If we hadn't been through all this before and if we hadn't seen just how many innocent people have been caught up in these kinds of activities, I'd be a little more sympathetic to the Bush administration. But the fact is that we have been through all this before. The safeguards, regulations, and laws that they have been violating were put in place for a reason.

Is an invasion of privacy without any other oppressive action really an erosion of freedom? As I understand the law, if the NSA found evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an American in one of these wiretaps, it would not be admissable in court, nor would it be grounds to get a warrent to actually tap the phone call.

Whats to stop them from tapping democrats campaign phones, emails etc?

Rigging elections via snooping is the next step.

We have seen all this before. It's the same set of scams and dodges that every would be tyrant whoever set out to undermine a republic has always used. First the tyrant identifies his person with the state. Next, any opposition to his person or policies becomes treason. That is exactly why our founders wanted a government of laws. Why so many of our fellow citizens can't see this, or don't care, drives me nuts.

Whatever happened to Negroponte's 'Total Information Awareness' program (or whatever the hell it was called)? Is that still around in some form?

Compared to what BushCo has done, Bin Laden could never have dreamed he could destoy what America stands for.

Is an invasion of privacy without any other oppressive action really an erosion of freedom? As I understand the law, if the NSA found evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an American in one of these wiretaps, it would not be admissable in court, nor would it be grounds to get a warrent to actually tap the phone call.

In that case, mjk, why undertake such snooping? Unless, of course, you hold that any proceedings arising from such snooping can be conducted "extra-judicially" without fear of retribution. Which is it?

Whats to stop them from tapping democrats campaign phones, emails etc?

Since the wiretaps are restricted to those will ties to Al Queda, I wouldn't shed a tear for those democrats who are subject to snooping.

Being a democrat does not give you the right to have ties to a terrorist group out to kill us.

Garamond:

TIA was Admiral John Poindexter's brainchild. It was shut down -- and he sumarily booted out of government -- when his new goofy plan, a terrorism futures market (because the Free Market does such a better job of predicting future events than, say, election polls) came to light.

That was so ungodly-nihilistic that even the Bush people had to let it go once the public found out about it.

Bob

tbrosz - I'm hope you are kidding, and not a complete dumbass.

Since the wiretaps are restricted to those will ties to Al Queda, I wouldn't shed a tear for those democrats who are subject to snooping.

Well, it's more like suspected ties, isn't it?

Consider the quality of intelligence we've seen of late And consider the preference of the Bush people to act on what they want to believe rather than what is reported to them.

Then add the partisan political element to those two considerations and what do you get?

The perfect 'enemies list.'

Sic semper tyrannis!

Frankly, the idea of widespread NSA surveillance is a non-issue. I couldn't care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. I have nothing to hide. All someone who listened to my phone conversations would learn is that I love America and hate terrorists.

If people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear as far as surveillance goes. It is only those anti-American elements -- "peace" activists and the rest of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party -- that are complaining about this. Perhaps it is because they are afraid that the government will learn what they are really up to.

Here's what I wrote the NY Times. It applies equally here:

Dear Sirs:
The President broke the law. Period. No arguments about what he believed excuse it.
You need to say that. He needs to face the consequences of it, just as anyone else does.
If you do not believe this, then you are as guilty of conspiring to erode our rights as he is.
State it plainly, please, I repeat: The President broke the law.

rob wrote: "tbrosz - I'm hope you are kidding, and not a complete dumbass."

Haven't you figured out yet that tbrosz is not a complete dumbass but is instead a total dumbass.

Well, since only terrorists are targeted for secret unwarranted surveillance, they have no rights to fall back on. Should you end up in this program, I have no sympathy for you, devious leftist anti-American traitor.

See you in Guantanamo (or equivalent black site in an unnamed country)!

The problem with a complete lack of judicial oversight is that it simply becomes a matter of trusting the executive. The President claims that he only authorized wiretaps for those with ties to Al Qaeda. But how can we be reasonably sure without some kind of impartial oversight? How do we know that those with alleged ties to Al Qaeda actually have those ties, and how do we know that the wiretaps are in any way limited at all? Congress passed FISA for a reason: to provide some kind of check, some kind of oversight, to have something beyond mere trust in the executive.

Well, I suggest to all you Enemies of the State(tm) out there who are worried that the NSA has yer number because you hung out with a few Quakers at a peace rally (sheesh, what's the size of their file on Cindy Sheehan?) to all start using public-key encryption.

As far as I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong), if your key word is big enough, the NSA can't crack it.

You can even make the subject headers OSAMA'S SECRET MEETING AGENDA and the spooks would just sit there, gobsmacked, as their computers ground through a brute-force attack that would take, like, two years :)

Bob

Well, it's more like suspected ties, isn't it?

In fact, no. The FBI has admitted, at least in the case of their national security letters, that most of the people surveilled were not even suspected of any wrongdoing. So what compelled an investigation? That we have no clue, that it could well have been little more than a fishing expedition, is rather disturbing, no?

Since the wiretaps are restricted to those will ties to Al Queda,

Right. And Nixon only went after enemies of the the State too.

What Bush needs to answer is since he had the authority to get the wiretaps within the law, why did he choose to go outside the law?

I'd also like to know just how many American citizen terrorists are spelling out all kinds of secret plans on the telephone? C'mon guys, Bush has some explaining to do.

Shorter wingnut: If you are targeted, you are guilty. No questions asked, no mistakes possible.

What you should have written, OC:

Dear Sirs:
You broke the law. Period.

Since only terrorists are surveilled, this illustrates the concept known as "begging the question." This is a logical fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true. In this illustration, the fallacy is that Democrats AREN'T terrorists and are deserving of their rights under the Constitution, which is just a piece of paper that we'll burn the moment a terrorist/Democrat bombs an American city.

So stop begging the question, moonbat liberal traitors. You ARE guilty!

We need a mass (yes, largely symbolic) FOIA request to the government asking for any information gathered on the signatories to the request.

Any damage done if government snoops on you and does nothing with the information? YES. I want to live in a country in which I know that the only snooping done is done according to laws on the books, and that those laws comport with the Constitution. I think we fought a revolution over that a few years back.

We already know what the criteria are for selecting suspects.

Could a "little old lady in Switzerland" who sent a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan be taken into custody if, unbeknownst to her, some of her donation was passed to Al Qaeda terrorists? asked U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green.

"She could," replied Deputy Associate Atty. Gen. Brian Boyle. "Someone's intention is clearly not a factor that would disable detention." It would be up to a newly established military review panel to decide whether to believe her and release her.

Smithy wrote:

Frankly, the idea of widespread NSA
surveillance is a non-issue. I couldn't care
less if the government listens to my phone
conversations. I have nothing to hide. All
someone who listened to my phone conversations
would learn is that I love America and hate
terrorists.

If people have nothing to hide, then they have
nothing to fear as far as surveillance goes.
It is only those anti-American elements --
"peace" activists and the rest of the Michael
Moore wing of the Democratic party -- that are
complaining about this. Perhaps it is because
they are afraid that the government will learn
what they are really up to.

Those views are fascist police state views and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are also un-American since you reject the very basis of our founding, which was to forever rid ourselves of the intrusive secret spying, courts and dictats of the King or anyone who would seek tyrannical powers. You are also a coward to want to give up all of your freedoms and liberties to be free from government intrusion just to feel a little safer. Have some guts will you and quit sniveling in the corner so very afraid of what the big bad terrorists might do to you.

This was already redundant, so was just being done for fun? We can torture people until they give us your name, and say anything we want to hear about you, which would fill a warrant from the rubber stamp court any day. So why avoid warrants? Is there really a class of people whom we suspect, that we can't torture some person into naming? What is this world coming to?

Are Smithy and tbrosz real or caricatures today? Sometimes it's hard to tell. On tbrosz, I'm betting "caricature."

Terrorists aren't attacking our Constitution, degrading our national honor, destroying our reputation, alienating our allies, busting our federal budget, or undermining the legitimacy of our electional process.

Republicans are.

Someone is watching and it ain't Santa Claus: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm

I am still waiting for a persuasive explanation of why the president needed to go outside the existing NISA structure in the first place. What was the need? What spying was needed by Bushco that would not have been authorized by the court instantly?

No one denies the need to gather information on terrorists as long as proper safeguards are observed. But the simple to follow procedures that are in place ensure that the civil liberties of Americans will not be violated AND that the government's need to know is not encumbered.

So, why the need to violate constitutional rights? Reckless profligacy? Because he thought he could get away with it? Because he has contempt for the American Constitution?

Thus far, the tbrosz' above have been fake. There is one sure fire way to tell the real one because the fakes mimic his bs perfectly.

Frankly, the idea of widespread NSA surveillance is a non-issue. I couldn't care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. Posted by: Smithy

The disgrace is not only the Time didn't publish this story for a year, but also that this policy is defended by rightwing moonbats.

There is a stench of corruption at the core of the Bush government that extends from his extra-legal incarcerations, extra-legal policies of torture, abuse of power in attempting to stifle dissent, and his rabid attacks on those dissenters to his government's pay to play politics which illustrates that corruption is at the core of the Republican government

Presidential Pipeline: Bush's top fund-raisers see spoils of victory
Sunday, December 18, 2005
By Jim Tankersley, Joshua Boak and Christopher D. Kirkpatrick, The Toledo Blade

President Bush's corporate champions see the spoils of his administration in coal. And timber. And credit-card payments, Afghan electric lines, Japanese bank transfers and fake crab.
America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Mr. Bush to the White House last year -- and he has paid dividends.
Bush administration policies, grand and obscure, have financially benefited companies or lobbying clients tied to at least 200 of the president's largest campaign fund-raisers, a Toledo Blade investigation has found. Dozens more stand to gain from Bush-backed initiatives that recently passed or await congressional approval.
The investigation included targeted tax breaks, regulatory changes, pro-business legislation, high-profile salaried appointments, and federal contracts.
Mr. Bush's policies often followed specific requests from his 548 "Pioneers" and "Rangers," who each raised at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his 2004 re-election. The help to business fund-raisers sometimes came at the expense of consumers or public health concerns.
I urge everyone to read this article.

Terrorists aren't attacking our Constitution, degrading our national honor, destroying our reputation, alienating our allies, busting our federal budget, or undermining the legitimacy of our electional process. Republicans are. Posted by: lily

If I, as a law enforcement officer, were to conduct an illegal wiretap outside judical review, not only would I be prohibited from using that information in court, I'd be criminally and civily prosecuted for violating someone's fourth amendment rights.

The ONLY thing that would save my ass would be a judge's signature on the warrant, authorizing the intercept, even if the warrant were later to be found defective (and that still wouldn't rule out a civil suit).

Point is, there is no reason why the administration bypassed judicial review, unless it was to collect intel on people who were not a threat.

Yoyo writes, Rigging elections via snooping is the next step.

Nah, that's what Democrats do. See Seattle, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Chicago and East Saint Louis for starters.

And don't try to claim that Democrats don't do it.

This "information on peace protesters" is not directed at preventing terrorism. SO WHY DID TIM RUSSERT JUST SIT THERE TODAY LETTING RICE SAY BUSH DID ALL THIS TO PROTECT CITIZENS AGAINST TERROIST.

This is NOT about terrorists? Bush was going after people whom were against his policies - not for the safety of the nation agaisnt terrorist. RICE lied and lied and lied - Tim Russert just sit there let her do it. A lawyer, that doesn't understand the law Bush broke. Tim Russert is nothing more that Whitehouse damage control - what the hell ever happen to damn press.

Tim Russert is simply a party to this horrid administration and not, nor has Russert ever been anything close to what anyone would call a journalist. Can we please get some professional newsmen out there.

Bobbyp writes, [mjk]As I understand the law, if the NSA found evidence of wrongdoing on the part of an American in one of these wiretaps, it would not be admissable in court, nor would it be grounds to get a warrent to actually tap the phone call.

In that case, mjk, why undertake such snooping? Unless, of course, you hold that any proceedings arising from such snooping can be conducted "extra-judicially" without fear of retribution. Which is it?

Becuase the primary purpose was not to build a legal case. The primary purpose was intelligence, as in military-style, figure out what the bad guys are doing and find a way to stop them.

I think this displays the usual liberal attitude: that the WoT should be a law-enforcement affair only, with lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. The WoT is much more than that, and that's one reason why you listen in on what the bad guys are doing. It's about stopping them BEFORE they strike, figuring out their chain of command and organizational chart, learning the players, and finding weaknesses you can exploit with new operations. Once you get that, you understand why the NSA wants to listen in.

Ol' Froth writes, Point is, there is no reason why the administration bypassed judicial review, unless it was to collect intel on people who were not a threat.

No, that's not correct. They were listening on people where, as GWB, 'a clear link' to a terrorist or terrorist group had been established. That clearly implies people who were a threat. That's proper.

Steve White,

It's about giving the president as much power as he can get away with, right?

They were listening on people where, as GWB, 'a clear link' to a terrorist or terrorist group had been established. That clearly implies people who were a threat. That's proper

He also said Iraq had WMD. Bush knows that you suckers will fall for anything.

They were listening on people where, as GWB, 'a clear link' to a terrorist or terrorist group had been established. That clearly implies people who were a threat. That's proper.

Oops, that was meant to be a quote from Mr. White.

"Rigging elections via snooping is the next step."

No one has suggested that the NSA doing anything like that. There may be situations where they might be advisable, but it is hard for me to imagine them.

BatGuano writes, It's about giving the president as much power as he can get away with, right?

Absolutely not. It's about making sure you have the tools you need to do the job at hand. In this case, it's fighting terrorism. Terrorist organizations have links in the U.S. We'd be foolish to ignore that. They have sympathists who help raise money and funnel it overseas, provide information, and, in a couple of cases, try operations. We need to know who they are and what they're doing. As I noted to Bobbyp above, we need to figure out their organization, etc.

The need is there. The use of NSA to listen in on targeted people and communications is justifiable and useful. I for one think this is proper.

I might also note that GWB stated, in his radio address, that the appropriate Senate and House oversight committee chairs and ranking members were briefed. WaPo says that they were briefed 'a dozen times'. If this was clearly illegal or improper, I would certain think that the chair or ranking member (a Dem, remember) would raise hell. Even raising hell privately would have been reflected in the record. It would certainly make the Dems case easier if they could point to (for example) Sen. Rockefeller raising concerns a year or two ago). As it is, there (apparently) wasn't a peep out of anyone in the Congress. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an expert on intel gathering (and neither is anyone else on PA), but it seems to me that if Congress didn't complain, this wasn't blatantly illegal.

BatGuano writes, He also said Iraq had WMD. Bush knows that you suckers will fall for anything.

My dear fellow, raising that old canard says a lot about you. Nevertheless, not only did GWB think Iraq had WMD, so did most everyone else. The nay-sayers were few and far between. I was certainly convinced, and it wasn't GWB and his administration who convinced me.

Saddam convinced me. He was very persuasive.

Steve White:

All good presuppositions, assuming for a moment they're valid (and a president beyond reproach would be entitled to such assumptions, certainly).

Why not obtain a warrant after the fact?

Unless you can demonstrate that the law somehow impeded this intelligence gathering in a concrete way, you still have only a case based on what you assert to be Bush's good intentions in the war on terror.

And we all know what the road to Hell is paved with ...

Bob

Steve, you ARE familiar with the Constitution, aren't you?? What applies here is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In Katz v US, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to electronic intercepts.

The issue isn't that intercepts occured, or what the intercepts were for. The issue is why the administration failed to comply with the law regarding the intercepts.

Steve White.

I don't buy your contention that the Intelligence Committee was fully briefed.

Bob

PTate writes, No one denies the need to gather information on terrorists as long as proper safeguards are observed. But the simple to follow procedures that are in place ensure that the civil liberties of Americans will not be violated AND that the government's need to know is not encumbered.

According to GWB and the other info out there, they did follow procedures -- they created an exception (that they say they were allowed to do), reported that to the Congressional oversight committees (required to do), reviewed the decision periodically (good), and used it narrowly to focus on individuals with 'a clear link' to terrorism (also good).

Now, if you show widespread use of this exception to target political enemies as opposed to terrorists, then we indeed have a major problem. Cheryl, above, hyperventilates on this in her comment about Tim Russert. But before you claim that there's something nefarious going on, some evidence would be nice.

What I see so far is the use of an edge or crinkle in the law that's narrowly expanded to go after known and suspected terrorists. Not only do I think that's proper, I applaud it.

And I'm betting that a President Hillary Clinton would do the same.

"Saddam convinced me. He was very persuasive."

Steve, notice how these liberals who are so hot and bothered about domestic surveillance are the same ones who wanted to leave Saddam in power. That was one "police state" they were all in favor of.

The reality with domestic surveillance is this: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

Bob (rmck1) writes, I don't buy your contention that the Intelligence Committee was fully briefed.

Maybe not, but it's easily checked out. All the MSM has to do is ask each committee chair and ranking member.

Steve White:

I wasn't fooled by the WMD. I sat there reading Judith Miller and going "what kind of bullshit *is* this?" The clues were all embedded in there for anyone willing to apply critical intelligence.

Bob

Steve White:

No it's not, Steve. Those briefings were obviously classified, duh.

What we don't know is whether or not the Senators were briefed on the fact that the wiretaps were warrantless. They could have been deceived, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

We got that information from whistleblowers inside the NSA.

Bob

Ol' Froth asks whether I'm familiar with the Fourth Amendment. You bet, and I value it highly.

When Congress created the NSA, it created procedures that allowed the NSA to snoop on international communications as part of our national security. That law is constitutional. The Bush administration has used that law to examine communications that are international (crossing a border) that are of major interest to national security. The question is whether their actions are consistent with established procedure, an allowable exception to established procedure, or something that shouldn't be allowed.

It may be that the snooping was wrong -- that is, not in keeping with the law Congress established. But I see nothing nefarious in this -- they weren't bugging DNC headquarters, they were listening in on people with a clear link to terrorism.

If it's wrong (e.g., the DoJ and White House counsel are wrong in their legal opinions), then it will be stopped and GWB will take a hit. But again, I see nothing nefarious. Then again, I'm not a wingnut liberal Dem.

Bob writes, Those briefings were obviously classified, duh.

What we don't know is whether or not the Senators were briefed on the fact that the wiretaps were warrantless. They could have been deceived, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

What we have that's in the public domain right now is information that says that DoJ lawyers and White House counsel reviewed this carefully and periodically, and concluded that it was legal to do this. There's my burden of proof, met. There may be more info that isn't in the public domain that also adds to meeting the burden of proof. Counter if you wish.

BatGuano: It's about giving the president as much power as he can get away with, right?

Steve White: Absolutely not. It's about making sure you have the tools you need to do the job at hand.

This is a matter of some debate.

From the government's detention of Americans as "enemy combatants" to the just-disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's authority. That stance has given the administration leeway for decisive action, but it has come under severe criticism from some scholars and the courts.

Behind Power, One Principle as Bush Pushes Prerogatives, NY Times, Dec. 16.

Then there's torture, which of course we don't do but must be able to admit evidence obtained via the actions of the Torture Fairy.

Steve White:

I notice like a good Bush troll that you ducked my first question.

Once again -- how does obtaining warrants with a 72 hour window after the fact impede any kind of intelligence gathering?

You just can't answer that question, can you ...

Bob

Bullshit Steve White. BULLSHIT!!! You have no leg to stand on. This is completely unjustifiable and unexcusable.

He had the FISA system to tap whoever he wanted, there was ZERO need for this executive direction. There is no justification for this none.

There is now established a serious pattern of execurtive overreach, blatant dishonesty, obstruction, fabrication, reckless disreguard for reality, and criminally irresponsibly judgement by this administration. They need to be removed from office. They are not making the US safer, they are not protecting us, they are simply lining the pockets of their interests and actively subverting the constitution for the purpose of aggrogating personal power.

Congresss didn't complain? What color is the sky in your world? You are not a lawyer. The constitution has been blatantly and intentionally violated and you want find a way to justify it. FOR WHAT REASON? WHY WOULD ANYONE DEFEND THIS.

We gonna suddenly have a mushroom cloud over a major city? These people couldn't even defend against unthinking wind and water that was predicted days in advance- whose general shape and consequences were understood YEARS IN ADVANCE. The reality is they are just not up to the job. They are not competent. They are actually demonstratably unstable. They can't rationally debate anyone. They can't answer questions. It's unclear if they can even think coherently. These guys have gone from being a nusaince to a clear and present danger to the nation. THEY MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

I was angry at the Katrina fiasco but this is outrageous. Its time to shutdown washington and get these lunatics out of office.

Steven White you want to live in a Pan-Opticon for your own protection. You go and do that- JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY you incompetent unthinking bastard. Go to iceland and create your orwellian perfect world over there.

I have had enough. There is no defense here. None.
Any congressman that blocks or protects this administration from ANY PARTY has official announced that he or she will be a target from removal from office. I will raise money for republicans to oust democrats or dems to oust repubilicans. I NO LONGER CARE. This madness must end and must end now.

I pary that the saner heads in our Senate and House are up to the challenge of the crisis that this completely incompetent white house has brought on the public.

NOTE TO THE MONTHLY:
IF YOU HAD LISTENED TO ME IN 2004 and we had pushed for impeachment when ABU-GHRAIB became public we would not have this mess now. These guys should have never been re-elected. Clean up their own mess? Please they can barely find their way out of their office without their medication.

Someone needs to nail Cheney publically on television, the same way McCarthy was unmasked via Murrow. The public must comprehend the depth of the danger these guys pose to the nation.

Smithy writes, The reality with domestic surveillance is this: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

I'm afraid I disagree. Domestic surveillance has to be clearly justified and within the law. I value my freedoms highly. There is indeed a slippery slope when it comes to surveillance, and we've had several past Presidents who've demonstrated that they'll use information, improperly gained, for political purposes. We can't have that in our society.

The issue is whether this program was legal. I think it was based on what's out there. If it's illegal, then it has to be fixed so that it is, or stopped. A number of people at PA (most of whom hate GWB's guts) think that there is something evil and nefarious going on. I disagree with that -- what I see is an administration that is fighting the WoT and looking to use every tool available.

Again, if this program was improper, it has to be amended or stopped. But from what I've read so far, it strikes me as -- at the edge of -- legal.

Steve White:

"DoJ lawyers and White House counsel."

ROTFL !

Doesn't say one goddamn thing about what these people told the Committee, does it.

Burden of proof's left butt cheek.

Bob

Patience, who seems to have none, writes, - JUST GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY you incompetent unthinking bastard.

My fellow citizen, it's my country too. Thanks for asking.

BatGuano: It's about giving the president as much power as he can get away with, right?

Steve White: Absolutely not. It's about making sure you have the tools you need to do the job at hand.

And if laws, the system of checks and balances in our government and the Constitution get in the way of those tools...

Steve White:

"at the edge of -- legal."

That's fucking adorable, my man. Just priceless :)

Bob

When Congress created the NSA, it created procedures that allowed the NSA to snoop on international communications as part of our national security. That law is constitutional.

Cites to both "that law" and a decision upholding it?

Steve White:

You really think those cleated Eddie Bauer's of yours are gonna keep you from sliding ass-over-teakettle down that slippery slope, eh? :)

ROTLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!

Bob

Insert Thomas Moore speech to Roper here.

Old ground, Mr. White. As inexcusable as it always has been.

One of the things that is useful to remember about taking the FISA Court out of the surveillance loop is that it is almost certainly extremely counterproductive, producing a huge amount of trash that distracts law enforcement agencies from serious folks we might really want them to be watching. I speak from experience. Years and years ago in the late 70s after a court decision, I was informed by official letter that I had a Michigan State Police file and that I could go into downtown Detroit and pick it up. This absolutely cracked me up because my experience with breaking the law consisted exclusively of the odd ticket for parking in the wrong place. I never picked up the file, but this is what I suspect -- I participated in a teach-in after the Kent State tragedy, where my topic was the history of U.S. government violence in the Indian Wars (a dark secret, of course -- it's like Orhan Pamuk being called "anti-Turkish" for mentioning the Armenian genocide), and I was active in a faculty union at my university that wanted radical commie stuff like cost-of-living increases and published grievance procedures. I hope the cops had fun reading about me (4:30 PM, subject parked Chevy Vega [yes, I confess it -- you lived in Michigan, you bought American in those days -- and boy, was that car a dog] and went into building where known union meeting was taking place. 6:30 PM, subject came out door, crossed street, got into Vega and headed west where known liberals live). Etc. Oh well. It's nice to have certain eternal verities, like "They Never Learn", confirmed, but not so nice to know that my president has never read the friggin' U. S. Constitution.

Steven White:

You remind me of that Lutheran pastor who didn't stay anything when they first started rounding up the Communists ... and then the Jews ... and then ...

Yeah, all that butt grease and lying slime sure does render those mountain climbing boots less then optimally effective as the grade of the slippery slope steadily increases :)

Bob

Bob asks me, Once again -- how does obtaining warrants with a 72 hour window after the fact impede any kind of intelligence gathering?

Who says a warrant is always required? Not FISA . FISA actually gives the government broad latitude in surveillance.

First, only citizens and permanent residents qualify for protection. See the definition of 'United States person' in the act. Individuals who are here on visas don't qualify, nor do PRs if they got their green card under false pretenses.

Further, the law permits warrantless protections (see the opening chapter for this) even if a 'United States person' is targeted, so long as the Attorney General reports the actions to the House and Senate Select Committes either before or as soon as possible after the intercept. If you look at the opening chapter, points 1 and 2, you'll see the whole section on 'warrantless' searches.

Now as I read this (again, I'm no lawyer), the only people involved in making a decision to get a warrantless search is the President and Attorney General, and it's proper so long as they notify the congressional committees. That's where the DoJ assurance comes in -- if the DoJ (e.g., the AG) says it's legal and all procedures have been followed, cha-ching, you're done.

In fact, the only way one could violate the law, as I read it, is for the President to order, intentionally, the surveillance of a qualifying 'US person'. Now Bob, the proof is on you to show me a single person in that category.

Most al-Qaeda assets in this country are likely to be heree on visas (student visas, etc). There may be some (? many) who are citizens or PRs. For that latter group, it sure does seem that a warrant would be required, and if NSA didn't get one, they and GWB are in the wrong. For all the surveillances on non-qualifying persons, it strikes me that the FISA law that you demand be followed is, in fact, being followed.

Bummer, dude.

Correction on my last one: 'the law permits warrantless searches ...

Bob writes, You remind me of that Lutheran pastor who didn't stay anything when they first started rounding up the Communists ... and then the Jews ... and then ...

If you want reasoned debate, great. If it's just going to be an insult-fest, well then ...

Please see my other notes above. I don't endorse breaking the law. It seems to me that the President has been following the law. The more I read, the more I'm convinced of that. If you want to convince me otherwise, I'm open, but you'll have to lay down some facts and logic. I'm surfing the FISA law right now, and the more I read that, the more I think GWB followed the law.

BatGuano writes, And if laws, the system of checks and balances in our government and the Constitution get in the way of those tools...

The Constitution comes first. If you think they violated the law and Constitution, fine, put it up. The more I read about this, the less that meets the eye. I think this whole flap will turn out to be, in the end, an effort by the NYT to sell a book.

I provided a link to the FISA law. Take a look and see what you think.

Steve, I wonder what your thoughts are on the FBI having admitted that most of the thousands of people on whom national security letters were issued were not suspected of any wrongdoing. It seems that surveilling American citizens without previous suspicion is already a good step or two down the slippery slope to which you earlier referred.

Former Sen. Graham (FL) says he was not briefed on these wiretaps. On Russert this morning, it sounded like Sen. Biden had been briefed, but he claimed it was illegal to speak publically about the briefing. Basically, it seems like some senators were informed and if they didn't like what was being done, tough shit.

Steve White:

Okay, you're attempting to be reasonable and not totally trollish. I respect that. I share your assumptions that the al Q in this country are not nice people who need to be monitored -- not to build a legal case, but just to catch them before they act.

I oppose Bush, but I'm not a moonbat; I try to be reasonable and not doubt anyone's motives unless they've given me good cause.

But here's the problem. We simply don't know who was surveilled. If what you say is true in the law (and I haven't surfed it yet), that only the DoJ and the appropriate committees need to sign off on warrantless searches, well then, we don't know if the people signed off on were even "non US persons." And there's no way to find out, of course, because the list is (appropriately) classified.

We don't know, in fact, whether or not the DoJ presented the Committees with a false list, or with only the poeple who'd pass muster as being resident aliens, etc.

The fact that Bush is justifying this not with the legality of the statute itself, but rather with broad claims of executive privilege seems to speak volumes about this whole controversy.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, either. But I think there's good reason to doubt the government here, else why would the NSA whistleblowers come forward to the Times in the first place.

We don't know the facts. But Occam's Razor is not helping your case much, either.

Bob

The more these revelations come out, the more convinced I am that, for the Bush administration, "national security" means "keeping us in power, and keeping those pesky libruls where they belong".

This is THE most corrupt administration in the history of mankind. Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, harding, even Nixon... none of them come close to the breadth and depth of corruption exhibited by the Bushies.

The "good" Germans backed Adolf every day until April 30,1945. On May lst, they collectively said "Who?"

Shakespeare's Sister: that's a different flap. I don't generally approve of the FBI conducting surveillance on citizens without a) a warrant or b) reasonable cause.

I do note that the terrorist threat (which is real) requires a greater degree of scrutiny than say, a Mafia boss or roadside stop for drunk drivers. If the FBI (for example) is conducting surveillance on a citizen suspected of complicity with terrorism, that's a good thing. If the FBI turns out to be wrong in thousands of such assessments, then we need new FBI rules -- and leadership. It's proper for Congress to review that and force the issue.

With regard to FISA and the NSA flap, it seems that the law was crafted (again, I'm no lawyer) to permit these kinds of surveillance operations with the understanding that finding terrorists, spies, etc. is not within the usual rules we have for our own citizens. The law seems to recognize that it's a dirty business, and we need to let a President conduct it, again with oversight by the Congress.

Now the person WhoSays, above, notes that Sen. Graham (FL) doesn't recall being briefed. If all the chairs and ranking members say that, GWB has a problem. I suspect they were briefed, and I suspect there are minutes to show that.

Regards,

It is you, Mr. White, who should be bummed, for variety of reasons. Of course, it is the American people who are paying the price for fecklessness such as yours.

Yes, it's obvious you are not a lawyer.

From Josh Marshall (who, unlike you, is citing correctly): FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." (see specific citation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html).

Further, the operative definition "United States Person" does operate to shift the burden of proof to We the People. Especially in light of the Bolton admissions regarding the NSA intercepts of American citizens during his confirmation hearings, the burden of proof being on the boy king. See, there's this thing about accountability of elected officials -- it's a real bummer to some.

What's really a bummer is the way in which an our cherished civil liberties are under attack: exactly the kind of damage the terrorists hoped to inflict in the "clash of civilizations".

No wonder Bin Laden wanted Bush to win.

Oops, sorry -- I meant the definition does NOT shift the burden to the people who, after all, only seek to hold their officials accountable.

No, Sen Graham didn't say he didn't recall being briefed. He said he was not briefed. No matter, Biden did not deny being briefed. But what good is a briefing about something that is being done if it illegal to bring it the public's (or even the rest of congress) attention. It's not like you can do anything about it, even if you think its illegal.

Ol'Froth says above, "Point is, there is no reason why the administration bypassed judicial review, unless it was to collect intel on people who were not a threat."

Sure there is: they're gathering intel on people so innocent that not even their tame "Double-Secret-Security Court" would grant permission.

Bob, I appreciate that you're trying to be serious about this. I am too. There seems to be a belief in many (not all) of PA commenters that disagreement with the PA party line = trolling.

That's unfortunate; it lowers the level of discourse.

If I wanted agreement, I'd go to redstate.org for commentary.

Now then, with regard to your concerns, a principal one is (from what you stated), that the administrations might have disclosed a false, incomplete or misleading list of targets to the oversight committee. I don't know how the committees work (I'm not a Senator and am unlikely to be elected), but I think they have rules about how information is provided and handled. If they get a list, it had better be right or the excrement will hit the oscillating device. From what I've seen, Senators and Reps, even within a president's own party, don't like being lied to.

So it would be a huge gamble for NSA to provide a false list. I don't think that would be done.

As to why NSA whistleblowers came forward, interesting question. One possibility: they disagree with the program or the way it's being done. They think the law is being violated. Fine, I respect that (though the proper way to handle that is a complaint to the oversight committee, not to the NYT). Another possibility is the usual sort of intra-agency skulldoggery we've come to see in the CIA. I don't think we have enough information yet to sort that one out.

Occam's Razor is to apply the simplest solution. The simple solution is, FISA allows the President to do this, so he's doing it.

PTate in MN: So, why the need to violate constitutional rights? Reckless profligacy? Because he thought he could get away with it? Because he has contempt for the American Constitution?

Irony defined; as Yoo et. al. have rationlized, Because He Could. Dick Morris eat your heart out.

Graham 'Nightline' transcript'

Graham transcript:

ABC: You were Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time the President signed this executive order. Vice President Cheney met with congressional leaders — I’m sure you were among them in 2002, is that correct?

GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law.

ABC: You’re saying you were not briefed as the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the point the President signed this?

GRAHAM: I was briefed. There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to use that as the subterfuge to begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens.

ABC: So if the administration says that you were informed about this action, they would not be telling the truth?

GRAHAM: We were not informed that this would be a pretense for using warrantless searchs to listen in to the private conversations of United States citizens.

ABC: Sounds like you were saying you were lied to.

GRAHAM: I think there has been a selective use of information to build a case that was already determined, rather than using intelligence for its intended purpose, which is to improve the decision-making process on a judgment that has not yet been determined.

WhoSays: thanks for the transcript snip.

Again, I don't see in the original allegation or subsequently that NSA was getting info on citizens (e.g., 'US persons') in contravention of the law. Bob, above, notes the concern that we don't have the list (and shouldn't) of surveillance targets, so it's hard to know.

But the oversight committees do have the list, and can review it for such.

Mr. White: that razor you're using sure has a dull edge -- funny how it only tips in one direction.

In a Sept. 25, 2002 brief then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft stated "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Note there is no distinction between suspected agents who are U.S. citizens and those who are not.

The burden of proof is on the adminstration -- which has demonstrated its lack of credibility repeatedly -- and its apologists.

Onomasticator, Mr. Ashcroft was wrong.

Steve White:

But Graham seems to make it clear (without coming right out and saying it bluntly) that he was deceived in the initial briefings; that he had in fact no knowledge that they'd be used for the reason Bush came out and admitted using them in his Friday radio address.

If there was no violation of the law -- Why did Bush do that at all? And why, furthermore, did he justify it on the pure grounds of executive privilege?

Houston, we have a problem ...

Bob

I think the Washington Post should clean up it's own misconduct..
"Bush nominating Viveca Novak's husband to FEC"

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_firedoglake_archive.html#113485007313391863

ClubMid:

I think you mean Time and not the WaPo.

Viveca Novak was a reporter for Time Magazine.

Bob

Shakespeare's Sister: that's a different flap. I don't generally approve of the FBI conducting surveillance on citizens without a) a warrant or b) reasonable cause.

I disagree that the two are so easily divorced, as I think they are two threads of the same weave. Asserting disapproval of the FBI surveilling without a warrant, but defending the NSA's right to do so seems disingenuous. Regardless of whether the NSA program is legal, not legal, or "at the edge" of legal, why support warrantless surveillance at all, particularly considering that FISA provides for retroactive procurement of warrants?

Steve White: Occam's Razor is to apply the simplest solution. The simple solution is, FISA allows the President to do this, so he's doing it.

The administration's position today (see here):

But Ms. Rice asserted that FISA, a 1978 act, had not anticipated anything like the 2001 terror attacks - and that more aggressive surveillance might have helped prevent them. "We don't ever want to be caught again in a situation in which we were before 9/11," Secretary Rice said on Fox, adding that the unmasking of such a secret program was "really a serious matter."

Occam's razor sez "rationalization"... We knew we couldn't get what we wanted, so didn't ask, and did what we wanted (or felt was needed) anyway. But you can't hold us accountable, because as President and CIC I can do it anyway--and anything else (John Yoo says so). For as long as I want.

Shakespeare's Sister: because you don't need a warrant for the searches that are being done in this situation. That's what the FISA law says (at least, in my reading of it). There are other times when warrantless searches are proper. I'm not a lawyer, but I've encountered commentary on this at several sites from those who are, and they note that the 4th Amendment is not absolute on this.

If you believe that warrants should always obtained by NSA, then the proper response is to amend the FISA law.

I respect your thought that the FBI issue and this one aren't easily divorced. I don't think my position is disingenuous. I'm reading the FISA law, and that's what it says. The FBI is governed by other laws (and it should go without saying that I want them obeyed).

Mr. White -- then why give the administration the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. White -- I gave you the cite -- a warrant is required.

Steve White:

What you seem to be missing is that none of this surveillance is properly-speaking without oversight, even according to your reading of FISA.

Now ... if Bush was acting within the law as it stands -- why did he feel the need to broach the subject at all in his radio address?

And why did he claim executive privilege for doing so?

I've asked you this question several times and you keep ducking it.

Bob

From the NYT today:

> In his statement on Saturday, Mr. Bush did not address the
> main question directed at him by some members of Congress on
> Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system
> established under current law, which allows the president to
> seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees
> intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law,
> the administration could have obtained the same information.

Because the sonovabitch *has* no answer, that's why.

Bob

Steve White:"Occam's Razor is to apply the simplest solution. The simple solution is, FISA allows the President to do this, so he's doing it."

FISA does not allow the President to do this. FISA establishes the procedures that the president is supposed to follow. It requires warrants and judicial supervision. The burden of explanation rests with the President. Why an executive order to ignore the law?

So here is the bigger picture:

--First, the President and his men (and women) fix intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq.
--Second, the President and his men (and women) out a CIA spy (another illegal act) in order to punish someone who revealed the WMD lies.
--Third, we see the President setting aside the Geneva Conventions and authorizes torture of "enemy combatants."
--And now, we discover that the President has ignored the Constitution, authorized spying and defiantly insists that he will continue to do so as long as he is president.

Occam's razor--the simplest explanation of all the data--would suggest that under the excuse of "defending America," the Bush administration has run amok. They have repeatedly broken the law in order to consolidate power in the executive. They are challenging the Constitution with its checks and balances between executive, judiciary and legislative.

Now I get it. If, in the democracy that your President wants us to have, we can torture the prisoners, snoop on the citizens, and have secret prisons whose inmates need not be charged with any crimes, we are perfectly willing to have elections. Just send us your Diebold machines.

You guys should have told these details in the beginning, as then the loss of life and your $250B would have been avoided. We are all for this kind of democracy and have no quarrel with you.

What about, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," doesn't Steve White understand?

Bush, by having the NSA do warrantless spying on citizens, without going to a judge, is shitting on the Constitution.

Steve White wrote: "Shakespeare's Sister: because you don't need a warrant for the searches that are being done in this situation. That's what the FISA law says (at least, in my reading of it)."

You are flatly incorrect. The FISA law does, in fact, absolutely require warrants for the searches that the Bush administration has been doing. The Bush administration itself has not denied this. Instead, they are trying to do an end-run around FISA. I suggest you read the law again, since it is quite clear that you have not done so carefully enough.

Steve White

the terrorist threat (which is real)

Yes it is real. But it is a non-existential threat. And it is not the only threat in the world. Sorry, but you seem a bit monomaniacal on this. The world doesn't give you the luxury of fending off one danger at a time.

Here's a danger that is existential that seems pretty blatantly obvious looking in from outside - the rise of a corporatist government in the States that has only the facade of democracy (The Singaporean/Malaysian model). You're not anywhere near there yet but you've been slipping in that direction for the past 25 years. IMO Steve your overblown fears of the one threat (and remember one WTC every three weeks would only be equivalent to traffic deaths in the US) lead you towards positions that help realize the second.

And as a non-American let me tell you that terrorism is fourth on my list of worries over the middle term (ranking after environmental degradation, the growth of out-of-control nationalism in a China with a government whose communist philosophy is completely and totally discredited, a nationalistic, fearful and embittered, quasi-democratic America). I find all this simpering about the terrorist threat quite fantastical (and yes, I have friends whose family members died on 9-11 and sorry, I just can't seem to work up my fears of a caliphate).

Buck up, would you, Mr. White.

Let's take a closer look at FISA, since Steve seems to be having some trouble reading it:

(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, 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;

Note that the president can authorize warrantless searches only under very specific conditions, conditions that were not met under the program that Bush authorized, since they have already acknowledged that U.S. citizens on U.S. property or premises were involved, clearly violating both clauses (A) and (B) above. There is simply no way to read FISA that makes this program legal. None. And as I've already noted, the administration isn't even trying. They are instead trying to get around FISA using two approaches.

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). See more legal analysis here and here.

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 its 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.

The resolution in question is:

The 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.

To decide from the above text that the president has unlimited authority to authorize surveillance of U.S. citizens, along with all of the other extraordinary claims that they are making about the limits of presidential authority, boggles the mind.

In short, Steve, please stop trying to pretend that they did not violate FISA. They did. They're not even bothering to try to pretend otherwise, and for damn good reason, since the statute is quite clear and unambiguous.

Two obvious clues:

• The administration is not, and has not, attempted to justify the action under FISA. Rice's statements make clear the administration considers FISA insufficient (see link in previous post).
• A secret executive order authorizing the activity would not have been required if the activity was carried out under FISA.

Hilzoy, you're slammin' them out of the park. Yet snicker-snack just said what's really true : this circus is taking attention away from serious matters that need consideration. Running around in circles in a mad panic is no way to earn respect or deal with the problems facing one. Incompetence encompassed. The plurality of leverage in the world is not sufficient ? God help us if we're faced with a serious problem (and I didn't credit Iraq as that before invasion). Poor Georgie One Note .

You all still don't understand, democrats, republicans, independents - all of you.

The rule of law in the US is and has been effectively null and void since September 12, 2001. At that time a huge plurality of you were all on board for it, thought it was a grand idea and the opportunists in the White House took you at your word. They've been perpetrating precisely what you gave them licence to do ever since.

Settle back and endure what you have wrought.

Yeah but Bg, you've got to endure it up in Van as well.

As for the opportunists, I like to say of them "They never saw an opportunity they wouldn't stoop to use."

I do note that the terrorist threat (which is real) requires a greater degree of scrutiny than say, a Mafia boss or roadside stop for drunk drivers.

Why? I suspect that more Americans die due to Mafia activity -- and certainly more due to drunk drivers -- than to terrorism.

"It may be that the snooping was wrong -- that is, not in keeping with the law Congress established. But I see nothing nefarious in this -- they weren't bugging DNC headquarters, they were listening in on people with a clear link to terrorism."

Posted by: Steve White on December 18, 2005 at 3:40 PM

Slight problem, this assumes facts not in evidence. The entire point of the fundamental problem with what Bush did is that we have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. This is the point of FISA, to guarantee that this sort of abuse does not happen. If the President can disregard this law at his convenience, he can designate any American citizen without any due process as a security threat requiring such wiretapping. Which in turn means he could very easily use this power to tap domestic political opposition and there would be no way of finding out nor would there be any way of stopping it, at least not until this program was made publicly known AND proper Congressional oversight is performed, which clearly has not been the case over the past 4 years.

Then there is the fact that to many conservatives/GOP both here and elsewhere including in this Administration is the belief that Dems/liberals somehow want the terrorists to win. This is a staple of GOP rhetoric. Therefore if this belief is truly held then the basis for tapping political opponents under the guise/rational of security is clear. The fact is that this is something only tyrannies do, spy on domestic opposition and use that informaiton to defeat them, and this Administration has clearly set up a mechanism which would allow them to do precisely that. This would also explain why they did not go to FISA, because FISA unlike the GOP requires actual evidence that someone deserves suspicion beyond their political affiliation to the Democratic party. Therefore knowing FISA would not see things the GOP/Bush way they decided they could arrogate to themselves this power to tap whomever they wish under their own authority with no effective oversight nor protections to the American citizenry having their basic Constitutional rights being ignored by their President.

I have a hard time believing you are incapable of understanding the logic of all this, which leads me to believe either you are a blind faith partisan hack or you are being dishonest. Either way though you have clearly shown your contempt for one of the most fundamental reasons America was born, to stop current abuses of Executive power (King George) AND to set up a nation where such abuses would be prevented by the Constitution and the rule of law as opposed to the rule of man or God. It does not speak well of your American civic pride or sense of responsibility that you do not grasp this and are willing to surrender the Rights your forefathers bled and died for right up to and including the Vietnam War and GWI along with both WW.

Do you suppose Bush will ever leave the White House
voluntarily?
He does seem to think that he owns the place.