* intent on mockery can have all that much deep-down faith that their points are valid. This isn't necessarily true, of course; I'm not arguing with your points.

But it is a common intuition nonetheless.

So as a friendly word of advice from a fellow lefty: Stop doing our case more harm than good.

Thanks,

Bob

I love how all of our resident "libertarians" have no problem with the federal government spying on United States citizens without a court order.

I guess it really is all about the tax breaks. Fuck personal liberties and freedom from government surveillance as long as you get an extra $100 at the end of the year, right, fellas?

PaulB:

So, how would you work it? Publish the details of each investigation in the NYT so people like you get a chance to decide if it's legitimate or not?

You apparently don't like the hoops they're jumping through now when dealing with secure information, so what would you suggest?

You have a good time with this while it lasts. As with a few other recent attempts on the Bush administration, there's way too many Democrats who would go down with the same ship for the Congress to make too big a deal out of this. You might have noticed how quiet some former Intelligence Committee members are on this.

Back to work, now.

Fat White Guy is another case in point. I see no reason to pretend that he is a reasonable or rational debater and have no intention of treating him as such.

Posted by: PaulB

The only reason you do not respomd is because you have no proof. All you leftiy fools have is speculation that a crime was commited. So you can't debate when you can't answer the question since all you have is speculation.

As far as lefties go you are about as dumb as they come and ussually have nothing but pitiful responses. Like I won't respond because I am too stupid to come up with any proof. I love it!

rmck1 wrote: "First of all, why are you making *excuses* for the way you come across?"

Bob, I'm not making excuses. I'm simply telling you what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. There was not a single excuse in my response to you.

"You come across the way you come across, dude."

Whatever.

"It's obnoxious."

Intentionally so, as I've already said.

"And others don't feel the need to participate in it."

What's that got to do with anything?

"Most of the time it just makes me leave the thread, truthfully, because it's so tediously monopolizing."

Which is why I do it so rarely.

"Secondly, there are people who respond to throsz and Steve who are perfectly reasonable while making the same points that you do."

That's fine. So?

"Third, you just make the more reasonable lurkers and fence-sitters doubt your case because nobody who's *that* intent on mockery can have all that much deep-down faith that their points are valid."

That's their problem; not mine. I stand behind everything I write, even when I'm trolling.

"So as a friendly word of advice from a fellow lefty: Stop doing our case more harm than good."

Sorry, but I have no intention of following this advice.

I'm going to ask a very practical question on this - President Bush has stated that this program is critical to American security and must go on. How can ordinary citizens defend themselves against such surveillance? I don't want to hear "write your representative"; I want to hear practicable techniques to mitigate such spying.

PaulB:

From the NYT article, on the rationale for the new rules:

> The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the Foreign
> Intelligence Surveillance Court is generally considered lower than
> that required for a criminal warrant - intelligence officials only
> have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign
> power," which includes international terrorist groups - and the secret
> court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years.
> In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were
> approved. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can grant
> emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

> Administration officials counter that they sometimes need to move more
> urgently, the officials said. Those involved in the program also said
> that the N.S.A.'s eavesdroppers might need to start monitoring large
> batches of numbers all at once, and that it would be impractical to
> seek permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
> first, according to the officials.

Bob

tbrosz, still struggling gamely, writes: "So, how would you work it?"

Gee, tbrosz, I'd follow the law. And if I thought the law was hamstringing my operation, I'd lobby to change the law, as was done with the "Patriot Act." How would you work it?

"Publish the details of each investigation in the NYT so people like you get a chance to decide if it's legitimate or not?"

Nice strawman, moron.

"You apparently don't like the hoops they're jumping through now when dealing with secure information, so what would you suggest?"

I don't know that they are jumping through any hoops at all, nor do you. I would simply suggest they follow the law. Is this too complicated for you?

"You have a good time with this while it lasts."

Sorry, tbrosz, but I'm not, really. As a result of the culture of fear spawned and fostered by this administration, we are slowly, one by one, losing our civil liberties, destroying the balance of power, and losing what it means to be American. For my own sake and for the sake of the next generation, I want this process stopped.

"As with a few other recent attempts on the Bush administration, there's way too many Democrats who would go down with the same ship for the Congress to make too big a deal out of this."

Since you have no idea how many Democrats were notified or involved, forgive me if I regard this as hyperbole. Personally, I'm all in favor of bringing this out and letting the chips fall where they may. And if this takes down a few Democratic Senators, so be it. In any case, it's still an irrelevant point when it comes to discussing the legality of the Bush administration's actions, a topic you are still strenuously avoiding. Why is that, tbrosz?

rmck1, that still ignores the fact that the law allows them to being surveillance without waiting for permission. So they still don't have a case to make.

Sorry, that should be "begin surveillance," not "being surveillance."

PaulB:

That's how the administration explained themselves, and you're obviously accusing them of flat-out lying, off the record, to the NYT.

Which is fine. I'm not saying they're not, necessarily.

But it does put a question in my mind of whether or not you're accurately interpreting the law in question.

Bob

Bob, I looked over the statute that phleabo posted around 4:00 and it says that the "agents of foreign governments" that may be investigated with few restrictions are non-U.S. citizens. They still have to jump through all the hoops to investigate US citizens or nationals that they suspect might be agents of foreign governments.

In other words, it is illegal to treat US citizens the same as foreign nationals when it comes to surveillance. And yet this seems to be what Bush has admitted to doing.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the Bushies are pulling the whole "any decision the president makes is always legal" bullshit argument all over again, since half the administration served in the Nixon administration, too.

rmck1 wrote: "That's how the administration explained themselves,"

I'm aware of that. They're simply trying to (rather lamely) cover their asses. It won't be the first time that an administration has failed to tell the complete truth and it won't be the last.

"and you're obviously accusing them of flat-out lying, off the record, to the NYT."

I'm saying that their excuses simply don't hold up once you start really looking at them.

"But it does put a question in my mind of whether or not you're accurately interpreting the law in question."

It's easy enough to find out. Do a Google search on "FISA 72 hours" The time period was originally 24 hours. It was extended to 72 hours by the Patriot Act:

"In addition, the time period for emergency authorizations was extended from 24 to 72 hours. If the attorney general determines an emergency situation exists, suveillance that would otherwise require court authorization may be conducted for up to 72 hours, during which time the government must either obtain court authorization or terminate the surveillance."

I wnoder just how many degrees of separation *any* of us have with Osama

Me -> My Father -> worked with Leon Pineta -> worked for Bill Clinton -> Is friends with HW Bush -> Hangs out with Salim bin Laden (et al.) -> is brother of Osama bin Laden.

tbrosz,

If I were Paul, I'd suggest working the investigations in the following way:

1) have sufficient cause to get a FISA warrant
2) carry out the investigtion

If the situation is urgent, the surveilance can begin WITHOUT a warrant. But there must be appropriate notification and judicial approval within 72 hours.

That strikes me as eminently reasonable.

And come to think of it, you never did mention how it is that warrantless searches were ok under US law. Still reviewing the relevant US code?

PaulB:

> rmck1 wrote: "First of all, why are you making
> *excuses* for the way you come across?"

> Bob, I'm not making excuses. I'm simply telling
> you what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. There
> was not a single excuse in my response to you.

Paul, you absolutely are. You're saying that you behave the
way you do because other people make you. Which is something
that a six-year old says. Or a badly socialized teenager.

> "You come across the way you come across, dude."

> Whatever.

I'm just holding up a mirror. Lords know, I've been accused
of this type of thing enough in my time on other blogs --
but it had to do with posting huge multi-thread debates
involving issue analysis and not cheesy point-by-point flames.

Of course I'm being a total shameless hypocrite at the moment :)

> "It's obnoxious."

> Intentionally so, as I've already said.

If you enjoy being obnoxious, that's fine I suppose.
But your actions have an effect on thread ecology.

> "And others don't feel the need to participate in it."

> What's that got to do with anything?

It means that there's a greater likelihood that other people will
read those rebuttals and engage in the substance of the arguments.

> "Most of the time it just makes me leave the thread,
> truthfully, because it's so tediously monopolizing."

> Which is why I do it so rarely.

Well, that's not my experience of your posts. Every time I've seen
you participate in a thread you do this. Or maybe I only notice
your posts when you do this -- which might be part of the point.
But if it is, you're getting notice for all the wrong reasons.

> "Secondly, there are people who respond to throsz and Steve who
> are perfectly reasonable while making the same points that you do."

> That's fine. So?

Once again, thread ecology. Look at this one. Everybody
has essentially left. Maybe they got bored of this kind
of one-upmanship in lieu of a more substantive debate.

> "Third, you just make the more reasonable lurkers and fence-sitters
> doubt your case because nobody who's *that* intent on mockery can
> have all that much deep-down faith that their points are valid."

> That's their problem; not mine. I stand behind
> everything I write, even when I'm trolling.

Maybe the point is that trolling is self-indulgent and childish.

> "So as a friendly word of advice from a fellow
> lefty: Stop doing our case more harm than good."

> Sorry, but I have no intention of following this advice.

Then accept the kind of negative perceptions it creates.

Bob

Mnemosyne (that's a great handle, btw. Are you familiar with the scene with Lady Mnemosyne Gloobe in Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow?"):

Yep, that appears to be the argument -- that there's a firewall between domestics and foreign nationals.

Couldn't the Bush people argue that the domestics they're spying on are *talking* to foreign nationals? Aren't these warrantless wiretaps done to transoceanic conversations?

Or did I miss something and Bush admitted to spying on purely domestic communications?

I am *not* asking rhetorically.

Bob

Goran: "Me -> My Father -> worked with Leon Pineta -> worked for Bill Clinton -> Is friends with HW Bush -> Hangs out with Salim bin Laden (et al.) -> is brother of Osama bin Laden."

Degrees of separation between Osama bin Laden and "me", continued...

Me -->my friend-->her friend, the Bush Ranger & hostess with the mostest-->Bush-->who hangs out with Salim bin laden-->who is brother of Osama bin Laden.

What caught my eye and bothers me the most about this is the fact that once they pick a target -- let alone for a moment how legitimate this target might be as an object of scrutiny -- they then comb all his/her personal contacts and start surveilling *them*.

And just as a few just noted, we're all probably a lot closer in degrees of separation to the Terrorist Antichrist than we may like to think ...

Which means we *all* could be potential targets if they they take these second-generation probes and start pulling *their* address books into it, and so on ...

Very shuddery ...

Bob

My last response on this.

Paul, you absolutely are. You're saying that you behave the way you do because other people make you. Which is something that a six-year old says. Or a badly socialized teenager."

No. I take full responsibility for my actions, Bob. I'm deliberately, intentionally trolling when I write that way. Nobody is forcing me, nobody else is responsible, nor have I said that they are.

"I'm just holding up a mirror."

Not really. Your own perceptions of what I write are in no way a "mirror." I know precisely what I'm doing and I know why I'm doing it. You are entirely welcome to completely ignore me, which is what you say that you have done in the past.

"If you enjoy being obnoxious, that's fine I suppose."

I enjoy myself immensely, thanks.

"But your actions have an effect on thread ecology."

I agree that they might, which is why I do it so rarely. You're assuming, by the way, that my posts get in the way of serious debate here. I think you'll be hard-pressed to back up that assertion.

"Well, that's not my experience of your posts."

Sigh... Take a look at the past 30 threads or so. In how many of them have I submitted sufficient posts to warrant the kind of charge you're making?

Saturday Musings - 0 posts
Op-Ed Payola - 0 posts
Bush Defends Secret Program - Guilty as charged
RIP John Spencer - 0 posts
Friday Cat Bloggins - 0 posts
Filibustered - 0 posts
Hilzoy's impeachment post - 1 post, at the very bottom of the thread
Uh-oh - 0 posts
Novak's Outta There - 0 posts
Older Americans Souring On Bush - 0 posts
Above the Law - 0 posts
Hilzoy's torture post - 0 posts
War-Torn - 0 posts
Question of the Day - 0 posts
Brokeass Mountain - 0 posts
I Call Bullshit - 0 posts
Comedic Gems - 0 posts
Koufax Awards - 0 posts
Superman Indeed - 0 posts
High Turnout in Iraqi Elections - 24 posts out of 297, half of which were quite serious and missing the obnoxious style you dislike
Out of Town - 0 posts
John Bolton - 0 posts
Context - 0 posts
Google Earth - 0 posts
Human Fallibility - 0 posts
Zero Tolerance - 0 posts
Movie Peeves - 0 posts
Torture - 0 posts
Bad Day at the Office - 0 posts
Domestic Spying - 0 posts

My god...someone shut me down! I'm obviously taking over the comments section here!

"Once again, thread ecology. Look at this one. Everybody has essentially left."

Have they? It's Saturday afternoon. Just how popular did you think this thread was going to be at this time?

"Maybe they got bored of this kind
of one-upmanship in lieu of a more substantive debate."

To have a substantive debate requires two sides. Thus far, tbrosz, Steve White, FWG, and their ilk have yet to provide anything substantive. Were they willing and able to do so, I assure you that my tone would change.

"Then accept the kind of negative perceptions it creates."

I have no problem doing this.

Just continuing the circle of love, Shakespeare's Sister posted an informative link on anothern thread.

"When you need a wiretap, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to apply for one. When you need it yesterday, FISA allows you to place the tap immediately and retroactively clear it with a judge 72 hours later. The law strikes a balance between broad executive powers and substantive oversight -- the president has full authority to assault the evildoers, but cannot deploy the law on behalf of his own political interests. It's a check on totalitarianism. What Bush has done is unilaterally decide the oversight unnecessary. Given the shape and safeguards of FISA, there was no operational need to evade it. It was an exclusively ideological decision in service of unlimited executive powers, and it's chilling."

If there were responsible Americans in control of Congress, it would be impeachable.

Watch out, canceling elections is next -- national security, don't you know?

rmck1 wrote: "Couldn't the Bush people argue that the domestics they're spying on are *talking* to foreign nationals? Aren't these warrantless wiretaps done to transoceanic conversations?"

Well, that's pretty much the case they are trying to make. I don't think anyone quibbles with the idea that the NSA has the authority to monitor conversations that take place between foreign nationals on foreign soil. I also don't think that anyone argues with the idea that the NSA lacks the authority, without proper warrant, to monitor the conversations of U.S. citizens that take place on U.S. soil. (Although in the latter case, I assume that it would usually be the FBI rather than the NSA doing the monitoring.)

Instead, the warrantless monitoring that is taking place involves international communications, just as you have stated. Unfortunately for the Bush administration, FISA is pretty clear on this:

(1) 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 periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power [e.g., foreign embassies, which the NSA routinely monitors - PaulB], as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title

There are two approaches to getting around FISA, if I understand the issues correctly. The first is the claim that this falls under the president's constitutional authority. And since this is based on (a rather creative reading of) the Constitution, it trumps FISA, since a statute cannot override the Constitution.

The problem with this approach is that when you examine the relevant precedents, the record is decidedly mixed. The Supreme Court has shown deference to presidential authority, it is true, but has also placed limits on it, including relevant limits when it comes to Fourth Amendment protections of U.S. citizens (e.g., Katz v. United States).

The Bush administration is also claiming that "the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing [Bush] to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups" gives him the authority to do this. Since the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to share their legal reasoning, though, the precise reasoning they are using is as yet unknown. Suffice to say that I'm as skeptical of this claim as I am of the other. Nor have I seen anyone post any reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes or Constitutional authority that would irrefutably back up either claim.

Time to go to school

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html#26
http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18-80.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS22011.pdf
http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/dod5240-1-r.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB24/index.htm

Under FISA, NSA may only target communictions of a US person in the United States if a federal judge find probable cause to believe that the US person is an agent of a foreign power. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonalbe caution to believe that the proposed target of surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Under the statute, a judge may determine a US person to be an agent of a foreign power only if there is information to support a finding that the individual is a spy, terrorist, saboteur, or someone who aids or abets them.

I wonder what DIRNSA testimony would be now.

Also, we should have seen this coming. I remember reading this article in 2003 but I don't remember it getting much, if any attention, in blogland.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/112503A.shtml

What connection do the Quakers have to al qaida...that would be my question.

mother-f-ing-liars

rmck1:

It is inappropriate for you to speak for anyone other than yourself where PaulB's comments are concerned. It is also inappropriate for you to be making assertions that he is harming the conversation and debate in the various threads he comments in without actually being able to substantiate that claim, and since you are the only one complaining about this you have not met that burden, not even close. As well, no one is forcing you to read any of his posts, so even there your complaint does not hold up much water.

PaulB has been one of the better commentators at this blog that I have seen in the past 2 years of being here myself. His factual accuracy is extremely high, and the few times he has been wrong he has freely acknowledged his mistake. Now, as for his periodic posts where he shreds the arguments our Trolletariat presents I happen to find quite readable. They also show just how poorly those arguments are "reasoned" out, and what shaky (when there is any at all) premises they are founded on. Given much of the language, characterizations, and personalities our Trolletariat consider acceptable to use why then is it so unreasonable to reflect some of that back in a clear example of doing unto others as they are doing unto you? As for your contention "Third, you just make the more reasonable lurkers and fence-sitters doubt your case because nobody who's *that* intent on mockery can have all that much deep-down faith that their points are valid." it is more than a little presumptuous of yourself to believe you are in any position to speak for these lurkers and fence sitters and to know how they feel about PaulB's posts. Not to mention that PaulB has written many in depth content and contextually well reasoned posts for far longer than you have been contributing from what I have seen.

I would get off that pedestal you have elevated yourself upon before you discover that the foundations it rests upon lack cohesion and without any real substance/solidity.

General:

As for the thread topic itself, I find it remarkable that this could surprise anyone given Bush thought throwing American citizens into indefinite jail without any charges or warrants ever filed was a legal act. As for the Dem Congresscritters that may have known some or all of this, it would be instructive to know what kind of criminal sanction they would have been risking if they had made public classified information learned in the course of their duties. Remember Bob Graham ran from President because he knew the Bush Administration was lying about pre war intelligence but because of the classifications issues could not contest it publicly. Similar considerations may apply here. I do not know that they do, but it is one explanation that should be considered along with the others like this being continued cowardice because of the 9/11/01 effect and the Bush/GOP exploitation of it for domestic political advantages.

Personally I have been assuming that the American government is monitoring anyone it wants to, be it for security issues or for domestic political advantage. It is not like there is not a prior history of the GOP doing so back in the Nixon era, and seeing as there are so many Nixon alumni at the senior levels of the Bush Administration there is the experience and understanding of how to go about doing so under the guise of fighting a war. When taken with all the other Nixon like tactics and strategies seen from this Administration it would be almost irresponsible to not assume this kind of abuse was rampant inside this Administration.

I really like the posts by rmck1. But I also like it when PaulB takes on Tbrosz, FWG etc. Tbrosz can be reasonable when he wants to, but every so often he gets drunk on the koolaid and just goes completely irrational.

Hmm...if I'm interpreting things correctly, I think this is the Congressional resolution that the Bush administration claims gives him the authority to ignore FISA. I'm assuming the passage in bold below is the relevant authority, although Section 2 might conceivably apply if you apply a really tortured interpretation:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization of Use of Military Force"

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

(a) That 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION - Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS - Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

To be fair, it's the Pentagon that's apparently spying on the Quakers, not the NSA.

Which totally makes it better, somehow.

Scotian and WhoSays, thank you, but please let it drop. Rmck1 is entitled to his opinion and I am not even remotely offended by anything he has written. His is not an entirely unfair characterization and I have no doubt that his posts were well-intentioned.

"Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country."
But enough about Valerie Plame...

phleabo wrote: "To be fair, it's the Pentagon that's apparently spying on the Quakers, not the NSA."

True, but it is relevant to bring it up, if only because it demonstrates the problem of taking at face value any assertions that the NSA wiretaps were only directed at members and suspected members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Since abuses have occurred in the past, there is little reason to believe that such abuses have not taken place in this program, either. Hell, that's the very reason for FISA's existence in the first place.

Bush today: "I did not have sex with that statute."

PaulB:

Thanks for your graciousness. BTW, I'm convinced now on the impeachable nature of this. I read some other posts and links which clearly show that the 72 hour provision for getting a warrant after the fact is entirely sufficient.

As for our disagreement -- just call it a personal taste thing. It's certainly not the point-by-point responses in themselves, only the excess snark, the "dear hearts" and the like.

I just thought it went over the top is all. But certainly I've been told off before when I write extremely long and off-topic posts, and my response has always been identical to Scotian's.

Nobody has to read them. Scroll to taste. So ... point taken.

Windhorse:

ROTFLMFAO ! Comment of the DAY, my man :):):)

Bob

Asserting the power to do something is one thing. It will be rather interesting to see if anyone was actually spied on and, if so, who was it? This may become the divisive issue of all time if it turns out that the U.S. government had reasonable probable cause to wish to spy on some U.S. leftist groups which veered close to being cheerleaders for the enemy after 9/11.

If the spying was on individuals like Ramsey Clark or Michael Moore, the debate could become quite lively if the government gets to defend its reasons for seeking such extraordinary powers.

Michael L. Cook wrote: "Asserting the power to do something is one thing. It will be rather interesting to see if anyone was actually spied on"

That doesn't seem to be in doubt, actually. While the actual count is not precisely known, other than to the Bush administration, the sources claimed that up to 500 people at any given time were being monitored, with the total number of people involved numbering into the thousands. The Bush administration has openly admitted to this behavior, citing in its own defense certain cases that it claimed were aided by these actions.

"and, if so, who was it?"

Ah, one of the two million-dollar questions. The Bush administration has only revealed a couple of names. The full list is, of course classified. I'd be willing to bet that there are a hell of a lot of completely innocent people on that list. Since I cannot back this up, though, it's a moot point.

"This may become the divisive issue of all time if it turns out that the U.S. government had reasonable probable cause to wish to spy on some U.S. leftist groups which veered close to being cheerleaders for the enemy after 9/11."

Actually, if that's what they are doing, I doubt that the issue will be divisive at all, since the majority of Americans would find such behavior to be completely beyond the pale and abhorrent.

"If the spying was on individuals like Ramsey Clark or Michael Moore, the debate could become quite lively if the government gets to defend its reasons for seeking such extraordinary powers."

Were such to be the case, I would expect the debate to be quite short, since such behavior clearly and conclusively crosses the line.

The NSA is authorized to intecept international communications, even if one end is in the U.S. Again, there's nothing illegal or criminal in any of this. Except the leak, of course. And we have the Plame affair as an example of how to handle leaks, right?

Posted by: Steve White on December 17, 2005

Here is where you get the typical half-wit argument from people who have never had to deal with FISA or with the regulations regarding what is known as USSID 18.

The administration believed that it had the legal authority to tell NSA to go out and conduct this collection without having to go through the process of getting a court order and without having to acknowledge or answer for their actions.

It isn't really about anything more than a corrupt administration placing itself above the law. I don't care whether these were Democrats or Republicans--the President went out there this morning and admitted his guilt to an impeachable offense.

Case closed. When do the hearings start? Who are the House managers going to be?

No amount of spin can change what we were telling the trolls on Friday afternoon--this is serious, this is a critical matter and the "corner has been turned."

It just wasn't the corner the administration was expecting.

Hey--what the heck just happened in Iraq anyway?

But I have to give PaulB a tip of the hat--excellent stuff.

Why do you hate America, PaulB? You know the trolls are going to throw that one at you, don't you?

PaulB:

Fair enough, and I also have been enjoying the content of his posts. It was the speaking for others bit that got under my skin, probably because I have had variations of it tossed at me in the past around here. I can certainly see why some of your Trolletariat dissections might irritate some on a stylistic basis, but I always thought that if someone's style annoyed one too much all one had to do was scroll along. It is one thing to claim for oneself that such a style is irritating and offensive, it is quite another in my books to claim it is offending others and the only way that such a claim can be made is through speculation and assumption only.

rmck1:

Sorry, I probably went a bit stronger than was really appropriate, but as I just said to PaulB there was an aspect that just got under my skin. Sorry about that. I must say I quite respect your response though, very well said, and demonstrating a degree of maturity in disagreement/discourse that seems at times to be all too lacking these days.

Why not send Bush a peach for Christmas?

Scotian:

Oh, not a problem, bro. The graciousness was really PaulB's for not taking me personally to begin with. And I've certainly been debating in cyberspace way too long to take anything too personally myself.

Whether or not you feel you came on too strongly, your reaction was entirely understandable. It's funny how we both seem to have been on the other side of this coin; people do become more sensitive to things they've been at times accused of themselves.

Here's my deal; I come from a different background troll-wise than your typical lefty blog, the world of which is new to me. My recent formative experiences are on the NYT Iraq fora and the Howard Dean blog. Their approaches to trolls were both somewhat different.

On the NYT fora, the culture was highly dysfunctional. People grew to know each other with a higher degree of familiarity that's really appropriate in these places and there were some exceedingly bad apples who lost friendships and then proceeded to share personal gossip in extremely malicious ways. The forum was moderated but the moderator was absentee. A troll problem there entailed defending oneself from libellous personal insinuations. I'll never go back there again.

When Dean was running for president, troll infestations on BlogForAmerica were intense as one can imagine. The Dean community cultivated an espirit that verged on the cultish (I'll admit it) and consequently developed a very hard-core approach to trolls and trolling. Trolls were *not* to be responded to, and violators (such as myself, because I love debate) were interminably read the riot act for damaging the community. At times it amounted to a reverse McCarthyism -- and I admit these were some of the tapes I had in my head when I told Paul that he was degrading the ecology here. That was misplaced on my part. The culture here is quite different regarding trolls.

I guess at the end of the day I was just concerned with trying to keep the debate civil, because gratuitous flames don't add much to the discourse. But I really have a limit I can honestly push that, because I can be absolutely as "bad" as the next guy when it comes to troll-thwackery.

People and glass houses, you know. So I shall chide no more, and scroll judiciously when necessary :)

Fire away, Griddleys ...

Bob

Just for the record: I hope that the person who leaked this story is NOT investigated, NOT fired, NOT ostracized, NOT publicly humiliated. Instead, I hope he has a tragic accident, say, a trip and fall into the path of a subway train, or a heart attack while in bed with a hooker.

DBL:

And I hope you get hit by a truck for writing that.

Your point?

Bob

Bob,

Didn't you notice the initials?

DBL.

That's Dave bin Laden, Osama's younger and less-successful brother. His gig is that he hates patriotic whistle-blowers who keep the fires of democracy burning, and spends his time fantasizing about their accidental deaths.

The worst part of all of this--American technological snobbery and grand-standing has caused the real terror cells to go off the grid I fear. All of this crap spewed NSA intercepts--they have become antiquated and have become most useful in controlling dissent and political opponents. The real dangerous types pass notes. HUMINT is where we will win or lose the WOT, and I fear all the torture and missteps of this administration is bungling that one too.

Bush has committed yet another high crime--it s time for Americans to unite, stop the name-calling, and reign in these half-wits once and for all. Broscz, that means you too. Who wants to be an ideological, stubborn, ignorant bastard when the Constitution is imperiled?

Anyone who doubts that the federal government is waging a war on the personal liberties of American citizens should join the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation). The Bush administration has been involved in several clearly illegal actions: TSA - SecureFlight database, FCC - mandated backdoor into all internet traffic, Justice Department - Secretly tracking individuals via their cell phone without probable cause.

With the perspective offered by another day's passing:

The big defense the Buhshills are using, including Condi this AM as grilled with reasonable flair by Punkinhead: The President is justified because of his powers as "Commander in Chief." Bunk. The CIC role simply means he is supreme authority over the armed forces, nothing more about any other powers w.r.t. the rest of us. Why do they think they can get away with such crap? Enough dopey basists, enough media enablers, enough compromised conservative "intellectuals."

Second, as per informing the bad guys: they would already know that they could be spied on if court order obtained, so already on guard. The difference was, as Levin made clear on MTP, was that Bullsh didn't even ask much of the time. He thinks he is indeed above the law - a true imperial president, and not at all legitimately "conservative" - do you get that, Al, tbrosz, Alice, Patton, et al?

http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-women-porn.html - asian women porn http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-women-porn.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/nude-asian-man.html - nude asian man http://wfw4.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/nude-asian-man.html
http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-cum.html - asian cum http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-cum.html
http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/japanese-spitz.html - japanese spitz http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/japanese-spitz.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/photos-hardcore-young-asian-sex-petite.html - photos hardcore young asian sex petite http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/photos-hardcore-young-asian-sex-petite.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/amateur-pantyhose-legs-nylons-feet.html - amateur pantyhose legs nylons feet http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/amateur-pantyhose-legs-nylons-feet.html
http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/sheer-pantyhose.html - sheer pantyhose http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/sheer-pantyhose.html
http://wfw10.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-shemal-dojin.html - free shemal dojin http://wfw10.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-shemal-dojin.html
http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/winnie-cooper-s-pantyhose-links.html - winnie cooper s pantyhose links http://wfw2.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/winnie-cooper-s-pantyhose-links.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-women-models.html - asian women models http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-women-models.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/french-transsexuals.html - french transsexuals http://wfw9.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/french-transsexuals.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/smelling-woman-s-pantyhose-feet.html - smelling woman s pantyhose feet http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/smelling-woman-s-pantyhose-feet.html
http://wfw3.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-photo-porn-shemale.html - free photo porn shemale http://wfw3.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/free-photo-porn-shemale.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/boca-raton-shemale.html - boca raton shemale http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/boca-raton-shemale.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transsexual-voice-therapy.html - transsexual voice therapy http://wfw6.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/transsexual-voice-therapy.html
http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/japanese-paintings.html - japanese paintings http://wfw7.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/japanese-paintings.html
http://wfw7.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/american-transsexuals.html - american transsexuals http://wfw7.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/american-transsexuals.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ladyboy-ladyboy-com.html - ladyboy ladyboy com http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ladyboy-ladyboy-com.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/hermaphrodites-stories.html - hermaphrodites stories http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/hermaphrodites-stories.html
http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/latex-rubber.html - latex rubber http://wfw9.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/latex-rubber.html
http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/fantasy-lingerie.html - fantasy lingerie http://wfw10.dynu.net/pupsik/vipil/fantasy-lingerie.html
http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-sex-stories-free.html - asian sex stories free http://wfw1.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/asian-sex-stories-free.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/barefoot-chinese-sex-girls-photos.html - barefoot chinese sex girls photos http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/barefoot-chinese-sex-girls-photos.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-cum-shot-movies.html - shemale cum shot movies http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-cum-shot-movies.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ladyboy-ladyboy-com.html - ladyboy ladyboy com http://wfw5.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ladyboy-ladyboy-com.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/hardcore-asian-lesbian-pics.html - hardcore asian lesbian pics http://wfw8.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/hardcore-asian-lesbian-pics.html
http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/anal-sex-and-asians.html - anal sex and asians http://wfw6.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/anal-sex-and-asians.html
http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/thai-pussy-fist-fucking.html - thai pussy fist fucking http://wfw5.dynu.net/pupsik/buhnul/thai-pussy-fist-fucking.html
http://wfw8.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/hermaphrodites-and-pictures.html - hermaphrodites and pictures http://wfw8.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/hermaphrodites-and-pictures.html
http://wfw2.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ts-vanity-shemale-sex-movies.html - ts vanity shemale sex movies http://wfw2.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/ts-vanity-shemale-sex-movies.html
http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-tpg.html - shemale tpg http://wfw4.dynu.net/murzik/vipil/shemale-tpg.html
WBR sQVheuXUNSydkxFzw