Al Queda and Al Queda associates SHOULD be wiretapped. Period.

You're just saying that to throw off suspicions about your own Al Qaeda activities. I'm on to your game.

Greg -
But should YOU be wiretapped, indefinitely, until it can be absolutely proven that you are NOT al Queda?

Gregory - Thats precisely why the FISA court exists, and it overwhelmingly approves government requests for wiretaps. Bush is breaking the law by not seeking FISA approval for the wiretaps. Simple, clear-cut violation of the 1978 law, period.

Why do judges hate America?

Al Queda and Al Queda associates SHOULD be wiretapped. Period.

If we have to give up everything that the Constitution stands for to accomplish that, the terrorists have not only won, they are in the White House.

give me wiretaps or give me death

The virus of the irrational Bush hatred has spread to the judiciary.

The Presiding Judge is the Microsoft judge.

I regret that I have but one wire to offer for tapping, for my country.

tbrosz:
The virus of the irrational Bush hatred has spread to the judiciary.
--

Of course, the fact the Bushies routinely lie and break every and all known laws(Geneva Convention, detainees, torture, etc...) wouldn't have "anything" to do with this?

Bush = Fascism.

If ye love terrorists better than warrantless wiretapping, the tranquility of Islamofascism better than the animating contest of unfettered surveillance, go home from us in peace. We ask not your IP Address or your firewall config file. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your cell phone set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were on our buddy-list.

The responsibility for deciding which laws the executive should break in times of war rests solely with the president.

This story is Exhibit A for all the wankers in all the other threads on the NSA issue and wartime powers of the chief executive that the Bush administration is neither serious about combatting terror nor competent at it.

They are just making shit up as they go along to abrogate power unto themselves.

"It's a proposition I'd like to see Bush try to defend publicly."
Don't be a fool, Kevin. All Bush has to say is "What can I do? The court quits while I'm trying to defend America. I'll have to keep doing what I need to do to protect Americans." Case closed. The conseratives yell Ditto and we Americans continue to be screwed.

Are we trying to sell the idea now that the FISA judges knew nothing about this?

From the first NYT story:

According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters.

The Washington Post story also used the phrase "...most of them [the judges] learned about when it was disclosed last week by the New York Times."

So how does that work? Some FISA judges are cleared more highly than others? Seems odd that any FISA judges would not have the highest security clearances. So some learned about the NSA program only in the newspaper? What kept those judges "in the know" from sharing the information? And how were those judges originally selected to be briefed when the others weren't?

Sorry, but the "we know nothing" bit isn't going to sell any better than when Democrats on the intelligence committees were trying the same gambit.

It will be interesting to see how they respond to the briefing.

Real question: Do the presiding judges have a different clearance from the others? I know that ranking members of the Intelligence Committees seem to have more access than other members.

"Why do we even exist if the Bush administration claims absolute wartime power to do anything it wants without our approval?"

Because, silly FISA judges, by granting him your rubberstamp warrants you give credibility to his actions and this has a positive and measurable PR benefit. Without a FISA warrant, if he wants to justify a search he has to get into this embarrassing discussion of the extent of presidential powers. It makes people think 1984, Big Brother, Orwell and puts him in a politically vulnerable position with grave PR consequences.

Silly FISA judges are also useful when he acquires evidence on American citizens via illegal wiretap. He obviously can't charge the American citizens using that tainted evidence, but the FISA court can give him a clean warrant so he can find it for the first time a second time.

Sorry, but the "we know nothing" bit isn't going to sell any better than when Democrats on the intelligence committees were trying the same gambit.

OMG, this is exactly the fake tbrosz tack I was about to take on another thread.

Spooky.

Yes, whenever someone disagrees with the Bush administration they are by definition the enemy, and their devious plans will never come to fruition. That is tbrosz corollary alpha.

Anonymous:

Seriously, what's the deal with all the judges except one or two supposedly not being told about this? Either the FISA courts are capable of handling secure information or they aren't. Or are there special cases that only the presiding judge gets to see?

Would the judges who knew have gotten in trouble for discussing the NSA program with other FISA judges? Why?

The virus of the irrational Bush hatred has spread to the judiciary.

Posted by: tbrosz on December 22, 2005 at 1:31 AM

Tell me - why shouldn't Free Men hate a would-be tyrant?

Georgge W. Bush has admitted that he is a tyrant. Why do you love tyranny, Throz?

I guess I'll have to wait until morning when the people with brains show up.

I guess I'll have to wait until morning when the people with brains show up.

Good one tbrosz.

Throze, re: msge at 1:59 AM

Only the presiding Judge of the FISA Court was briefed on the alternate procedure that Bush was using, and was not permitted to discuss it with anyone else. Same deal as the ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

[Sorry - can't find the reference. But one news report says this is what the woman who is chief judge of the FISA court stated. She was the only one briefed under seal of total silence as was Rockerfeller.]

It really doesn't matter to the legal proceedings of the FISA court, since in American Law no judge can rule on cases not presented to them, and the extra-legal cases by definition were not presented to any court. Unless there is reason to beleive that the evidence presented to the FISA court itself was obtained illegally.

The problem appears to be that if the DoJ took cases to the FISA court that were initiated by illegal wiretaps, the evidence used in the FISA court may have been "Fruit of the Poisonous tree", that is, not evidence a court can legally accept and act on. As long as the FISA judges didn't know that was possible, they didn't look for it. Now they are questioning if they have been handed rotten cases to act on.

You people must have some kind of death-wish! Seriously. You keep talking about this stuff, and sooner or later, the terrorists will catch on, and BAM, our multi-billion dollar whiz-bang technology is no good, cause they're using drums to communicate now like they did in Somalia. From there, it's just a short trip until they're coming over here, cutting off heads, putting women into burhqas, and making us all stick our asses up in the air 5 times a day. So just shut up!

Did you catch that last sentence? "Why do we even exist if the Bush administration claims absolute wartime power to do anything it wants without our approval?"

Good question. It's a proposition I'd like to see Bush try to defend publicly.

—Kevin Drum 1:13 AM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (5)

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58400

THE PRESIDENT: I said we use the FISA courts to monitor calls. It's a very important tool, and we do use it. I just want to make sure we've got all tools at our disposal. This is an enemy which is quick and it's lethal. And sometimes we have to move very, very quickly. But if there is a need, based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court, in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment. According to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern, and it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process?

THE PRESIDENT: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action.

And without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties. And we're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress. This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of "unchecked power."

Q Well --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times. This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States. To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

Q What limits do you --

THE PRESIDENT: I just described limits on this particular program, Peter. And that's what's important for the American people to understand. I am doing what you expect me to do, and at the same time, safeguarding the civil liberties of the country.

What's scariest about it all is the in-your -face quality of the Bush response to it. He's saying, yes I broke the law, what are you going to do about it? Will they do that next with Rove and the Plame scandal? Admit Rove exposed her and then lied about it but so what, what are you going to do about it? I guess you could call it the fuck-you defense. Hell, it might work. Then what? The bastards are calling the congress and the press and the courts bluff. If they don't take him down now it's game over.

Typical authoritarian tactic to kill debate and dissent;

It's a secret. Don't discuss this with anybody. We'll take your silence as tacit agreement. And if you disagree, we'll just tell everyone you agreed, and if you tell anyone, well, let's just say that Scooter Libby isn't the best example of what happens to people who leak classified information. Think Paul Wellstone.

no one in the press so far has mentioned a simple point. Bush's imperial aspirations may actually hurt the very cause he claims he was championing. As is the case with overeager cops performing an illegal search, the bypassed FISA warrants may result in dismissed terrorism cases. It may not matter to this bunch, since they would not want to prosecute anyway, preferring instead to either keep the perps indefinitely or rendition them out somewhere where torture is acceptable practice. Under this administration, no one will ever be legally prosecuted for terrorism, only for vague "aiding" terrorists. In their alleged eagerness to combat evil of terrorism, these idiots really ARE bringing down the 1984 curtain on all of us. There is only one way to solve this problem--try them all on treason, find them guilty and make them face the firing squad. No reason to actually shoot them--just the mere sight of them soiling themselves would be sufficient. Except Rove and Cheney--two shots to the back of the head each. Or do it the Boer War style--tie them down in a chair and keep shooting until they shut up. If they love capital punishment so much, why not give it to them? They EARNED it!

The crisis deepens as the Constitution is trampled on. Perhaps the FISA court should ask the Congress specifically if they have authority or the President has authority? Everyone in the Judiciary...and presumeably most people in the Congress...have been working under the assumption that the President abides by the law, right? Or is that a fiction that the Great Leaders men have helped to hide from the people for so long that there is nothing left to defend when it comes to "a scrap of paper".

My understanding of the Framers' intent was for the Congress to be the most powerful branch in the government. Afterall, it is Congress that is tasked with the creation of laws, not the President. If anyone thinks that we are now Corporation America instead of Democratic Republic America, let them come forth now to defend their ideal, rather than slither around behind a wall of hypocrisy.

Yes, I feel that many of those who talk so much about the rights of the Presidency do so much want a king to hand them favors, to give them titles, to ensure their lasting hegemony, that we now face a turning point similar to that of our Civil War. It is treason to seek to subvert the Constitution...and there are citizens that have made oaths to defend this fragile "scrap of paper" against enemies both foreign "and domestic". May they stand firm in their resolution against the Great Leader's usurpation of power.

I hear that many fear another impeachment process. I fear the lack of one. For, if the Congress does not assert its rights under the Constitution to make the laws, and the Judiciary does not assert its rights to adjudicate fairly and with due diligence those same laws and to rightly decide Constitutionality based on the merits of cases, not on the whims of a President greedy for power, then we only have left, legally, that process which the Framers saw fit to give us and which has served us well in the case of Citizen Nixon and may still serve us well in the case of ____ Bush.

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, please.

Well, sir, if you say please. . .

There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters.

Well, that's reassuring.

Because I thought Scooter Libby was sworn to uphold the law. And Safavian. And Cunningham. And DeLay. And Frist. And Poindexter.

I'm afraid that doesn't quite cut it, because, you see, I don't trust you, because you tend to lie, and twist, and parse, and misrepresent, and dissemble, and obfuscate, a whole fucking lot, mister President. And when you can get away with it, you usually just say "none of your business, executive privilege, nyah nyah.

So, forgive me for saying so, mister President, but "sworn to uphold the law" though it may be sufficient for most Americans, with you in particular, that's just not good enough. Sir.

There is oversight.

Please be more specific. Because, as I made my point earlier, we don't fucking trust you. Perhaps if you made an effort to come clean once in a while, things would be different. Eh?

We're talking to Congress all the time,

If you're talking about the briefings which are referred to in Sen. Rockefeller's letter, then I'm afraid, once again, that doesn't cut it, and this becomes a perfect example of what we're talking about when we accuse you of not being 100% honest and forthcoming.

and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times. This is an awesome responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the American people, and I understand that, Peter.

No, mister President, I don't think you do. If you did, you'd understand how concerned Americans are, and you'd understand that, deservedly so or not, the fact of the matter is, you're a major lightning rod for criticism from the Liberal side of the political spectrum, and that means, if you want to builld consensus, you're going to have to take that responsibility seriously and work harder to be a little less "my way or the highway" - I mean, if you're really the best political candidate that the right has to offer up for holding the office of president, you sure seem to lack the verbal skills necessary for even the most basic facets of leadership. I don't know if this is intentional or not - but it's a really serious fucking problem, and it's causing grave harm to the unity and stability of this nation.

And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States.

You need to be a little more specific than that. Our civil liberties are very important to Americans sir. We learned from a very young age that our heroes, the Founding Fathers used to say things like "don't trade Liberty for Security" and "Give me Liberty or give me Death." So, as dim witted as you certainly appear to be, you should be able to understand why this is a very grave matter, and your brush-off simply does not cut it.

To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the President, which I strongly reject.

one would hope so, mister President. Unfortunately, you're on record, on several occasions as having opinions which contradict that. Not to mention the fact that your appointees to the DOJ have written memos to the effect that you indeed, do have dicatatorial powers, which, of course, is not only hogwash, but technically treasonous.

Please mister president. You, or your spokesman, or maybe an NSA representative - SOMEBODY, for God's sake, come clean.

One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

Anonymity again? That will never work.

But I look forward to the Congressional hearings. We'll get to learn which, if any, congressfolk are willing to vote to stop the practice. It's an election year, and they will soon enough find out where they stand with the voters. Should be an exciting debate. Perhaps all of the Democrats who protected us against the Schiavo-inspired Republican power grab will act as effectively in this case as they did in that case.

Did the administration claim "absolute" power?

Well I repeat: it's exciting. I expect that all the Democrats who think that the US is losing in Iraq are probably outraged.

I expect that all the Democrats who think that the US is losing in Iraq are probably outraged.
Posted by: papageno on December 22, 2005 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if the US is losing in Iraq.

But I *do* know that Iran is winning, given the election results so far.

Repeating myself:

What gets people confused about this is the use of the word, "wiretap," which implies listening to a specific conversation or conversations by specifiuc persons.

What is really happening is that the NSA (without warrant, of course) is listening to many, many communications by non specific people, just anybody, using computers. Call that "Stage 1" wiretapping. The computers are listening for specific words, voices, whatever. When they get a hit, then they zero in and "wiretap" (in the more conventional sense) that specific person. Call that "Stage 2" wiretapping. Then human listeners are involved.

A lot of people, especially the right wing, don't feel particularly concerned about the Stage 1, "mass" wiretapping using computers. Why? Because there's no particular target? Because the listener is non-human, so what's the big deal?

I believe (and you should believe) that the mass wiretap is just as egregious as conventional wiretapping, and actually mnuch worse, because it is truly a Bib Brother scenario.

But even putting that aside, what happens if there is a hit and a particular person or persons become targeted? Well that is where it becomes problematic. To get a warrant you have to show probable cause. The evidence of probable cause happens to be the "hit" - which you had gotten without a warrant in the first place (and likewise without probable cause).

The judges on FISA are smart enough to see the problem, and they had even warned Bush not to try to use these "hits" in any warrant requests.

This wasn't an issue for 20 years, because all the mass wiretapping was going on outside our borders, where the Constitution doesn't apply.

The wingnuts focus on the Stage 2, more conventional wiretaps, and gloss over the issue of how it came to be that these people were wiretapped. They would like you to treat the Stage 1 taps as a mere question of technological advancement - not as a fourth amendment problem. We are supposed to say "Gee Whiz, isn't it great that our government has such technology at its disposal," as if we were watching an episode of CSI. That leads rather easily to the conclusion that "the technology has advanced so far that to take best advantage of it, we don't have time or resources to bother with the Stage 2 warrant; therefore FISA must be outdated."

That argument is easily bought into by your average frightened-to-death citizen who watches CSI.

We have to attack (rightfully) the Stage 1, "mass" wiretap, for exactly what it is: Completely and blatantly unconstitutional. We have to avoid the "Gee-Whiz technology" discussion because that is a loser: It says that any technology we have we ought to be able to use in the GWOT; it neatly sidesteps the constitutional question.

Bottom line: Our message is this: Forget the technolgy mumbo-jumbo, folks. What they are in fact doing is monitoring everybody's phone calls 24/7. It's Big Brother, Baby.

Don't get your hopes up. Kotelly is already in Bush and Bill Gate's payroll.

The virus of the irrational Bush hatred has spread to the judiciary.

You need a Libertarian intervention, tbrosz. You need to turn off the computer, kill a hobo, and curl up with a copy of The Fountainhead. Blind loyalty just looks silly on you.

Thirty years after Nixon-era working class rage against bureaucracies was channeled into "Dirty Harry", which first created the paradoxical synthesis of "law-and-order" advocates who despised the law and enjoyed watching police cars get destroyed, we have elected Dirty Harry as President.

"Al Queda and Al Queda associates SHOULD be wiretapped. Period."

Yes, because how else are we going to keep up with all these groups with similar and yet strangely unfamilar names. And to think that I once ate at Al's Quesadilla Hut. Period.

FISA exists as the tipping point for the overall bifurcation that is about to occur in mainstream circles about giving Bush and his maladministration the benefit of the doubt, resulting in an unexpected phase transition of a political system that has been steadily pushed away from equilibrium by the right wing corporate political and media propaganda machine, but against their wishes will actually tip back into a new equilibrium in direct opposition to their intended goals, and all because in the end they were predictably atomized by their own greed and unhealthy pursuit of their own self-interest above any other value, ended up in the most spectacular supernova of corruption and clusterfuck in the modern world, and not one of these judges on FISA, or Jack Abramoff, ever realized their crucial and pivotal roles.

You people must have some kind of death-wish! Seriously. You keep talking about this stuff, and sooner or later, the terrorists will catch on, and BAM, our multi-billion dollar whiz-bang technology is no good, cause they're using drums to communicate now like they did in Somalia. From there, it's just a short trip until they're coming over here, cutting off heads, putting women into burhqas, and making us all stick our asses up in the air 5 times a day. So just shut up!

You god-dammned yellow fear-mongering chicken-shit bastard! We can defeat these men, we will defeat these men. We will fight them with patience, cunning, and determination. And we'll do it without throwing over everything America stands for. They can hurt us, but they can't destroy us. Not unless we change who we are because we're so afraid of getting hurt.

The Republicans love to paint themselves as the party of faith. Looks like their faith doesn't really carry any weight in the real world, does it? The only thing to fear is fear itself.

God Bless America.

And, if you quote the above, if you're similarly insane, please substitute "ending" for "ended".

"The virus of the irrational Bush hatred has spread to the judiciary."

Just remove "irrational" from that sentence, tbrosz, and you've got yourself an honest statement.

papageno - Could you please not spank when you are cutting and pasting the talking points into liberal blogs. I know you are excited but it makes my job more difficult. It distracts me from monitoring the traitorous liberals that post here. By restraining yourself you are aiding the war on Islamofacism and vegans.
ps- nice dress - Are you trying for the Barbara Bush look with those pearls?

What's scariest about it all is the in-your -face quality of the Bush response to it. He's saying, yes I broke the law, what are you going to do about it?

Well, no, that's not what he (Bush) is saying. What he is saying is that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to direct security agencies to monitor these electronic communications without getting a warrant because we are at war and that such action is not a violation of the law (again, because we are at war).

And, by the way, what ARE you going to do about it?

We will fight them with patience, cunning, and determination. And we'll do it without throwing over everything America stands for.

Oh, please, as if accessing electronic communications in pristine privacy in a time of war belongs in the same sentence as "everything America stands for." As long as you're free to post inane anti-Bush agitpop on blogs like this, we're far far far away from straying from the true values that make up "everything America stands for."

Alright ... this is marginally OT (and already posted on the Revolt of the Professionals thread), but it's late nite (early morning), nobody's posting, and I think this is a pretty fine rebuttal.

It's also the central issue in this whole ball o' whacks: Just how important *is* fighting Islamist terrorism, anyway? Here's my .02:

Steve White:

> Islamist terrorism is one of the larger threats to
> the U.S. It easily has the ability to kill thousands
> of Americans as they've already demonstrated, and they
> don't need especially high-tech weaponry to do so.

After 9/11, the CW was how diabolically ingenious the attack was.
It really wasn't at all; all it took (aside from raw fanaticism) was
a bunch of fake visas and driver's licenses, a modicum of a command
of English, a few vanity commercial jet flying lessons and the
unimaginable brutality to cut up flight attendants with box cutters.

It blindsided us. Arguably Bush was asleep at the switch; I'm not
going to go into all the second-guessing about the August PDB, the
screaming FBI agent, etc.; doubtless you've heard that all before.

What did we do afterwards? Well, airline security drastically
changed. Are our ports secured? Our borders? Not at all.

These are the mundane things we could be doing,
and which we are not, to avoid another attack.

> Should they gain access to WMD (you scoff, but it's
> something to consider), they will kill many more Americans.

I'm not exactly scoffing. It's something to consider, but also
to evaluate in practical terms. Once again, no jihadist I've ever
heard of has mounted an attack with UCW, let alone WMD. Are there
ex-Soviet agents out there willing to sell some leftover goodies
to the highest bidder? Probably. Might North Korea do the same?
Possibly. Do we need to surveill these foreign agents? Absolutely.

But do we let the fear of this keep us awake at night? No. Not
if we're psychologically healthy people and live by our freedom.

And do we need to give the president unlimited powers to address this
threat as he sees fit with no independent oversight? Absolutely not.

> There have been a couple of abortion providers
> murdered (and their killer is in jug).

Don't forget the 250 people blown up in the Murrah Building.

> The Latin Americans may end up making faces at us.

And we might wind up someday going to war over Venezuelan oil.

> Islamofascism (because that's what it is) and
> Islamist terror has the potential to be much
> greater, and that's what we have to react to.

Islamofascism is a term that doesn't parse. The authoritarianism
of conservative Islam is only in the most superficial way equatable
to the authoritarianism of fascism. When Saddam set up a fascist
state, his model was Stalin, his ideology Nasserite pah-Arabism.
He stayed away from Islam because Islam is accountable to a higher
authority. Iranian theocracy has no irredentist ambitions, nor
does Saudi theocracy. The caliphate ideology is a deviant modern
phenomenon; no Islamic country endorsed it since the ouster of
the Taliban. Since this ideology condones the killing of so-
called apostate Muslims, it is considered a grave threat in the
most conservative Muslim regimes. Take Saudi Arabia seriously
when it says that it fears al Qaeda every bit as much as we do.

As for Islamic terrorism, I have yet to see an argument
that persuades me we should treat it any differently
than any other murderous international criminal cult.

> But Osama proved he could hurt us. And he hates
> us. So the threat equation doesn't equal zero
> anymore, at least until al-Qaeda is wiped out.

Well, a lot of threats to America don't equal zero. Do we speak of
wiping out street gangs? Do we even consider it possible anymore
to win the war on drugs? Yet we consider it possible to "wipe out"
al Qaeda. This doesn't parse; despite the most sophisticated military
and surveillance in the world, we simply cannot kill every Islamist
fanatic who has burned with the lust to kill Americans. What exactly
is "membership" in al Qaeda? Do they take a blood oath? Is there an
initiation ceremony? Or does it only entail reading jihadi websites
and becoming divinely inspired? In truth, we honestly don't know.

> Likewise Saddam clearly had intent to get away with
> whatever he could, and the capability part was an open
> question (we now see it was close to zero, but we didn't
> see that in 2002, or in 1998). The threat was non-zero.

I saw it clearly in the fall of '02 and all I had to go by was what
I read in the MSM and on the NYT Iraq forum -- which was full of
raging paranoia in the wake of 9/11. I read the Judith Miller
stories and just shook my head; I *knew* they were bullshit from
the way she handled her sources. I would have voted against the IWR
and I don't know a soul in my social circle who'd have done otherwise.

> Now quibble as you like, assign whatever values you
> want to a given situation, the basic assessment still holds.
> The question is, how much of a threat do you tolerate?

That is precisely the question.

> During the Cold War, we tolerated a threat that was
> substantially greater than zero, because the consequences
> of trying to fix it (we thought, until Reagan came along)

You mean until Gorbachev came along.

> was even greater. Today, we tolerate a non-zero
> threat from China because the consequences of
> trying to fix that directly could be catastrophic.

And we similarly tolerated an at least rhetorical threat
from Saddam because *he* knew that the consequences of
confronting us would be -- as they were -- catastrophic.

> Islamist terrorism is a non-zero threat. The
> threat could be quite large if we allow them to
> have a base of operations (like Afghanistan was),

I certainly never opposed the ouster of one of the most backward,
dysfunctional regimes extant. If they trained the Saudi 9/11
soldiers there, then take out the training camps -- end of story.

What we should have done is poured all of our resources into
making *that* country the model democracy in the region.

Now with Iraq as well, we've bitten off more than we can chew.

> if we allow them to link up to terror-supporting
> states like Iran, Syria or (until recently) Iraq,

There's regional resistance to Israel, and then there's international
jihadist terrorism. The right-wing punditsphere likes to conflate
them, but they aren't the same thing. Hezbollah is Shi'ite, but it
threatens only Israel. No Shi'ite is a member of al Qaeda, because
that Salafist ideology is strictly Sunni and is much more radical
and anti-statist than the repressive statist conservatives in Iran.

By this yardstick, Iraq never supported the kind of terrorism
that threatend the US, even if they did send stipends to
the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or supported
Ansar al Islam in the north to harrass the Kurds.

> if we allow them to work with rogue states like North Korea.
> The threat could be smaller if we conduct certain operations, etc.

North Korea is insular and paranoid, and in fact even a worse basket
case Stalinist regime than was Saddam's Iraq. And -- when we took
our eye off the ball to obsess over Iraq -- they got themselves nukes.

But North Korea has zero connections or affinity to Islamism
and the threat of coordination is probably exaggerated, since
Kim, like Saddam, is most of all interested in surviving.

> After 9/11, how much of a threat are you willing to tolerate from
> Islamist terrorism? Perhaps you're willing to tolerate more than I
> am -- I suspect, given your laundry list in your note, that you are.

Are you more willing than I to tolerate gangland homicide?

I don't consider it a qualitative difference to be killed or
grievously injured by a terrorist explosion vs to be killed
or grievously injured by a gangland drive-by shooting. And
since there was a driveby down the street from me two years
ago (we have Bloods and Crips in my Northeastern city), I can
reasonably calculate that the odds of the latter are much higher.

> I am not, and I'll support a President from either party who
> prosecutes aggressively a war on Islamist terror. Likewise, I'll
> oppose a President from either party who decides to tolerate the
> threat. It's an important issue to me. I'm likely to vote, in
> 2008, based on who is willing to fight terror more effectively.

You're certainly entitled, Steve. You can support a
candidate for whatever single issue you'd like, no matter
how good or bad your rationale is, this being America and all.

But simply telling me you're going to do this does not equate
to a substantive argument for why others should do it as well.

I'd still like to know why Islamist terrorism exists in a
special catetory of threat. You're a medical doctor; I can't
write your motives off to simpleminded xenophobia or racism.

> Now is that real or existential? You're the wordsmith, you decide.

"Existential" here has no fancy philosophical meaning
here, it just means a threat to one's existence.

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR threatend our existence.

Al Qaeda does not.

If you think it does -- you're as crazy as a loon.

Bob

But even putting that aside, what happens if there is a hit and a particular person or persons become targeted? Well that is where it becomes problematic. To get a warrant you have to show probable cause. The evidence of probable cause happens to be the "hit" - which you had gotten without a warrant in the first place (and likewise without probable cause).

Who the hell cares about getting a warrant? If the "hit" you're referring to helps us to locate an enemy, we won't need a warrant; we'll simply go after him and either kill or capture him (or have him killed or captured by one of our allies). Do you think the government would have waited for a warrant in 1943 to apprehend a German agent? It seems to me that al Qaeda has plenty of advantages, and used them to their fullest extent. Why shouldn't we use one of our advantages (technology) to its greatest extent? The fact is, the type of mass monitoring (i.e., key word searching, etc) of electronic communications necessary for our security simply isn't conducive to the use of warrants. Why? Because there are millions and millions of such communications taking place every day. I WANT big-ass fancy machines to be exhaustively searching for clues that could lead to the apprehension of America's enemies, and most Americans agree with me. Which is why you people ain't getting anywhere whith this latest "scandal" you're trying to get brewing. Meanwhile, the presiden't numbers are soaring.

It would be interesting to see it the Bushies actually admit that there are ANY legal constraints that they are subject to.

"Meanwhile, the presiden't numbers are soaring."

Yes, like a drunken eagle.

"[. . .]I WANT big-ass fancy machines to be exhaustively searching for clues that could lead to the apprehension of America's enemies, and most Americans agree with me. Which is why you people ain't getting anywhere whith this latest "scandal" you're trying to get brewing. Meanwhile, the presiden't numbers are soaring."

Posted by: sid on December 22, 2005 at 5:35 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter Sid: I'm a coward, and I need a big strong man to protect me. And 40% approval is SOARING BABY!

I think what you actually mean is "souring".

Sid the Id:

> "We will fight them with patience, cunning, and determination. And
> we'll do it without throwing over everything America stands for."

> Oh, please, as if accessing electronic communications
> in pristine privacy in a time of war

Who are we at war with, sid? The boogie man? Is he under your bed?

Ahhh ... al Qaeda, I see. You mean 2000 insane Salafist
ideologues who are shunned in their countries of origin.

If so, then being in a state of war with the most powerful
nation on earth amounts to the largest Affirmative Action
program to aggrandize the egos of misfits ever undertaken :)

> belongs in the same sentence as "everything America stands for."

America stands against ends-justified rationality. Tamper with
that, argue for violating civil liberties in the name of results,
and indeed the whole idea of America does begin to unravel.

Where does it end, sid? How much power is Bush allowed to have?

> As long as you're free to post inane
> anti-Bush agitpop on blogs like this,

How do you know that we're so free to do this, sid?
How do you know that some of these posts haven't already
been keyword-flagged and email addresses indexed?

> we're far far far away from straying from the true
> values that make up "everything America stands for."

You're right. We start straying from our core values every time
you channel Senator Joe McCarthy with another one of your posts :)

Bob

Time to seperate the Good Germans from the Bad, I see. Why do I have this vision of GOPGreg, papageno, and sid all standing blankly in a 1945 German village going "Der Furher would never have abused his powers like that!"

(And if you feel that's too Godwin for you, try, say, 1789 France or 1954 Russia.)

Where does it end, sid?

If and when the Democrats return to power.

How much power is Bush allowed to have?

As much as he needs to stop America's true enemies: The Democrats.

What's scariest about it all is the in-your -face quality of the Bush response to it. He's saying, yes I broke the law, what are you going to do about it?

Posted by: nameless bob

There is only one proper response: a unanimous call for his impeachment immediately. That's exactly what the republican leadership would have done had Clinton ever made such a remark.

Democrats are political cowards; Republicans are political warriors. We will NEVER win until we blow past the Clintons, Bidens and Obamas and demand leaders that go for the jugular at the drop of a hat -- regardless of the consequences for their own political future.

All this wonky dialogue sends the message to assholes like Clinton, Biden and Obama that they can get our support and vote when they ride the fence on fundamental issues like this one and lay low to protect their political future.

We will never win until we run assholes like them out of the fucking party for good.

Why do I have this vision of GOPGreg, papageno, and sid all standing blankly in a 1945 German village going "Der Furher would never have abused his powers like that!"

You're assuming that they wouldn't have already fled by U-Boat to Argentina.

The "need" to circumvent the FISA process has nothing to do with technology, and it has nothing to do with urgency.

It has to do with the identity of the targets.

What the Republicans are doing is implementing the Huston Plan, pure and simple. The targets, when eventually divulged, will prove to be exclusively domestic. Divulging them may have to wait for a Truth Commission after the civil war, which is to say that it may have to wait for a very long time; but it will eventually happen. Jay Rockefeller is not the only person who knows how to cover his ass.

No, The Fascist Trio above would have been shooting anyone who put out a white flag, ala Aachen. They would been the group who came back into town and executed the Mayor for welcoming the Americans. They have more of a Werewolf quality than the average burgher.

econo buzz, nameless bob.

GWB is NOT saying, "I broke the Law. What are you going to do about it". GWB is saying, "I am the law."

In fact, he is quite correct as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have already attested. He is also saying, "If you disagree let's take it to the courts for a settlement". What he is not saying but thinking, "Why do you think I apppointed Roberts and Alito? Duh!"

The UK will start recording the movements of all vehicles on the roads, upgrading the already existing network so that they can automatically read license plates numbers as they pass by, and keeping that information for two years.

And with no FISA court authorization.

This gives me an idea: Perhaps Bush should simply say that he's surrendering to critics' demands that we take a "more European" approach to national security.

"The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court."
I smell a "conviction thrown out on a technicality," coming. Just lawyer up you silly "accused" terrorist and watch as those who make law from the bench create new laws and drag out your court cases for 15 years. We go to great lengths to protect violent men.
I wonder why Bush doesn't want judges involved in the fight against terrorism?

Oh goody, another Werewolf has crawled out of his hole. Hey, TBrosz, your buddies are here. The swill will rise high today.

Hey, Pale Rider, don't you just love these Telephone guys. We live in the Qwest, former US West area. The former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio was indicted by a federal grand jury on 42 counts of insider trading that allegedly earned him nearly $101 million in illegal profits. Qwest so far has paid out $650 million in settlements relating to the financial fraud. Three assistants have already pled guilty and several more are under indictment.
Qwest has had a running gun battle with the City of Portland over not paying taxes. Probably didn't have the money.
Remember when Ma Bell was considered honest?

There he goes again.

Like clockwork, after refusing to follow up on his previous inane comments, Tbrosz now opines that the radical Dem anti-Republican terrorist-loving hate-America group known as the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court has caught some "irrational anti-Bush virus..."

Given your self-admitted ignorance of how the court works, shouldn't you be more cautious in impugning the judges' integrity? Judge Kollar-Kotelly now has to convene a "secret briefing" in Washington DC next month to outline the classified program to members - shouldn't that give you a hint that your comments about a "'we know nothing' bit" and suggestion the judges are trying the same "gambit" as Democrats are even slightly misplaced?

Libertarian that you profess to be, perhaps you should be even a trifle worried that (according to the Washington Post):

a "government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it. 'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.'"

Lets get that right: they had to name a target and give a reason to spy on it, and were unable to do so. This is too heavy a burden to put on the administration?

Tbrosz, we'll take your input seriously when you identify which country the US invaded first in World War II and why this is relevant to any contemporary debate.

Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR threatend our existence.

I'm with you, rmck1, but in fact neither Nazi Germany nor Imperial Japan threatened "our" existence. They threatened the existence of democratic states in Europe and in East Asia, and they threatened to start a lot of wars which would kill a lot of people, as in fact they did. They were an initial test run of a new type of modern governmental system, fascist totalitarianism, which turned out not to be sustainable, basically because it premised political control on a kind of rabid nationalism that inevitably ended in defeat in battle - as subsequent fascists like Nasser and Saddam Hussein have discovered.

Had the Nazis come along twenty years later, when nukes were around, then they would have threatened our existence.

And, obviously, we had to fight the Nazis, whether or not they threatened our existence, because good guys go to war to defend their friends and freedom around the world. And to stop, say, genocide.

Twigless doesn't have anything against judges, per se, he would go with a reincarnation of Judge Roy Bean in a second. So West Texas, you know.

we'll take your input seriously when you identify which country the US invaded first in World War II and why this is relevant to any contemporary debate.

Hey, that's a good one. Which country did the US invade first? Morocco? Tunisia? I'm game, and conveniently deprived of reference material. Lay it on me.

"Not even conservatives will rush to endorse the expansive powers that Bush claims to find in the Constitution to enable the National Security Agency to evade existing law and systematically conduct wiretaps against terrorism suspects on U.S. soil without warrants". Jim Hoagland

Except for the 'conservatives' that post on this blog. I love it.

3rd Paul,

Ma Bell was never considered honest.

It is a shame we lost Bell Labs but Ma Bell had to go.

I wonder why Bush doesn't want judges involved in the fight against terrorism?

Because he's a fascist?

And the Orwell family estate should smack you with a trademark suit for smearing the reputation of your brand; Orwell would have considered you filth.

being in a state of war with the most powerful
nation on earth amounts to the largest Affirmative Action
program to aggrandize the egos of misfits ever undertaken :)

Again, rmck1, I say: what he said.

Why do I have this vision of GOPGreg, papageno, and sid all standing blankly in a 1945 German village going "Der Furher would never have abused his powers like that!"

As a German I have the advantage of knowing both people who were Nazis in WWII and knowing people who were loyal Communists in East Germany, so I'm personally familiar with this brand of blinkered fanaticism. In both cases there were always those who were so brainwashed, so fundamentally committed to the cause, that they never gave up their belief, even after the system they had committed to was lying in rubble around them. Even in the 1980s I knew some older men and women who would say things like "Well, but Hitler got a lot of things right. He was just betrayed by people like Himmler...."

Then, on the other hand, there was the husband of my mom's cousin, a committed Communist in East Berlin. In 1990, after the Wall fell, we flew his family to visit us in the US for the summer. I remember him standing in a supermarket in the Hamptons, absolutely stunned by the abundance of goods, and saying over and over, "they lied to me. They lied to me all my life...." Sometimes the scales do fall.

I smell a "conviction thrown out on a technicality," coming.

I smell an "innocent man kidnapped in Frankfurt and shipped to Jordan where he was tortured by genital electrocution until they realized he had been mistakenly arrested because his name was similar to that of a suspected al-Qaeda member, finally exonerated and reunited with his family", coming.

If you were American, you would understand why we in our country have always believed in the separation of powers. But being a Russian Communist you're ignorant of such things.

Remember when Ma Bell was considered honest?

Actually, the breakup of AT&T led to MCI/Worldcom and Sprint, two companies that have shattered records for screwing investors, gobbling up small companies and smashing unions. Great stuff.

I think people just want a phone that works. How hard is that?

And to stop, say, genocide.

Unless its African genocide, and then the United States just kind of turns and walks away.

Stefan,

I remember him standing in a supermarket in the Hamptons, absolutely stunned by the abundance of goods, and saying over and over, "they lied to me. They lied to me all my life...."

My wife had the same experience. She grew up in Orange County, California and found herself shopping with her mother in a Piggly-Wiggly in Kentucky. I believe disbelief and disdain were the milder effects of outright culture shock that she went through. It's been a few years...she's getting better. Good days, bad days and all that.

One of the most underreported angles of the secret wiretaps case is touched on in the article you linked to today. That is, what happens if, ultimately, the Bush administration's policy is ruled unconstitutional? Given the reaction of the FISA judges, it seems to me this is an entirely possible, if not probable, result. What happens then? Will all the evidence the Bush administration has gathered to prosecute these suspected terrorists be thrown out? Talk about compromising national security. I can understand aggressive wiretaps in the immediate wake of 9/11, but not four years later. Heck, Congress could have called a closed session (as Reid did a few weeks back) to codify these wiretaps in law. If they're that important, and if the links between the U.S. citizens and terrorist networks are that "clear" (as the administration maintains), then why wasn't this done?

Hey, that's a good one. Which country did the US invade first? Morocco? Tunisia? I'm game, and conveniently deprived of reference material. Lay it on me.

Lovely malarial Papua New Guinea, held by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Had the Nazis come along twenty years later, when nukes were around, then they would have threatened our existence.

brooksfoe, largely with you but to be fair, the Germans in 1938 were the first to manage nuclear fission and the Germans did actually have a program to develop the bomb with physicists Werner Heisenberg and Kurt Diebner. Fortunately the progam was never able to produce a critical nuclear reactor. The two Japanese programs prossibly got much further (particularly the navy's) and the Japanese actually had plans to deploy atomic bombs against US troops on Saipan if they could develop them in time.

And watching while the Nazis overran Europe (fortunately the US was never given that option as Germany declared war) would have certainly given rise to something that was an existential threat. In the end, anyway, it was Russia that saved Europe's bacon (at an utterly horrifying cost) when the two great evils of the 20th century faced off.

I guess the point of this rambling is that the threat posed by the National Socialists has to be seen as one that didn't take much foresight to see as becoming existential.

Hey Stefan, I had that experience repeatedly with Russian friends in '89-'91. But I came to realize that it represented something dangerous for the Westerners who saw it happen: too many thought it proved the absolute legitimacy of the Reagan/Thatcherite economically laissez-faire, hard-line militarist "empire of evil" line of the '80s. All it did was prove the absolute superiority of the market economy over the command economy - nothing more. It didn't prove that the military buildup of the '80s made sense (if anything it proved the opposite), it didn't prove that privatizing education or health care were a good idea, it didn't prove that "government is the problem" and business is holy. (As a lot of Eastern Europeans have discovered, to their horror.)

What's awful about the post-9/11 mentality is that people think that the US has carte blanche to do anything it wants, anything at all, because "those guys saw people's heads off!" Rather than opening people's minds to what's going on in the rest of the world, the armed conflicts that have followed 9/11 have pushed many Americans into a stupid, defensive, ignorant assertion of our superiority and of our rightness in blowing away whoever the President and the military have wound up blowing away most recently, and in revoking whatever parts of our system of government they see fit to revoke. I mean, I think those East Europeans who got dropped into the supermarket in the Hamptons had been prepped for the experience: their lives had turned them, through scarcity, into worshippers of material objects and brand names, and, dropped into the West, they saw vast oceans of material objects and brand names, and thought it was heaven. They saw what they had, in a sense, been prepped to see.

On the other hand, Americans have been prepped to see wild-eyed Muslim fanatics who hate freedom and the USA; and, dropped into Iraq, that is what they have seen. They haven't seen people who fight for their country's or their family's honor, combatting foreign invaders. They can't see that. Everything they see reinforces their sense of their own rightness. They're incapable of seeing what's in front of their eyes; their frame of reference shunts it all away.

After two days of thundering by the stampeding lemmings of the MSM/Dem/left, the facts are now starting to dribble out. Former Atty Gen Griffin Bell, Prof. Cass Sunstein, and Clinton Justice Dept #3 John Schmidt have all come forward and said that FISA did not supplant the president's powers for survaillance, and Bush's interpretation of the law is more realistic than the Chicken Littles like you or Robertson.
I also find it interesting that the same people who insist that BUSH LIED about WMD are now exagerating who is getting spied on by these wiretaps. I'm sure 80% of the American people have not heard or seen any caveats in the headlines or coverage that this is only applying to international calls.

Quite a culture shock to go from Alpha Beta to Piggly-Wiggly. And from Carl's Jr to Hardees.

Well said, brooksfoe. Very well said indeed.

I'm sure 80% of the American people have not heard or seen any caveats in the headlines or coverage that this is only applying to international calls.

Those international calls originate from or enter into America, you fuckwit. They're made or received by Americans.

Well said, brooksfoe. Very well said indeed.

and seconded.

I'm sure 80% of the American people have not heard or seen any caveats in the headlines or coverage that this is only applying to international calls.

What a disgusting thing to say. So now making an international call is evidence of disloyalty to America?

I've got an idea, minion of rove: how about we round up the people who have foreign currency. This has been standard practice in every country that's been really successful at wiping out terrorism: the Nazis, the Soviets, Franco's Spain, they all did it. How can we afford to go without this essential technique?

It's interesting to compare Bush's rationale here--I need unlimited power to keep you safe--to his actions during Katrina.

In the Katrina crisis, the President had de facto, if not de jure, authority to do pretty much anything he wanted with the federal government's resources. Furthermore, it looked like everyone went into the crisis expecting to follow FEMA's lead.

But bizarrely, the President didn't seem to have any specific actions in mind that he needed more authority to pursue. I didn't hear him saying, "we would have done thus-and-so, but we could not because we lacked the authority." Instead, all his energy seemed to be fosued on a pissing match over authority with the Louisiana governor. By all appearances, he was more focused on obtaining control in order to manage the spin than in order to manage the substance of the crisis.

Is it just me, or does Katrina pretty much undercut the President's argument that he needs increased authority so he can take action? Because when a crisis itself gave him pretty much unlimited authority, it's not like he used it particularly well.

This leaves us to conclude that the President wants authority simply because he wants control. He doesn't want to have to answer to anyone else or justify his actions. That's not just an undemocratic government, it's bad and ineffective government.

Here's the link for my last assertion:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

I hope you guys continue with your holier than thou concern for the poor terrorist's privacy rights. You will help us overcome our real issues with Abramoff, spending, K Street, etc. I hope someday we get two legitimate political parties in this country, but not until my side gets to pack the Supreme Court, after that I'll worry about your irrational desire to look down on the great unwashed as not as worthy as you.

Damn straight, theorajones. It's called "authority without responsibility". It's the hallmark of dictatorship.

brooksfoe:"Americans have been prepped to see wild-eyed Muslim fanatics who hate freedom and the USA; and, dropped into Iraq, that is what they have seen. They haven't seen people who fight for their country's or their family's honor, combatting foreign invaders."

insurgents do not equal people fighting for their country. Most of the Iraqi's want it, most of the ideological fanatic muslims don't.

Stephan:"They're made or received by Americans." Wonder why the avg. Joe American would be calling Afganistan? or Syria? Exchanging pie recipes perhaps?

Shoot, we should just all get scanners to listen in like Grand Ma and Grand Pa did with Newt...you tards seemed to be OK with that.

after that I'll worry about your irrational desire to look down on the great unwashed as not as worthy as you.

What are you talking about? Are you, like, ashamed because you've never made an international call?

I'd give you my number and tell you to call me, just to get over your virginity, because it seems to be blocking your ability to think clearly. But I'm afraid you'd turn out to be some weird stalker.

pale rider,

The breakup of AT&T had nothing to do with MCI or Worldcom. They formed to compete in Long Distance after it was deregulated.

Basic phone service is just as reliable as it ever was and is far cheaper.

The problems with phones is the confusing range of choices and the fact no one wants to pay for repair or any employee intensive (expensive) service.

One of the things missed in Verizons decision to convert to fiber from copper is the maintenance savings. They need a bigger pipe but the expense is only justified based on very significant maintenance savings. In this case the Union was wise to allow the company to place the fiber optic cable using non union labor. The lower installation costs and lower maintenance costs will allow Verizon to compete with Comcast and remain profitable.

Eventually the area where I live will be 100% fiber. The number of calls to repair will drop by 90% and more of those calls will be solved from the office. The truck fleet dedicated to repair service will be reduced by at least 90% and the installation fleet by a smaller amount as more can be done from the office.

They will dramatically increase their capacity to handle voice and data traffic at a dramatically reduced cost. Consumers will have a dramatically wider range of services available with better reliability.

It's a shame Bell Labs is gone but the market works.

I've got an idea, minion of rove: how about we round up the people who have foreign currency.

Well passport holders are definitely suspect (I mean they apparently voted for Kerry by more than a 20% margin).

Hey, perhaps this. Tokugawa Japan simply killed anybody trying to enter, trying to return and as far as I know there were absolutely no problems with Islamic terrorism.

Of course they did have to deal with that problem of continual peasant revolts.

insurgents do not equal people fighting for their country. Most of the Iraqi's want it, most of the ideological fanatic muslims don't.

Happy Glimore, I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean. Want "it"? Want what?

Wonder why the avg. Joe American would be calling Afganistan? or Syria?

Maybe his FAMILY lives there, you creep. Do you have any idea how many patriotic true-blue Americans of Iranian ancestry there are in LA, with dozens of relations in Tehran? Do they deserve to have their calls monitored without a warrant? And you know where the 9/11 hijackers were mostly making calls to? Germany. So is calling Germany sufficient evidence of terrorist sympathies for you? You made any calls to Germany lately?

I am probably the only person in this discussion who actually knows for a fact that his phone IS being bugged. I live in a dictatorship, and because of certain perfectly normal things my job involves, which would just be a normal job in the West and is neither exciting nor well paid, well, let's just say that all of us here who do this job get our phones monitored. It's annoying; you never know whether you've done something wrong on your taxes, for instance, that you might mention at the wrong time, and that might serve as an excuse for them to suddenly kick you and your family out. Or whether you might unwittingly endanger someone else by mentioning their name. So to those of you who aren't being monitored, let me just say it's not nice, and that's the reason why the Founders were against unlawful searches and seizures, even of people who were suspicious because their skin was dark or they had funny names or corresponded with foreigners.

Well, the President isn't suggesting that the FISA law no longer exists. He's just saying that the FISA law, and presumably every other law, can be broken by him.

Presumably the FISA court would continue to exist so it could grant warrants to people who aren't authorized by the President.

So how does that work? Some FISA judges are cleared more highly than others? Seems odd that any FISA judges would not have the highest security clearances. So some learned about the NSA program only in the newspaper? What kept those judges "in the know" from sharing the information? And how were those judges originally selected to be briefed when the others weren't?

I see the facts are going to be subject to the usual trenchant tbrosz analysis, spinning webs of fantasy from the simple truth, all in an attempt to pretend not to hear. LaLaLaLaLa!!!

If thoughts could take physical form, tbrosz would be encased in a chrysalis of black, stringy republican horseshit.

I've got an idea, minion of rove: how about we round up the people who have foreign currency.

I think we should also jail those who is not white, and those who doesn't believe in evangelical Christianity religion. Because from their point of view, anyone who does not believe in their religion are sinners, evil and going to hell, and should not live on this earth.

G.W. Bush is the King and Savior for white evangelical Christianis He is idolized, and treated like deity by them. Heck, they even have his picture besides Jesus.

Sorry, but the "we know nothing" bit isn't going to sell any better than when Democrats on the intelligence committees were trying the same gambit.

The problem is that Bush didn't follow the law.

It doesn't matter who he briefed, it was BUSH
who gave the order and ignored the law.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Remember when Republicans used to talk about "accountability"?

He's just saying that the FISA law, and presumably every other law, can be broken by him.

Yeah. Sometimes this stuff gets me thinking - maybe the NRA is right, you know? I mean, gun control would be nice, but given that it ain't happening, maybe we really do all need to be armed to the teeth, just to get ready for when Chief Justice Roberts says the President's Commander in Chief authority extends to rounding up anyone who has ever called the President an idiot and detaining them indefinitely without charges as an enemy combatant...

brooksfoe:"Do you have any idea how many patriotic true-blue Americans of Iranian ancestry there are in LA, with dozens of relations in Tehran? Do they deserve to have their calls monitored without a warrant? "

Yes

"So is calling Germany sufficient evidence of terrorist sympathies for you? "

Yes, if they have ties to extreme islamic fundementalism.

"I live in a dictatorship"

If you don't live here, you have no dog in this fight. Back on the porch for you.

"Want "it"? Want what?"

Democracy nit wit! You know, well perhaps not.

As Brooksfoe said so eloquently, Americans haven't seen people fighting for their country, their familie's honor, combating foreign invaders.
Or at least they have not recognized "foreign opposition" to our either manifest destiny or backing of one political group over another. If we take sides in Nationalistic matters, then the opposition instantly becomes the enemy.

Under manifest destiny, the Native Americans were the insurgents and/or terrorists - The same occured in the Philippines or in any Banana Republic. In Viet Nam, we chose the French and thought we could install a puppet government. In Lebanon, we took sides and created a horrendous backlash which carrys on today in the middle east. The average citizen has historically believed in whatever the government told about perceived enemies. We will always have the "Nuke the bastards" types who take umbrage at any "foreigner" fighting to protect their country unless that foreigner is one of "ours".

Sort of like the recent revelations of the NYPD using undercover cops to incite crowds. When the police go in to "arrest" the cop, anyone in the crowd who gets in their way gets arrested.

But at least the Twigless Administration is stopping the bad guys. They have announced that the Cuban National Baseball Team will not be allowed to play in World Baseball Games in the US in March. Might try to inflitrate the Yankees.

Yes, if they have ties to extreme islamic fundementalism.

If they have ties, why can't they demonstrate those ties to a judge and get a warrant ?

I definitly think you Democrats should go into the midterms with this proposition:

If UBL is talking to somebody in the US, then all record of whatever the person in the US says should be deleted, and his phone number, so that the person may not be identified. Even if the person says "Yes, we have the bomb in a parking garage on sixth street right now."

Because that is the argument you are making. Unless the listening goes a lot deeper than people in the US, notice how I don't say citizens, because their status is unknown, talking to suspected terrorists overseas, this is such a loser for you guys that I won't even try to talk you out of it.

I attribute the whole furor to marijuana induced paranoia. It ain't going to get you the votes in the middle that you are going to need to displace the Republicans. Judging by which states shich have gone for Bush, there is a natural, filibuster proof, veto proof, majority for the Republicans in the Senate. '06 will just bring that day closer.

And, what if the guy is using cheap, pre-paid phones, like you can buy in a drug store, and throwing 'em away after single use? By the time a warrent has been gotten, it will be useless.

What if a jihadi sets up a phone to forward his calls back overseas, so that he knows that if he uses the phone to call his buddies, it will not be monitored? Nor even will a record of the phone which is forwarded be kept?

Yeah, go the to mid terms with this one Dems.

I notice a common, and sneering, theme in the spew of our trolls: the idea that pursuing a self-proclaimed act of lawbreaking by Bush will somehow hurt Democrats politically. The bushbots here treat politics as a sporting event where their "team" has to be defended at all costs, and I guess they are simply projecting. Protesting this clearly illegal act is, to me, simply patriotism and a defence of the Constitution. Like opposing torture, it is a moral position and not a political one. Only cowards cede unlimited and secret powers to the government.

Another common element is that this sweeping and unchecked surveillance only targets the guilty, and that the innocent have nothing to hide. This is simply Stalinism. Actual conservatives, and actual libertarians, would be in open revolt about these Big Brother practices. The defenders of Bush are neither.

Only a few years ago we heard a lot of noise about the rule of law. Apparently this does not apply to Republicans. The Bush republican party is the party of torture, secret wiretaps without warrants, routine lying and fearmongering.
Indeed, let us see how this plays out in the next couple of election cycles. I have more faith in America than our Bushbots do.

GOPGregory: Al Queda and Al Queda associates SHOULD be wiretapped. Period.

If you could kindly provide a list of these people, please do, so we can wiretap only those people.

The Bush administration could use all the help it can get and clearly you are in possession of critical knowledge that would be useful.

Or simply an arrogant but simpleminded ass?

Defenders of King Bush, like our well-named "tool" above, might benefit from some actual knowledge of what he is doing. Apparently it is a broad vacuuming of email and cell phone traffic that is analyzed after the fact. And current law permits the government to seek a warrant up to 72 hours after they start. The only problem: the government actually has to bother to identify a name and a reason.

It is interesting indeed to see the newfound touching faith of republicans in the wisdom and good intentions of the government in all areas.
It's also fascinating to see assertions that the GOP will gain in the next election cycle, given current polling data that is much worse for the GOP than the democrats were seeing in the 93/94 cycle. But I suppose that facts don't matter to true believers.

"Only a few years ago we heard a lot of noise about the rule of law"

Yeah, but then we figured out you guys were right, it was all just noise. Lying under oath, subourning perjury, over-ruling the state department by shifting the decision on giving multiple warhead technology to the Chinese to the commerce department because it would help your 10 million dollar contributer, Bernie Schwartz, it was all just noise.

It goes like this, if your leak hurts the Republicans, you are a whistleblower, if it hurts the Democrats, you are despicable, ala "Hitch the Snitch" (google it).

And you talk about conservatives having a manechian worldview, and treating politics like a team sport.

As you were idjits.

Stefan, way up tread,
I had a similar experience in Germany. I was running in woods near the Rhine and I met an old woman walking along the path. She started complaining about the disorder of the woods with all the fallen trees! She said that the Nazis would have never let that happen in a very matter-of-fact way. I had to agree.

I think many people regard the Nazis as a radically unique force or the Germans as a bloodthirsty people. They seem to be unaware that Hitler’s rise to power, at least after the beer-hall putsch, was based on a legitimate conservative vote and the vote for the Nazis was a protest vote, not the vote of fanatics. By the end of the 1920’s much of the electorate had moved to the right and there was a broad desire to return to a pre-democratic past. The rightwing parties in one way or another wanted to “scrape away foreign and alien encrustations on the German body politic, ridding the country of communism, Marxism, ‘Jewish’ liberalism, cultural Bolshevism, feminism, sexual libertinism, cosmopolitanism,...”. Indeed the “‘nationalist revolution’ intended to put an end to the materialist atheism of the Weimar left and to propagate a ‘positive Christianity’ instead, above confession and attuned to the Germanic spirit.” The annexation of Austria and the invasion of Poland were a conservative move to complete the revolution of Bismarck to unify the German people. Even the colors of the Nazis were intended to reflect the old order.

The decline of German democracy into authoritarianism began a few years before Hitler assumed the Chancellorship under Heinrich Bruning when he limited many liberal freedoms including the press in a time of crisis. It is important to remember at our particular moment the legal provision that allowed authoritarian rule was the Weimar Republic’s Article 48 which gave the president the power to rule by decree in times of emergency. The extensive use of this power by Germany’s first president set a precedent that Hitler would later exploit to create a one-party state.

The Nazis never won a majority in a free election but they were the largest party in the Reichstag after the 1933 elections. Hindenberg and those around him thought that the more traditional conservatives, like himself, could use the Nazi mass movement to create the conservative pre-Weimar state they desired. As it turned out after Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor within six months all the political opposition had been eliminated and the leaders sent to concentration camps. The non-Nazi conservatives (the more educated and wealthy) found the street-thug Nazis could run things on their own. All in all the vote for the Nazis was a protest vote against the reigning powers. It seems people thought the Nazis could do a better job of eliminating the un-German threats and restore law, order and prosperity than the other conservatives.

You can't win the war on terror by getting wire tapped for your country, you win the war on terror by making some other poor bastard get wire tapped for his country.

marc,

The RNC has an entire catalogue of quotes and can put out 50 "Retreat and Defeat' commercials. Last week Harry Reid was on video gleefully bragging he 'Killed the Patriot Act'. It will be interesting when next June, during the 2006 election campaign, we get to hear Harry brag about killing it again. Of course there are 7 Red State Democratic Senators who will want to stick a sock in his mouth but they're alreay too late. The RNC already has a wealth of Blame America 1st video from Harry and Howard and John and Teddy, etc.

There's no question Harry sells very well to the extreme left. We'll find out how his act sells in red state america. How many seats to you need to get the majority?

"Apparently it is a broad vacuuming of email and cell phone traffic that is analyzed after the fact."

Whenever someone says "apparently", it usually means they haven't done their homework, but I will bite. What is your source? If the cases where warrents weren't sought were data that was sitting there, unexamined, but still available, then I would admit that you guys have a point. If the warrent was required to actually record the conversation, which is how I understand it, but I could be wrong, then no, you don't.

Speaking of polls, how is your campaign to reduce Bush's approval going? It seems like his numbers have been climbing since he made the speach owning the spying. But take it to the mid-terms, please.

As for the cognomen of 'tool', I just use it to save you the trouble of calling me names, I just don't care.

Here's my question; Why do "tbrosz", "Al" and "minion of rove" hate America?

I am amused but not surprised at how little you guys care about inconvenient facts. An hour and a half ago I posted the names of three respected Dem/Lib scholars that rebut your presumption that what Bush did was illegal under FISA, but no one will address that issue. You would much rather talk about how America is the focus of evil in the world with it's dastardly manifest destiny syndrome. Keep it up guys, I really don't think you'll get back in the game that way, but then having your own little circle jerk is much more important than influencing events in the real world.

Speaking of polls, how is your campaign to reduce Bush's approval going? It seems like his numbers have been climbing since he made the speach owning the spying. But take it to the mid-terms, please.

I wasn't aware that there was a campaign. Perhaps you should have used the word apparently.

And, btw, other than the WP poll, there is no statistically significant evidence of a rebound in Bush's poll numbers. Given your posts to date, your ignorance is hardly surprising.

"Why do we even exist if the Bush administration claims absolute wartime power to do anything it wants without our approval?"

When we put it in front of some consumers without the pseudo-court, it didn't poll as well.
.

Al Queda and Al Queda associates SHOULD be wiretapped. Period.

No, not "period," unless you're on the rag.

The next sentence should have something to do with figuring out who such people are. If you can't show your work, you'll get an 'F.'
.

Gregory - Thats precisely why the FISA court exists, and it overwhelmingly approves government requests for wiretaps. Bush is breaking the law by not seeking FISA approval for the wiretaps. Simple, clear-cut violation of the 1978 law, period.

Speaking of polls, how is your campaign to reduce Bush's approval going?

Bush's cooperation has been very helpful. It has also been amusing to see that his old low can be held up as a new high ...

... in the trailer park.
.

tool, rdw - I reject the notions that popularity implies constitutionality, that might makes right, that having 51% of the electorate allows the GOP to control 100% of policy, and that controlling two houses of government should erode our system of checks and balances.

Your comments suggest you think differently?

Lying under oath, subourning perjury, over-ruling the state department by shifting the decision on giving multiple warhead technology

... and then you woke up in a puddle.

Counter-examples don't work if you have to make them up. Once you leave the comfy confines of the trailer park, no one's eating this ignorant shit.

Engage consensus reality, and try again.
.

bellumregio,

Seems strange for me to be listening to Handel's Messiah on Canadian Broadcasting Radio Two at the moment and typing about thoughts concerning Germany of the 30s. Excellent points, by you, above. May I add one point. Observe films of Hitler passing through the streets, not only of Germany, but Austria. Look closely at the eyes and expressions of the people along the way. Their eyes are gleaming and their faces are filled with huge smiles. It is one thing to show films of the NAZI party gatherings, but to show the hoi polloi along the streets demonstrates the huge wave of enthusiasm by the people for their leader.

One last point about FISA - Perhaps the trolls should go back to yesterday's thread and read Laura Rozen's comments on the NSA monitoring of the San Diego apartment of Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihidar and the safe house in Yemen. NSA was monitoring calls before 9/11 and never went to FISA for a warrant. During the Intelligence Hearings, NSA admitted to listening to at least 6 calls made before that fateful day.
They had the tools then and they did nothing while on the watch of Twigless and Condi.

Bypassing FISA now amounts to nothing more than mining on a gigantic scale.

Because that is the argument you are making.

No, it isn't. Please use a condom with that strawman, I see he gets around ...
.

d. Anderson, they don't hate America, they just hate our Constitution.

This again is a complete "non-issue" thrown up against the wall by the liberals to see if it "sticks". Much like Gitmo, Plamegate, Rathergate and on and on. Since this law was enacted every president has had the same powers and even Clinton bypassed the FISA process and ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames personal residence(a suspected spy later convicted), and you know what, Clinton was right to do that. Can you imagine if Bush would have ordered the invasion of a private U.S. residence and the subsequent kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez and ordered him back to Cuba?

By the time a warrent has been gotten, it will be useless.

FISA allows for getting a warrant up to 72 hours
AFTER the tap has been used.

If UBL is talking to somebody in the US, then all record of whatever the person in the US says should be deleted, and his phone number, so that the person may not be identified. Even if the person says "Yes, we have the bomb in a parking garage on sixth street right now."

If they had this kind of information then they would easily be able to get a warrant (up to 72 hours after listening to the conversation).

Jay,

First he would have to parade Elian around some Georgetown fundraisers before returning him to Fidel. Another bright move by the Dems that really helped in Miami in 2000.

"Counter-examples don't work if you have to make them up."

So, let me just get you on the record here. Which one of these statements are you claiming is "made up shit"?

A) Clinton did not shift the decision on allowing Loral to launch the Iridium (brand name, not the element) satelites in China from the State Department who denied it, to the Commerce Dept under Ron Brown, which approved it?

B) The multi-satelite deployement was not the same technology used to launch MIRV warheads, which the Chinese lacked at the time?

C) Bernie Schwart's Loral was not involved in the technology transfer to China?

D) Schwartz did not contribute 10 million or so to the Clinton campaign?

I am ignorant, please show me the error of my ways.

tinfoil,

Popularity doesn't determine constitutionality. Neither does Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. You need to look toward John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, etc. They will determine the constitutionality if Harry Reid is silly enough to push it.

Harry won't. There has already been 4 court decisons in GWBs favor and he can't risk giving GWB such a big victory.

But popularity does allow you to appoint Supreme Court justices. Popularity allows Denny Hastert to ignore Nancy Pelosi. You have a better shot at meeting Denny than does Nancy. Popularity forces Harry to rely on the filibuster. He can only play defense. He can only compromise with the house. He can only pass bills to GWBs liking.

Harry & Co. can block appointments. That's unfortunate. If Hillary is lucky enough to be the next President US she'll quickly learn how unfortunate.

Stephen,

Rightly or wrongly, Bush believed seeking legislative approval for something already permitted would tip off our adversaries to the methods being employed. You can disagree with that conclusion but it does not prove bad faith in the party holding it. Read Schimdt's artical in the Chicago paper I linked to above.

Grand Moff Texan,

There was a time the Dems represented the folks in trailer parks -- I know, I used to be a Dem then. Now that you represent to oh so precious faculty lounge the country isn't going your way.

Do you really want to let george bush, a man who falls off of his bicycle or at least once a week, have this much power?
Along with the drinking and coking, there has to be some brain damage.

"First he would have to parade Elian around some Georgetown fundraisers before returning him to Fidel"

I may be mistaken here, but wasn't Elian returned to his father?

Rightly or wrongly, Bush believed seeking legislative approval for something already permitted would tip off our adversaries to the methods being employed.--minion of rove

Yeah, but the capabilities that Bush sought was introduced in the so-called "Patriot Act II" draft that was leaked in 2003, so that argument doesn't hold water. They weren't trying to keep those methods a secret then, so why make that claim now?

Here's another reason to be concerned about the warrantless searches that, the Administration says, are only targetted when one end is foreign, and only targetted where the NSA workers believe that the target is associated with terrorism. The definition of what is and is not associated with terrorism for the Administration's domestic surveillance efforts is apparently fairly expansive.

And, of course, Dick Cheney has admitted the real motive beyond the Administration's power power grab to "restore" what they see as the "legitimate authority" of the President that was lost because of the limitations "imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate".

They are using the pretext of the terrorist threat to refight the battles that the defenders of virtual executive dictatorship lost following the disaster in Vietnam and the domestic abuses of surveillance by the Nixon Administration. They want to undo the steps taken to prevent repeats of those disasters that gravely damaged faith in the institutions of our government, divided the nation, and drove the country into deep crises.

Because, as George Bush pointed out, it would be easier if this was a dictatorship, so long as he was the dictator.

bellumregio: The rightwing parties in one way or another wanted to “scrape away foreign and alien encrustations on the German body politic, ridding the country of communism, Marxism, ‘Jewish’ liberalism, cultural Bolshevism, feminism, sexual libertinism, cosmopolitanism,...”. Indeed the “‘nationalist revolution’ intended to put an end to the materialist atheism of the Weimar left and to propagate a ‘positive Christianity’ instead, above confession and attuned to the Germanic spirit.”

Substitute the word "American" for "German/Germanic" there and you've got the party platform of the Texas Republican Party.

There was a time the Dems represented the folks in trailer parks -- I know, I used to be a Dem then. Now that you represent to oh so precious faculty lounge the country isn't going your way. Posted by: minion of rove

Fine. Manufacture a hypocrisy angle if you need to run away from the problem. I am accustomed to the weakness of the conservative mind.

For the rest of you: yes, the Democrats used to represent them, but they joined the Dixcrat ejectamenta of the party when LBJ said we all had to share FDR's America with people of color.

Are you all up to date now, o he who is proud to be a mere minion in what used to be a Republic? Or would you rather the Democrats keep following the Confederate Battle-Flag around no matter what? Would that satisfy your hypersensitivity to hypocrisy that only you can see?
.

Whosays,

Since the father had more faith in Fidel than a child molester's groupie, and loved living on Fidel's 800 mile long plantation, I'd say returning Elian to the father was the same as returning him to Fidel for showcasing the kid. I'd have preferred allowing for the best interests of the child as determined by the state court. Remember Terri Scheivo anyone?

Bush believed seeking legislative approval for something already permitted would tip off our adversaries to the methods being employed. You can disagree with that conclusion but it does not prove bad faith in the party holding it.

You're right.

It does not prove bad faith.

But taken in the context of all of Bush's other "bad faith" maneuvers, it makes a very strong case for it.

If the warrent was required to actually record the conversation, which is how I understand it, but I could be wrong, then no, you don't.

Whenever someone says "which is how I understand it, but I could be wrong" it usually means they haven't done their homework, I will bite. What is your source?

"ejectamenta"

Fantastic word!

You need to look toward John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, etc. They will determine the constitutionality if Harry Reid is silly enough to push it.

No, Harry Reid has no ability to pursue the issue in the courts without the support of the majority of both houses of Congress, and if there is that much support, the decision that matters will be made not by the Supreme Court, but by the U.S. Senate sitting as a court of impeachment.

But popularity does allow you to appoint Supreme Court justices.

That's true. But I don't think the effect of the growing revelations of unaccountable domestic surveillance by the military and intelligence services (and this isn't restricted to just the wiretapping issue), often targetting domestic political opponents, is going to drive popularity in a positive direction for those viewed as responsible for it, any more than it did for Richard M. Nixon.

I have not done any research, but my guess would be that the governments of the following countries are most likely already engaging in warrantless searches and wiretapping of its citizens:

China

North Korea

Iran

Saudi Arabia

We are in very good company.

Stefan, I am but an immigrant, but I think the first country invaded by the US was Canada, in 1812 (and the US lost that one too!), then Mexico, with greater success.

Happy Gilmore, I too live in a dictatorship in the East, ---- on the East Coast of the USA! Until this presidency this country was a cross between an oligarchy and a plutocracy. It was not, and is not, a democracy. There are many who laugh at the GDR-like mouthing of the Bush Administration's apparatchiks' use of the word.

Where I live is a dictatorship because this Administration has declared itself to be above the Law.

Remember Terri Scheivo anyone?

oh no you didn't, girl! you don't go there!

Stefan, I am but an immigrant, but I think the first country invaded by the US was Canada, in 1812 (and the US lost that one too!), then Mexico, with greater success.

True. I was referring back to an earlier conversation about WWII.

Actually, if we really want to get technical about it the first territories invaded by the US were the various independent Indian lands.

So, let me just get you on the record here. Which one of these statements are you claiming is "made up shit"?

That's cute, you dropped the other two cases. I guess you know you can't make them.

Figured.

As for the rest of the Newsmax copy you just cribbed, it's an extended argumentum ad ignoratium, which means I don't have to disprove a case you can't make. If you have a case, let's see it. Better yet, wouldn't I have seen the GOP-controlled Congress make it? Is there a way you can work Vince Foster into the mix? How about falsifying data from the NTSB?

I'm used to this kind of "Clinton Body-Count" idiocy, and the people who thrive on it. Lots of nifty data points and no argument. If they had a case, don't you think it would have been made by now? Especially considering the balance of powers at the time?

You know, we're in Iraq because people like you are easy to frighten and easy to fool. Nice going, weak link.
.

"I may be mistaken here, but wasn't Elian returned to his father?"

Yeah, he was, and I am sure you were happy to sacrifice the votes for Gore in Miami over it. If you don't believe that the Elian issue brought out a lot of Cubans who may not otherwise voted, or made voting for Gore unpalitable to others, you have not spent much time in South Florida talking to Cubans. But that is no surprise given the bubbles most liberals seem to live in, talking only to their own, befriending only their own.

"Manufacture a hypocrisy angle if you need to run away from the problem"

Err, I believe it was your side that started throwing the "trailer park" term around. For the record, lots of people in trailer parks shop at Wal Mart, and before Carville denounced them as a group, they used to be considered part ot the "oppressed poor" Dems were fighting for. Now you try to prevent them shopping where their dollar goes furthest, mock their faith, attempt to grab their guns, and write books like "What's Wrong with Kansas", wondering why your erstwhile voters have turned on you.

I am still waiting for a reference on the "conversations are kept for 72 hours before being destroyed". Saying it over does not make it true.

God. Now we're redoing Elian.

Maybe our conservatives were more comfortable as outsiders, at least in the White House? O, for the glory days, before they got a chance to inflict their every superstition on America and found out that they don't work.

O, for the days of the Clenis.
.

Funny how non of you liberals were hooting when Bill Clinton was doing even worse to American citizens in terems of domestic spying.

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general,"

--Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Manufacture a hypocrisy angle if you need to run away from the problem"

Err, I believe it was your side that started throwing the "trailer park" term around.

I'm sorry, did you think that was a counterexample? Non sequitur.

You made up a phony history where I, specifically, had been happy to have poor southern whites along just so long as they kept me (!) in power.

Now back up and try again, lightweight.
.

Uh, webdonkey, we gutted that bullshit two nights ago. Consult the relevant law, and then go back to dipshit central for your NEW talking points.
.

I'd say returning Elian to the father was the same as returning him to Fidel for showcasing the kid.

Well of course you'd say that. So what?
.

tool: I just don't care.

We know.

Which is why we don't trust you or the president who doesn't care either.

People who don't care are people who are self-absorbed, arrogant, and self-serving.

You fit the bill.

"Wasn't Elian returned to his father". So now the liberal are concerned about paternal rights?

Judges have the power to hear cases properly brought before them. They don't have the power to go out and find cases. They can't summon anyone before them just because they think a law may or may not have been broken. So what in the world do these FISA judges think they are going to do?

lib, I am sure rdw, who seems to work for, or be close-ish connected to, Verizon, (those charming honorable non-thief folk with their hands deep in my pockets), will tell you that as far as Sa'udi is concerned, you betcha there is no problem about the telephone system, because AT&T built it. It is reasonable to assume Pick-a-security-agency gets the whole lot!

I do hope Wee Georgie does not piss off the Chinese sufficiently for them to call in the Note................., but he is so good at Foot-in-Mouth, I am not betting.

Stefan --- sorry for being a smart-ass by not reading back far enough. However, was the first landing not an island north-east of New Guinea (not Pap.N-G yet!)? I am supposed to be working so cannot do the looking-up. A digresion, but fun.

Congratulations yet again to all of you. It is a lot of fun to see the Goons thrashing about more and more in their puerile attempts at justifiaction. What are you going to do, Boyos, when your Party, in attempting to re-acquire some hope of winning again, completely disavows the whole Bush/Cheney Thieves Inc administration?

Perhaps you are Brownie doing his new job?

"Wasn't Elian returned to his father". So now the liberal [sic] are concerned about paternal rights?

What do you mean, "now"? That was the law, btw, so again: so much for the rule of law.
.

"The authorization given to N.S.A. by the president requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States," General Hayden answered. "I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States."

To keen listeners / readers this has to be the most insightful comment of them all - that the legal loophole pre-exists the "authorization".

Anyone who knows a little about 21st century communcations (e-mail, cell calls, internet traffic) and believe me the NSA knows it all - in fact they have all the manuals and cheat codes - knows that an ideal (and perfectly legal)intercept (wiretap)would take place "with one party outside the US" - an e-mail server located offshore ["ALWAYS outside the US] or a satelite arranged intercept of ANY cell [again "ALWAYS outside the us"] call / internet chat / IM and/or e-mail BETWEEN DOMESTIC PARTIES would be considered 100% legal as long as "one party of the communication is outside of the United States". Seek the assurances to find the loopholes.

Grand Muffti,

MIRV techonology transfer:

"In May 1998, allegations were made that Motorola had provided the PRC with technology that would allow it to build a multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missile-dispensing platform. The allegations were that the Smart Dispenser used by the PRC to place two Iridium communications satellites into orbit would provide the PRC with technology that would be directly applicable to MIRV dispensing.32 "

MSNBC - http://www.msnbc.com/specials/coxreport/4Missiles.htm

THe rest can all be backed up too, I don't even get why you question them. But this is an old argument, and Clinton is gone. As for the others, give me a list of the presidents who have been disbarred. On second thought, don't I just don't care.

You are right, Clinton perfect good, Bush perfect evil. Anybody who disagrees, simple-minded.

A) Clinton did not shift the decision on allowing Loral ...

Ah - back to the Clinton's Penis defense, here, 5 years after Clinton's presidency expired. Riddle me this fatman; Did Bush or did Bush NOT, rescind the executive order for spy plane pilots to destroy their plane rather than allow sensitive equipment and technology to fall into enemy hands. ONLY THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THAT ORDER, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE 1 Apr. 2001 INCIDENT.

But nevermind that.
Here's Senator Levin on the transfer of sensitive ICBM technology to China:

.....But in looking at the last nine years in which American-made satellites have been sent to China for launching, we can see that both the choice of which department will be doing the licensing and the identity of the president granting the waivers has been immaterial to the outcome.

As you can see from the list which has been prepared by my subcommittee staff using data provided by the Congressional Research Service, of the 20 waivers granted for satellites sent to China for launching in the last nine years, nine were approved by President Bush

over three years and 11 were approved by President Clinton over four and half years. And in all but the last three waivers -- so in 17 of the 20 waivers -- the licensing agency was the State Department, which is the licensing agency if the exported item is on munitions list.

LEVIN: These facts strongly suggest that it has made no difference relative to China whether satellites were on the munitions list, and therefore licensed by the State Department, or whether the license is not on the munitions list -- the item is not on the munitions list, and therefore licensed by the Commerce Department.

Either way, the use of Chinese-launched rockets required a presidential waiver. And it made no difference whether the president was named Bush or Clinton. Those waivers have been approved.

In answering the question of whether we should simply eliminate the opportunity for a waiver and bar the shipment of civilian satellites or their parts to China, period, we need to look at the risks involved in continuing the current practice initiated by President Reagan.

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1998_h/s980521t.htm)

D) Schwartz did not contribute 10 million or so to the Clinton campaign?

hm. I wonder how much he contributed to Randy Cunningham's campaign.

I am ignorant, please show me the error of my ways.
Posted by: tool of some sort on December 22, 2005 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

QED.

... You need to look toward John Roberts, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, etc. They will determine the constitutionality ...Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2005 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

I suggest you read Scalia's comments on Hamdi. You're assuming a lot here.

There has already been 4 court decisons in GWBs favor and he can't risk giving GWB such a big victory.

In fact, it sounds like you're accusing the Supreme Court of being biased towards GWB, rather than biased towards any particular constitutional interpretation. Good that a conservative shows his true colors. I'm sure it was just sloppiness on your part. We don't know much about Roberts, but I assure you, despite the 2000 election interference contrary to Florida's "States Rights", this is not the case. Scalia, if noone else has the courage, will rip Bush a new asshole over this.

But popularity does allow you to appoint Supreme Court justices.

Silly me. I thought it was the constitution. When does Britney Spears get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice?

Popularity allows Denny Hastert to ignore Nancy Pelosi.

It wont when the investigation into Hastert's taking money from Turkish Nationals with ties to terrorism gets going.

You have a better shot at meeting Denny than does Nancy.

Probably not. I'm not a terrorist, and I don't have any money to bribe politicians with.

Harry & Co. can block appointments. That's unfortunate. If Hillary is lucky enough to be the next President US she'll quickly learn how unfortunate.

They can still do that from jail cells? Wow.

Stefan --- sorry for being a smart-ass by not reading back far enough. However, was the first landing not an island north-east of New Guinea (not Pap.N-G yet!)? I am supposed to be working so cannot do the looking-up. A digresion, but fun.

Somewhere in the Solomons, I think, but it wasn't an invasion under fire.

I am sure rdw, who seems to work for, or be close-ish connected to, Verizon

What a coincidence! I'm a member of Communication Workers of America!
.

tool: I am ignorant, please show me the error of my ways.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to show the intellectually deaf the error of their ways; those in mendacious denial, such as yourself, wouldn't see the truth if it was dropped on their nose, just as a frog starves in a cage full of dead flies because he can only see live ones.

tool: Yeah, he was, and I am sure you were happy to sacrifice the votes for Gore in Miami over it. If you don't believe that the Elian issue brought out a lot of Cubans who may not otherwise voted, or made voting for Gore unpalitable to others, you have not spent much time in South Florida talking to Cubans. But that is no surprise given the bubbles most liberals seem to live in, talking only to their own, befriending only their own.

It's no surprise that you favor winning elections over obeying the law - we saw that in the rampant election fraud perpetrated by the GOP in 2000 and 2004 - and making shameless false appeals to those who would violate the law in order to garner the votes of those criminals.

tool: Now you try to prevent them shopping where their dollar goes furthest, mock their faith, attempt to grab their guns, . . .

Your lies are consistent, if rather tiresome.

BTW, Bush is preventing them from shopping period by stealing all their hard-earned dollars or preventing them from earning those dollars in the first place, so LOL with that theme.

So the law was to invade a private U.S. residence in the middle of the night with armed ATF agents and kidnap a child from the arms of his mother to return the child to his communist father? Is that the same law that says we should invade a commune in Texas full of women and children with battering ram tanks to apprehend a U.S. citizen on a minor small weapons charge subsequently killing all of those inside? Wow, I have to read up on these laws.

"Why do we even exist if the Bush administration claims absolute wartime power to do anything it wants without our approval?"

repukelicans have the answer to that, as well as the easily manipulated willing stooge in the White House to accomplish their solution: disband the courts.

Damn! I was hoping tool was going to bring up the hole in Ron Brown's skull!

Then he'd have the Black Helicopter trifecta!
.

Still waiting for your case, tool.
.

Jay: So the law was to invade a private U.S. residence in the middle of the night with armed ATF agents and kidnap a child from the arms of his mother to return the child to his communist father?

Yeah. It's called a court order.

It's not kidnapping; what the mother did was kidnapping though.

And it wasn't from the arms of his mother, it was from a mob defying the lawful orders of a court.

BTW, stating his father was a communist doesn't make it true, you lying and libeling asshole.

Is that the same law that says we should invade a commune in Texas full of women and children with battering ram tanks to apprehend a U.S. citizen on a minor small weapons charge subsequently killing all of those inside?

Yeah. It's called an arrest warrant and protecting those serving it from gun-toting maniacs who practiced pedophilia and staturory rape and tried to murder religious opponents.

Intersting that you approve of the Davidians pedophilia, statutory rape, and murder attempts over the law of the land.

Wow, I have to read up on these laws.

You've proven again that you can't read or interpret the law, so that would be an exercise in futility.

Lying and misrepresenting issues is the standard operating procedure of conservatives like you.

The above proves that.

Grand Moff Texan, Stephan, maunga:

"By its actions the government has passed a vote of no confidence in the people. It should therefore dissolve it and elect another one."

Bertolt Brecht, after the 1953 uprising in East Germany

Since most of America outside your enlightened circle is so marinated in evil, from the days of pillaging the Indians, to beating up on the poor Canadians in 1812, to whatever other atrocity you can conjure up, don't you think these yaboos in the trailer parks ought to be just shut up once and for all?

Is that the same law that says we should invade a commune in Texas full of women and children with battering ram tanks to apprehend a U.S. citizen on a minor small weapons charge subsequently killing all of those inside?

Uh-oh. Sounds like we have another Michigan Militia member on our hands. Still have those Y2K generators in the box, unused and ready to go, dumbass?

cmdicely,

Libs have to get out of the 50's and 60's. No one under 45 has any recollection of Joe McCarthy and few of Vietnam and Tricky Dick. You need new material.

You can't impeach GWB unless you charge him with a high crime or misdemeanor. In other words, something illegal. So what's the charge and who is going to make it?

I don't know but I do know the WH and JD are claiming these actions were not under the perview of Congress. So before they can be found guilty there has to be a decision as to the constitutionality of the charges.

This gets to Cheney's comments and my prior asertion. The WH WANTS this fight. They wish to restore power to the Presidency. They want to reverse the Nixon-Carter-Clinton legacy.

You can walk around with your hair on fire all day log. You are a minority. Thankfully, a solid and very influential minority. You are just big enough to pull the party way farther left than any sane politician would want. But you are not big enough to actually win an election.

By all means let's ride into the 2006 elections with the full knowledge a victory by the left means Bush will be impeached. The RNC is already praying it be so and might already have designed the ad campaign. They may already have decided that's how it's going to be. You'll get your clock cleaned, again.

So the law was to invade a private U.S. residence in the middle of the night with armed ATF agents and kidnap a child from the arms of his mother to return the child to his communist father?

Actually, the freeptard line at the time was "they put a gun to the boy's head." The photographs showed otherwise, but what do you expect from a bunch of creationists?
.

No one under 45 has any recollection of Joe McCarthy ...

Somebody better call Ann Coulter.

But seriously, folks, I told you this guy was twelve. Now that the old Nixonians are at it again, it's supposed to be old news.

Whatever.
.

Oh so now the liberals are concerned about a "mob" defying the all powerful government, pedophilia, rape and (this one I love)RELIGIOUS opponents. This is getting better every minute. BTW, resorting to name calling is soooo liberal and so typical of the party that welcomes diverse opinion.

Jay: So the law was to invade a private U.S. residence in the middle of the night with armed ATF agents and kidnap a child from the arms of his mother to return the child to his communist father? Is that the same law that says we should invade a commune in Texas full of women and children with battering ram tanks to apprehend a U.S. citizen on a minor small weapons charge subsequently killing all of those inside? Wow, I have to read up on these laws.

Interesting also that the conservative Republican appointed to review the matter found no wrongdoing by the government and instead demonstrated that conservative activists, like you Jay, were vomiting forth misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies about the incident and blaming everybody but the criminals in the Davidians who had sexually abused children, accumulated high-powered arms for a religious war, and then killed those children by setting fire to themselves.

I see that you still are lying about these things.

Libs have to get out of the 50's and 60's. No one under 45 has any recollection of Joe McCarthy and few of Vietnam and Tricky Dick. You need new material.

Those who refuse to learn history, doom me to repeating it.

You are just big enough to pull the party way farther left than any sane politician would want

Not if we take Unconstitutional Corporate Money out of political campaigns, and return the political process to the will of the people.

So advocate is concerned about protecting religious opponents and then Moff Texan denigrates them in the next post saying "what do you expect from a bunch of creationists". I haven't had this much fun since Bush kicked your ass in the last election.

Since most of America outside your enlightened circle is so marinated in evil ...

Somebody's still living in December 2004. Wake up and smell the opprobrium.

As for the trailer park, they'll say what they're told to say. That's what makes them useful to their betters. "Solid South" anyone? Creationism? The Demmycrats will take your bible away? Gay marriage threatens YOUR marriage? Global Islamic threat?

Seriously: who ELSE falls for this ignorant shit? Buncha weak links.
.

So advocate is concerned about protecting religious opponents and then Moff Texan denigrates them in the next post saying "what do you expect from a bunch of creationists". I haven't had this much fun since Bush kicked your ass in the last election

Gee, vicarious much? Too bad you have nothing of your own to crow about.

As for creationism, it's not Christian. Neither is the Rapture or even the anti-abortion movement. All date from the mid-nineteenth century, and Christians hundreds of years ago knew better. Millions of Christians know better today. Since when is ignorance a religion (outside the GOP, I mean)?

So keep flogging that phony faith, dumbass. Right next to the flying saucer cults and the scientologists.
.

Oh so now the liberals are concerned about a "mob" defying the all powerful government, pedophilia, rape and (this one I love)RELIGIOUS opponents. This is getting better every minute. BTW, resorting to name calling is soooo liberal and so typical of the party that welcomes diverse opinion.

Huh? Are you set to 'dumbass' on purpose or are you set to 'random ignorance?'

Getting back to your citation of Waco, since normal people wouldn't bring it up...wasn't that the reason why they wanted to talk to Koresh? He was a charismatic Christian who was having indoctrinational sex with underage girls? Am I understanding that correctly? Now we know why the wingnuts love to bring up Waco--that pesky government horned in on their barely legal action. And don't even bring up Utah, Republicans, and open tolerance for polygamy--don't you go their either, girlfriend!

rdw: You'll get your clock cleaned, again.

The Democratic candidate won the last two presidential elections; the best that can be said for Bush is that he got enough votes to get close enough to steal the elections.

You are an ignorant buffoon and the only value your comments have is as low-brow slapstick comedy.

So the law was to invade a private U.S. residence in the middle of the night with armed ATF agents and kidnap a child from the arms of his mother to return the child to his communist father?

Yeah - why do freepers hate Families?

Oh so now the liberals are concerned about a "mob" defying the all powerful government, pedophilia, rape and (this one I love)RELIGIOUS opponents. This is getting better every minute. BTW, resorting to name calling is soooo liberal and so typical of the party that welcomes diverse opinion. - Posted by: Jay

Again with the "now" thing. You just crawled out of Amplitude Modulation Nation and are seeing the rest of the world for the first time?

By the end of his post, he's gone right back to his stereotypes. Again, the weakness of the conservative mind.
.

Gm Texan,

Retired verizon. I was in the CWA for 3 years in hte 70's. It was a bizarre situation. Being in a regulated cost plus world meant Ma Bell didn't worry about force counts, salaries or benefits. The state PUCs merely rubber stamped the rate increase.

advocate, so now you're saying that Clinton was right in taking pro-active measures to protect U.S. citizens and the subsequent killing of U.S. citizens was completely justified in that cause? Or are you saying that what Bush is doing is Hitler-esque and completely unjustified to be pro-active and protect U.S. citizens? And no U.S. citizens have been killed in this one. You're getting a bit hypocritical here advo.

Waco
Elian Gonzalez

Why do Republicans forget there's such a thing as the rule of law? At least in those two incidents, there were search warrants.

Jay lives in a world where search warrants are only valid if they're rubber stamped by the Republican Party and signed off by Dr. James Dobson, with a little cross drawn at the end of his name with a smiley face.

It was a bizarre situation. Being in a regulated cost plus world meant Ma Bell didn't worry about force counts, salaries or benefits.

Indeed. Who mourns Ma Bell? Otoh: if we'd kept that lousy service a little longer, maybe more Americans would have gone mobile earlier and would demand better service there? In eastern Europe and in Turkey, mobiles were essential back when they were still status symbols here, just because people couldn't STAND the poor land-line service.
.

rdw caught lying again,

Retired verizon. I was in the CWA for 3 years in hte 70's.

You said you were in the union for six months.

What's up with that? Can't remember all the lies you've been telling? Well, it's not like you have any credibility anyway.

And don't even bring up Utah, Republicans, and open tolerance for polygamy--don't you go their either, girlfriend!
Posted by: Pale Rider on December 22, 2005 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

It's not child molestation if it's a 12 year old girl. It's got scriptural backing!

And again Jay runs and hides in a cheap "hypocrisy" ploy. After 48 hours they know their talking points are dead, so they're reduced to this.

Yes, dear, they're just EXACTLY the same ... after they pass through your pea brain, that is.

Now run along and play.
.

I have seen that line before Moff, the tell-tell sign of a liberal out of arguments. Thanks for the laughs.

Osama_never_been_to_Iraq

Nuh huh! No you dinnit, girlfriend. No you dinnit.

I guess those "ultra conservatives" over at the ACLU don't count webdonkey. If you must use "non [sic] of you libs", you may want to appreciate how many different view points you are including.

Just google "clinton wiretap ACLU" and see what you get. Moron.

Move along, nothing but "you libs rah rah'ed for the Clenis, so Bush is OK" to see here ...

Move along, nothing but "you libs rah rah'ed for the Clenis, so Bush is OK" to see here ...

Ever consider the possibility that the Republican-owned media manufactured the spectacle of the Clenis™ in order to prepare the way for Miserable Failure's dismantling of the Republic?
.

secular,

And I guess we stole 55 Senate seats, 334 House seats and the majority of Governorships?

You have to see the brewing disaster. Here we have GWB trying his hardest to protect us from terrorists and Harry Reid trying his hardest to protect the terrorists.

We have Harry Reid on video tape bragging he killed the Patriot Act. We have both Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton on videotape claiming the right of the President to do warrentless searches. We also have Griffin Bell, Jimmy Carters AG doing exactly the same. We also have Clintons #3 in the Justice department doing the same. I know this because Fox has been playing the montage around the clock. Fox has 5 Democrats leading the case against Harry Reid

Fox also did a short segment on the programs success in finding and capturing a terrorists BEFORE he was able to blow up the brooklyn bridge. It was rather impressive. Yes, by all means let's end this program.

Jay: Oh so now the liberals are concerned about a "mob" defying the all powerful government, pedophilia, rape and (this one I love) RELIGIOUS opponents. This is getting better every minute. BTW, resorting to name calling is soooo liberal and so typical of the party that welcomes diverse opinion.

We welcome diverse opinion, not the slander, libel, and false information (lies) that you vomit forth.

You welcome criminals, liars, moral absolutists like the Iranian Shiites, the intolerant, and the unethical into your fold, promoting them while firing those who tell the truth and try to stop the evil that your leaders are doing.

And your implication that liberals have supported pedophiles and rapists is typical of the slanderous and libelous swill you routinely regurgitate.

I have seen that line before Moff, the tell-tell sign of a liberal out of arguments. Thanks for the laughs. - Posted by: Jay

Truly, irony is not dead.

Keep showing me nothing, bee-yatch. It's the best you can do.
.

secular, And I guess we stole 55 Senate seats, 334 House seats and the majority of Governorships?

I'm sorry, did you just miss the gerrymandering of Texas? Changing the law in Ohio AFTER the election so that thousands of ballots could "legally" be thrown away?
.

You can't impeach GWB unless you charge him with a high crime or misdemeanor. In other words, something illegal. So what's the charge and who is going to make it?

There are numerous possible charges, from involvement in the Plame leak to FISA violations to those involving war crimes to, probably, many others that could be characterized as bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, in the sense of the Article II, Sec. 4.

The easier question is "who is going to make it", as you've been told many times before, "who" is the US House of Representatives. They are the only people who can lay charges of impeachment, as specified in Article I, Sec. 2.

I don't know but I do know the WH and JD are claiming these actions were not under the perview of Congress. So before they can be found guilty there has to be a decision as to the constitutionality of the charges.

No, that does not have to be done before they are convicted on charges of impeachment. It has to be done, if at all, concurrently, by the Senate, which has the sole and unreviewable power to try cases of impeachment, as specified in Article I, Sec. 3.

Though it is not beyond the power of the House in charging and the Senate in trying to consider gross recklessness or dangerous lapse of judgement in the exercise of even a constitutional plenary power (like, say, the pardon power) as a "high crime and misdemeanor".

This gets to Cheney's comments and my prior asertion. The WH WANTS this fight.

The Bush White House often pretends it wants a fight -- see the promise to push for an up-or-down vote in the Security Council on Iraq, regardless of whip counts or prospects of success, to force nations that disagreed to vote against the opposition openly. And see what happened in the end, when the Administration couldn't get the votes it wanted for its preferred course of action. The Bush White House likes to bluster and bluff, but, often as not, folds when it is called.

You can walk around with your hair on fire all day log. You are a minority.

Really? Bush has secured a positive approval-disapproval spread in most major national polls?

Yes, by all means let's end this program.
Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2005 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Typical lies.

Reid isn't calling for the program to end. He's calling for a legal framework of oversight to be established. Numbnuts fascist moron.

Brag all you want about how biased FoxNews' republican ownership is. Whoop tee fucking doo.

Fox also did a short segment on the programs [sic] success in finding and capturing a terrorists [sic] BEFORE he was able to blow up the brooklyn bridge. It was rather impressive.

OK, now that's funny!
.

We have both Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton on videotape claiming the right of the President to do warrentless searches.

OK, now that's just sad.

Save it for those dumb enough to believe it. That's the only way you can win.
.

Pale Rider,

I was in the union for just over 5 months in 1972 when I was an operaror and then after I got out of the Navy for about 2 1/2 years as a truck driver an repair clerk. The 1st time I joined an open shop. It was voluntary. I had to sign a form to allow them to take dues. By the time I got back it became a closed shop. I did not join. It was automatically enrolled and could not have blocked my dues deduction under any circumstances.

Who gives a crap if I was in for 6 months or 9 months or 3 years. It's irrelevent.

And I guess we stole 55 Senate seats, 334 House seats and the majority of Governorships?

As I recall, both the first and last of those are representative of a minority by population, and are simply reflective of disproportionality. And, on the particular issues now in question, not all of those Republicans in the Senate and House have been supportive of the Administration position, so citing the legislative majorities there as support for the executive policy is dubious, at best.

We also have Griffin Bell, Jimmy Carters AG doing exactly the same.

Not exactly. We already dealt with this.

We also have Clintons #3 in the Justice department doing the same.

Not exactly. We already dealt with this.

I know this because Fox has been playing the montage around the clock.

Whoops! Are you a parody troll?
.

GM Texan

If AT&T was not deregulated they would never have rolled out cell phone servie. If they had been deregulated 10 years earlier we'd have had cell phone 10 years earlier. They had the technology.

Jay: So advocate is concerned about protecting religious opponents and then Moff Texan denigrates them in the next post saying "what do you expect from a bunch of creationists". I haven't had this much fun since Bush kicked your ass in the last election.

I see that Jay equates trying to murder religious opponents with criticizing religious theory, mistaking First Amendment rights to criticize with a right to kill.

I haven't had this much fun since Hillary beat her GOP Senate opponent before the election even happened.

Hardee har har!

Jay: advocate, so now you're saying that Clinton was right in taking pro-active measures to protect U.S. citizens and the subsequent killing of U.S. citizens was completely justified in that cause?

Interesting to see a conservative, even as asshole as big as you Jay, argue that law enforcement shouldn't use deadly force against armed and aggressive criminals trying to kill those law enforcement personnel. That will go over big in the red states. Maybe you can get your hero Bush to pick up that theme.

rdw: We have Harry Reid on video tape bragging he killed the Patriot Act. We have both Jamie Gorelick and Bill Clinton on videotape claiming the right of the President to do warrentless searches. We also have Griffin Bell, Jimmy Carters AG doing exactly the same. We also have Clintons #3 in the Justice department doing the same. I know this because Fox has been playing the montage around the clock. Fox has 5 Democrats leading the case against Harry Reid.

If only even part of that were true you might actually be on to something.

Alas, for you, lying about such matters, no matter how many times you vomit forth the lies, won't make it so.

cmdicely,

The Senate is designed to provide disproportional representation. Some think the Founding Fathers were wise. I'm not so sure. I think they had a crystal ball tuned into 2000. When they saw how whacky California and New York turned out they designed the Senate.

Make whatever excuses you prefer. History will record GWB has been the most successful party leader since FDR in 1932. We have 55 Senators. They might only represent 1% of the population but they still get the same vote as Chucky.

GWB does have a problem with wayward Senators I agree. That's the price of belonging to a Big Tent Party.

rdw: Who gives a crap if I was in for 6 months or 9 months or 3 years.

Well, if we keep adding up all the jobs you've held and all the things you've done, you look to be about 105 years old.

Next you'll be claiming you were on Lincoln's secret service detail for a few months.

Funny, all that experience and you still clueless and can't get a grasp on reality or fact.

You know, if you really want to get yourself in trouble in a court, then getting caught lying to the judge, jerking them around and letting them know that it was intentional and that you'll do it again, is a really, really efficient way to go about it.

When does Gonzalez get jailed for contempt?

I have to acknowledge that rdw is the personification, indeed the very apotheosis, of the brain-dead, scripted, programmed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking mental slave who is incapable of doing anything other than robotically regurgitating the turds that he gobbles from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that he slurps from the toxic sewer that is Fox News.

His triumphalist cheeleading for a Republican Party that can only ever win elections by lying, cheating and stealing is hilarious, although it is also sick.

He's a clown, but an evil, creepy clown. Sort of like Pennywise in Stephen King's novel IT.

rdw: That's the price of belonging to a Big Tent Party.

Circus tent.

rdw: History will record GWB has been the most successful party leader since FDR in 1932.

Yep. Squandering 9/11 goodwill and Senate and House control, dragging your party down in the polls along with yourself, is something that most people translate as "success."

What a hoot!

Gutted? HA! Get a life GrandMoff From Texas. You just couldn't see through your partisan blinders to save yourself, judging by your litany of postings here. I take your ad hominem attacks to be a sign that your "arguments" do not stand up on their own merit.

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a 1994 radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects. This was not hotly contested among liberals. Now that the enemy Bush is in the hot seat, everything changes...but strangely remains the same in blogdom.

The Senate is designed to provide disproportional representation.

No doubt, and certainly given the context in which the Constitution was written this is an understandable provision even if, as with the appointment of Senators by the legislature rather than direct election, one might question whether it is outdated and counterproductive today. But that's neither here nor there, you are the one who are using it to argue for the popularity of the policies of the current executive; since it is not closely tied to national popularity (and since legislators are not the executive, and in fact some Republicans have, on the issues this thread concerns, been sharply critical of the President), that argument is hardly convincing.

Make whatever excuses you prefer. History will record GWB has been the most successful party leader since FDR in 1932.

"History will judge us right!" is the typical desperate cry of people who recognize that the present is unlikely to do so.

Be sure to crow really loud, rdw, if Bush actually gets back up to Clinton's second-term low of 53% approval.

That will be really cheerful news for conservatives that Bush can make it up to Clinton's second-term low point!

It will mean he's the best president ever!

Really!

Some think the Founding Fathers were wise. I'm not so sure. I think they had a crystal ball tuned into 2000. When they saw how whacky California and New York turned out they designed the Senate.

Has nothing to do with any whackiness. They were simply trying to deal with the obvious (even at that time) difference in interests between people who live in densely populated areas, and people who live in sparsely populated areas.

(Even in those times, they realized that people who HAD to live in close proximity with other people tended to identify better with the needs of other people, and people who live in the country tend to have a more "every man for himself" philosophy - the challenge is to reconcile those two philosophies so they could coexist peacefully - not to favor one over the other - of course, if you had ever read any of our Founding Fathers' and their cohorts writings, you'd understand that. Apparently, you're better with the simple shapes and colors involved in flag waving, and not so good with complicated things like ideas and words on paper).

History will record GWB has been the most successful party leader since FDR in 1932.

You mean Hitler in 1937.

Texan,

I'm glad you've dealt with Jimmy and Bill and Jamie. You and your audience of one. My guess is that Brits audience is somewhat larger. Rush's audience is, of course, gigantic. Add in the rest of talk radio and the bloggers and I don't think your reach matters much.

Jamie is in fact already compounding her 1st appearance. She was of course immediately humiliated by the media blitz showing her aggressively defending GWB. She's now making some assisine point she was talking about Presidential rights under the constitution BEFORE 1994. Huh?? This makes absolutely no sense. It's stupid. They did not change the constitution in 1994 so why would the Presidents constitutional rights change? Jamie is making a bizarre claim and being ridiculed for it. She's keeping herself in the news. This is a case of Jamie standing in a hole, Karl Rove handing her a shovel and using it to dig deeper.

Jamie is a moron.

Let's face it. The soundbites are with George. go ahead and make your convoluted explanations of why Slick Willie didn't really mean what he said. 8 people will bother paying attention.

BTW: HAS anyone seen Bill? I can't wait for him to try to outslick himself on this one. Will this be another 'depends on what the meaning of is, is' moment?

Let's face it. The soundbites are with George. go ahead and make your convoluted explanations of why Slick Willie didn't really mean what he said. 8 people will bother paying attention.
Posted by: rdw on December 22, 2005 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

So - basically, if it doesn't fit on a bumper-sticker, it can't be right?

The GOP and Bush losses keep piling up:

Pennsylvania school district will abandon 'intelligent design'

White House defeated on torture bill.

Stevens defeated on ANWR drilling plan.

White House defeated on Patriot Act extension.

Tobin convicted.

Abramoff indicted and possibly pleading.

Libby indicted.

Plea bargains being taken like candy by GOP operatives.

DeLay indicated and losing his bid for an early trial and likely his leadership post.

Social security destruction attempts dead in the water.

The president rebuked by his own party for domestic spying.

And despite spending millions of dollars of taxpayers money on partisan PR campaigns to lie about the war in Iraq, Bush can't break 50% approval yet.

" In eastern Europe and in Turkey, mobiles were essential back when they were still status symbols here, just because people couldn't STAND the poor land-line service"

Actually, a lot of these countries had their land lines so heavily regulated, that they had to pay per minute fees for local calls. So it was a lot easier to swallow the per-minute fees for cell phones.

Anybody who wishes for the bad old days of prohibitive long distance and international calling is an idiot. I can call the UK for something like 5 cents a minute.

As for the whole Loral thing, I just don't care anymore. You can post people's conclusions, with limited facts. Which transfers specifically were denied or approved? You link doesn't say, it just lumps 'em all together and makes an unsupported conclusion. It's like an average of averages, meaningless. But I just don't care.

If Clinton and Reno had let the Elian thing go, Gore would have been president. I don't see how you could deny that. And by the way, what percentage of the vote did Bush's brother get in Florida two years after Bush "stole the election" from those voters? 63%

By the way, I think Bush 41 sucked as a president. I think he was of the old school where stability, even under brutal dictatorships, provided the US with safety, which was false, racist, and led to Sept 11th.

Osama,

Thank you so much for that history lesson.

But why was it addressed to me and not cmdicely?

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

Yes, but was the NSA involved? No. Was there a crime problem that was prompted by calls from the country's governors, mayors and other elected officials, yes.

So I suppose we should be arguing that Clinton didn't do too much to fight organized drug gangs? Was he soft on crime? Was there a Republican Party trying to move to the right of him?

Deft manuevering. Again, was NSA involved?

The answer, in both the Carter and Clinton examples is no.

Keep spinning, trolls.

By the way, I think Bush 41 sucked as a president. I think he was of the old school where stability, even under brutal dictatorships, provided the US with safety, which was false, racist, and led to Sept 11th.

Yeah, why go with the only guy to win a land war in Asia, right? Better to go with the guy who's busy losing one and ignoring the other.

AG,

I pray that GWB does NOT get anywhere near Clintons approval numbers.

Let's state the obvious. For him to get anywhere near Bill he's got to please Democrats.

The LAST thing I want to see is GWB please Democrats.

Here's the plan: Bring the base back up to their 90%+ approval levels (he's at 88%) and get there by poking your finger in Chucky's eye.

That'll get him near 50% and ensure he's doing the right thing being conservative.

The LAST thing I want to see is GWB please Democrats.

So now we're not Americans? Jeez, now I've heard everything. When does rdw advocate hate crimes against Democrats and having us all killed in gas chambers?

She's now making some assisine point she was talking about Presidential rights under the constitution BEFORE 1994.

Considering that its not exactly a novel idea that the executive may be able to act with greater freedom, particularly in foreign and military affairs, within the zones in which the federal government, as a whole, is not prohibited from action, where Congress has not exercised its applicable Article I powers to regulate, and since the expansion of FISA to include regulation of physical searches was not in place prior to 1994, there is really nothing surprising about this kind of argument.

As usual, rdw, you are amazingly ignorant of, well, everything.

I think Reagan believed that stability created safety too, though he was not a fetishist about it the way Bush was. He was willing to help force the Soviets out of Afghanistan, where they had destroyed the legitimate govt there.

jay: kidnap a child from the arms of his mother

didn't elian's mother die before reaching america?

that's why he was being returned to his remaining parent...

so much for family values huh?

pale rider,

The fact the NSA was involved in meaningless. Either the President has powers outside the Congress to order warrentless wiretaps or not.

Clearly he does.

Clearly the people see him hunting down terrorists and Harry i killed the Patriot Act Reid protecting terrorists.

Coming for the reality based community as you do you must realize how important images and impressions are. The image is GWB aggressively pursuing terrorists. Harry is busy bitching about GWB pursuing terrorist.

You have to see how horrible this appears to the general public.

"Yes, but was the NSA involved? No. Was there a crime problem that was prompted by calls from the countr
y's governors, mayors and other elected officials, yes." -- Pale Rider.

Thanks for explaining your particular brand of situational ethics. You may as well have just come out and said, "Clinton was a Democrat, Bush is a Republican"

Yeesh!

Thanks for explaining your particular brand of situational ethics. You may as well have just come out and said, "Clinton was a Democrat, Bush is a Republican"

Thanks for being ignorant of FISA. Next troll, please.

"that's why he was being returned to his remaining parent..."

Yup, and that selfless gesture cost Gore the presidency and I praise Clinton for it in that context.

from the NYTimes

The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, is violated by electronic surveillance of people in the United States of the sort that President Bush authorized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
&
When the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Fourth Amendment to electronic surveillance in 1967, it specifically declined to say whether its reasoning applied "in a situation involving the national security."
&
In 1972, the court ruled that a judge's permission was required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment in cases involving domestic intelligence surveillance. But there, too, the court put off an important question. for another day. Its ruling, Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote, "requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
&
Lower courts since then have given mixed answers to the question of whether the president has the power to spy on Americans in connection with their international contacts. In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review seemed to accept the administration's argument that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

Sooner or later you are going to have to admit that this issue is (1) ambiguous; (2) of long duration; (3) complex legally and technologically; and (4) bipartisan.

The idea that Bush has done something exceptionally illegal and pernicious just won't wash.

"Thanks for being ignorant of FISA." -- Pale Rider.

This is what the left calls debate. But don't change your mind you guys. Remember, it spin doesn't matter, you guys just stick to your defense of terrorist rights and Clinton hagiography. Just like the whole Elian thing worked out so well for you.

rdw: HAS anyone seen Bill?

Are you loving him now or hating him?

I can't tell, because you keep flip-flopping on this point, like you do with so many others.

Go back to lying.

At least you are more consistent in that arena.

This is what the left calls debate. But don't change your mind you guys. Remember, it spin doesn't matter, you guys just stick to your defense of terrorist rights and Clinton hagiography. Just like the whole Elian thing worked out so well for you.

This is how the Republicans argue:

"Clinton, Clinton, Clinton--Penis penis penis."

In their mad dash into blinded and willful ignorance, they constantly forget what the real subjects are and regurgitate talking points found on Drudge or Fox News. Show us where any President has ignored the FISA court since its inception.

Except that they can't--19,000+ requests, all of them approved except the ones Bush started asking for. Hence, the Bush administration begins ignoring FISA courts and breaking the law.

I mean, let's talk impeachable offenses since Clinton/penis is all you have to offer...

I posted the link, webdonkey. Read it and weep.
.

Either the President has powers outside the Congress to order warrentless wiretaps or not.

While that would be a convenient and simple dichotomy, that's hardly an exhaustive list of the relevant possibilities. Its hardly a novel idea that the President has broad powers to utilize those powers not expressly prohibited to the government in foreign and military affairs provided Congress has not constrained such action through its own exercise of its own regulatory powers. So, the argument that the President had the implicit Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless physical searches (provided they were otherwise reasonable) for foreign intelligence purposes before FISA was expanded to regulate physical searches is perfectly consistent.

Let's face it. The soundbites are with George.

It's good of you to admit you have no argument, and that only small snippets will help exploit the ignorant.

However, there is nothing convoluted about pointing out that one talking point doesn't address American citizens and the other has nothing to do with surveillance (but was added to the law ... WITH CLINTON'S HELP).

You can only exploit ignorant filth, I see we agree. If that's your America, you can have it.
.

I concur with papageno. The arugments are close. Compare Professor Sunstein & former Associate Attorney General Schmidt (arguing for legality) with Prof. Kerr & cmdicely (arguing against legality). I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that the NSA intercept program was clearly illegal and/or far beyond what any prior president has done. I don't see how anyone could even begin to predict what the Supreme Court would say on this issue. So the only charge that anyone could reasonably make against the President is that he took an aggressive legal position on what his executive authority is.

If that's your America, you can have it.

No, this is the America we're taking back from these clowns. They've shown us how they run things--breaking the law, torturing people, starting land wars in Asia, smearing people who work undercover.

We're taking it back. They can't be trusted with anything anymore. They're just like young GWB, driving up and down the alley drunk and picking fights.

I don't think the Clinton reference was about his penis, actually. I think it was about his use of warrentless searches.

Even Pale Rider has endorsed those as justified by the situation. Although he seems to think that FISA is different somehow than the criminal courts that oversea such searches, and somehow thinks Clinton's penis is involved in those searches.

This is what the left calls debate.

No, that's how thinking people dismiss the idiot they just cornholed in debate.

Now you know.

Look at this, folks. The trolls are reduced to crowing about how "the people" won't be able to tell Bush is a criminal, that's it's too complicated (it isn't), that it's protecting them (by preying on them), and that everyone did it (when they didn't).

That's all that's left of the right.
.

I think it was about his use of warrentless searches.

His "use"?

Cite, please.
.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that the NSA intercept program was clearly illegal and/or far beyond what any prior president has done.

You can't? Funny, these guys can.

Next?
.

tool: If Clinton and Reno had let the Elian thing go, Gore would have been president. I don't see how you could deny that. And by the way, what percentage of the vote did Bush's brother get in Florida two years after Bush "stole the election" from those voters? 63%

Shorter tool: Election success trumps respect for the law every time.

rdw: The image is GWB aggressively pursuing terrorists.

The polling numbers tell a different story.

Again with the lies.

Ahhhh, well, we should appreciate the consistency.

rdw: You have to see how horrible this appears to the general public.

Apparently it is not horrible enough, since more than 50% of the public believes the president is doing a poor job against terrorism.

Too bad for your meme, but reality bites.

papageno: The idea that Bush has done something exceptionally illegal and pernicious just won't wash.

With lemmings it won't wash.

Congress and the American public may be a different story.

Wow, we've come troll-circle. I just re-posted the link that started this thread for someone who doesn't think it's a big deal.

Ignorance is their only argument. Oddly, they're proud of that.
.

Grand Moff,
Lay off the caffeine, please. You are starting to embarass yourself.

Instead of invoking images of anal sex, you could respond to my last post on the subject in some sort of thoughtful manner. My thinking is that you didn't even understand my last post, as it invoked something often lacking on this site, something called "logic".

poor, moronic, fuckwit rdw--actually thinks anyone but partisan rightwing hacks believe what drug addict Limbaugh and lying partisan hacks on Fauxnews say.
"Look, Clinton did it too!"

um, no, he didn't, not at all. But when you turn to drug addicts for your "facts", I'm sure you'll believe anything.

Right Wing Dickwad, why are you so fucking stupid? The Republican Party currently holds 232 seats in Congress. Why is it you are ignorant of things any American school child knows? Why do you hate American values and laws, including our Constitution?

Somebody needs to tell the RNC to buy American- outsourced foreign trolls like Right Wing Dickwad are far too inferior to be any fun.

cmdicely,

1st, Jamie isn't just a fool she's a dishonest fool. The point of her comments were to preserve the Presidential Powers as they existed prior to 1994. Jamie and Bill were making it clear they we're not sacrificing any Presidential rights.

In any event, it's for the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitutions says on this issue. It's not Jamie's call or Bill or the Congress

via Atrios, so simple anyone but rdw can understand it--

"Shorter version:

Clinton said there's no law covering this so we can do this. Congress passes law covering such circumstances. Clinton administration (presumably) follows law and never claims they have the right to not follow the law.

Bush administration situation covered by existing law. Decide they don't want to follow it. Realize Congress won't change law to make them happy. Decide they have Divine Right to explicitly break law. Gives speech saying how proud he was to have broken law.

There is a civil liberties issue, and we can have that debate too, but this is about President Bush willfully and intentionally committing multiple felonies."

Instead of invoking images of anal sex, you could respond to my last post on the subject in some sort of thoughtful manner. My thinking is that you didn't even understand my last post, as it invoked something often lacking on this site, something called "logic".

Ah, I see. That's why you're changing the subject to language?

No, that's because you have no argument and you don't know the first thing about logic. I did read your little evasiveness in your last post. That's why I'm mocking you for it. See? How do I respond in a thoughtful manner to ignorant filth like you?

Simple: I don't. You see, it's not that I have no regard for the subject at hand, it's that I have no regard for you.

Still waiting for that citation.
.

"Cite please"

"In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever.

Yes, but was the NSA involved? No. Was there a crime problem that was prompted by calls from the country's governors, mayors and other elected officials, yes." --Pale Rider

I was just taking Pale Rider's word for it.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that the NSA intercept program was clearly illegal and/or far beyond what any prior president has done.

Do we have to post FISA for you again? Sheesh. Oh, and I'll argue with footnotes, thank you very much.

This is what the FBI has to say, contrasting FISA with Title III wiretaps:

The terrorist attacks of September 11,2001, left an indelible mark upon America and an overshadowing feeling of vulnerability. They also created a determination to respond to the new national security threats they represented. Congress reacted to these threats by passing laws providing new tools to fight terrorism. Perhaps, the most controversial recent act of Congress is the United and Strengthening of America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (1) (USA PATRIOT Act) and its impact upon the use of electronic surveillance and physical searches authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (2) to combat foreign threats.

Some Americans fear the actions taken by Congress may infringe upon basic American liberties. Benjamin Franklin warned that "those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (3) The government must use its new tools in a way that preserves the rights and freedoms guaranteed by America's democracy, but, at the same time, ensure that the fight against terrorism is vigorous and effective. No American should be forced to seek safety over liberty. This article briefly examines FISA and the impact of the USA PATRIOT Act upon it.

Electronic monitoring (including both wiretaps and microphone installations) and physical searches are excellent, and sometimes essential, sources of information for both foreign intelligence and criminal activities. In 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Title HI of that act (4) contains provisions concerning the authorization and use of electronic monitoring by the government to gather information regarding criminal activities. Under Title III, the government has specific authorization procedures and rules to follow when it monitors people and places to collect evidence of violations of criminal laws. But, Title Ill did not answer the question of whether or not the government is required to obtain court authorization for electronic monitoring conducted, not for criminal investigations but for the collection of information regarding threats to national security.

The U.S. Supreme Court faced this issue in the case of United States v. United States District Court. (5) In this case, a group of Vietnam War protesters tried to blow up the local CIA recruiting office in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a number of other government buildings. Evidence obtained during a domestic national security wire interception, undertaken without a formal court order, was used in the subsequent criminal trial. The use of this evidence was contested. The issue was whether or not the president had the authority, through the attorney general, to authorize electronic surveillance for national security matters without prior judicial review. The Court held that the government does not have unlimited power to conduct national security wiretaps for domestic security matters, and that prior judicial authorization is needed before using wiretaps for national security purposes. However, the Court recognized that such wiretaps involve different policy and practical considerations from ordinary criminal wir etaps. It suggested that Congress consider exploring the issue and decide if the authorization for and rules governing the use of national security wiretaps should be the same as those governing criminal wiretaps. The Court made it clear that it was not deciding the issue of the government's authority to con duct wiretaps in cases of foreign threats to the national security.

To establish the necessary authority and procedures for the government to conduct wiretaps in response to foreign threats, Congress passed FISA. FISA established a requirement of judicial approval before the government engages in at electronic surveillance (as well as physical searches) for foreign intelligence purposes. The act established the FISA Court, consisting of U.S. District Court judges designated by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The court's purpose is to review government applications for national security electronic monitoring and searches and authorize their use with appropriate limitations. If the FISA Court denies an application for an order authorizing a national security wiretap or search, the matter is referred under seal to the FISA Court of Review, comprised of three federal judges selected by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The court of review determines whether the application was properly denied. (6) Its decision can be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

FISA Contrasted with Title III

In essence, the purpose of a FISA order is to gather foreign intelligence information, (7) while the purpose of a Title III wiretap order is to gather evidence for criminal prosecution. The FISA application need only state facts supporting probable cause to believe that the target of the intercept (or search) is a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign power, and that the facilities to be monitored or searched are being used, or are about to be used, by a foreign power, or an agent of a foreign power, and to certify that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. (8) To show that a person is an agent of a foreign power, the government need only relate facts demonstrating that the subject is an officer or employee of a foreign power or acts on the foreign power's behalf; or knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence-gathering activities that may involve a violation of U.S. criminal statutes; or knowingly engages in sabotage, international terrorism, or in the preparation of these activities on behalf of a foreign power. (9)

In contrast, a criminal Title III wiretap must be supported by probable cause to believe that a specific individual, using an identified phone or location, is committing a particular crime. (10) It requires that the government show that a predicate offense is, has, or will be committed by the subject of the surveillance" and that particular communications concerning the predicate offense will be obtained through the wiretap (12) at a specified location or through a specified device used by the target. (13)

FISA Information for Criminal Prosecutions

It is important to note that both FISA and Title m require a showing of probable cause to authorize electronic monitoring (and physical searches in the case of FISA). However, because of the differing objectives of the two acts, the degree of specificity required differs markedly. Arguably, because of the different probable cause showing required by FISA, it is easier for the government to obtain a EISA order than it is to obtain a Title III order. Because of this, the courts became concerned that the government would obtain FISA electronic surveillance orders in what were essentially criminal investigations to avoid the stricter requirements of Title III.

This concern surfaced in an espionage case that predates FISA. In United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, (14) the government used a warrant-less wiretap to overhear and record telephone conversations of the defendant and to bug his apartment. The wiretapping and bugging were authorized by the attorney general under the "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence collected by means of the wiretap and bug as violations of the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit admitted the evidence collected during the early days of the collection but held that evidence obtained after the primary purpose of the investigation had shifted from securing intelligence information to accumulating evidence of a crime and must be suppressed because of the failure to comply with the requirements of Title III. This ruling is the origin of the "primary purpose test that was to create problems in later cases.

Subsequent cases decided after the passage of FISA distinguished Truong on the grounds that the surveillance authorization in that case was not obtained pursuant to a FISA warrant. (15) These courts noted that FISA contains a statutory mechanism for the dissemination of criminal information obtained during an intelligence intercept and have held that when such evidence is discovered "incidentally" during an authorized FISA intercept it may be admitted in subsequent criminal prosecutions. (16) This would include situations where "the government can anticipate that the fruits of such surveillance may later be used, as allowed by [the statute], as evidence in a criminal trial." (17) This line of reasoning became known as the "primary purpose" test and was adopted by several circuits. (18) In other words, when the primary object of the electronic monitoring (or search) was to collect foreign intelligence information, FISA was the appropriate mechanism to seek authorization from the courts. When the primary purpose was to seek criminal prosecution, Title III was the appropriate mechanism. Failure to strictly observe this distinction resulted in a possible suppression of the evidence.

Notes:
(1.) PL 107-56, October 26,2001, 115 Stat 272.

(2.) 50 U.S.C. [section][section] 1801-1863(1994).

(3.) Reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1775.

(4.) 18 U.S.C. [section][section] 2510-2520.

(5.) 407 U.S. 297 (1972).

(6.) 50 U.S.C. [section] 1803(b).

(7.) 50 U.S.C. [section] 1804(a)(7)(B). Foreign intelligence information is defined as "(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a U.S. person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against (a) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (b) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (c) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or (2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a U.S. person, is necessary to (a) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (b) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States." See 50 U.S.C. [section] 1801 (e).

(8.) 50 U.S.C. [section] 1804.

(9.) 50 U.S.C. [section] 1801 (b).

(10.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 2518(3).

(11.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 2518(3)(a).

(12.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 2518(3)(b).

(13.) 18 U.S.C. [section] 2518(3)(d).

(14.) 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980).

(15.) United States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. 1306, 1314 (E.D.N.Y. 1982).

(16.) United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787, 791 (9th Cir. 1987), and United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 73 n.5 (2d Cir. 1984)

(17.) United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, at 78 (2d Cir. 1984) and United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067(4th Cir. 1987).

(18.) United States v. Megahey, 553 F.Supp. 1180 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) aff'd sub nom. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984); United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 937 (1988); United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied 506 U.S. 816 (1992).

>>This is what the left calls debate.

No, that's how thinking people dismiss the idiot they just cornholed in debate.

I see. And you are the dismissive thinking person who just cornholed (someone else) in debate.

GrandMofT, you are quick to label everyone here and dispense your vitriol and bile frequently in every direction, but your name-calling doesn't win over the hearts (or minds) of independent thinking people, and would likely drive those who don't already rally to your cause and take your "arguments" on face value over to the other camp. There is no "debate" here, this is a food-fight. Debates have some modicum of decorum and respect for other participants, and those who don't tow your line. Ad hominem attacks are not part of any thinking person's debate.

Sorry to blow cool air on your invective laden bubble.

Is there any chance I can get an answer, tool, rdw, jay or one of you?

You are so full of lies made from shoddy, surely you are imaginative enough to answer a completely conjectural question........

Where would you stand if the Republican Party repudiated GW Bush, Lon and the complete edifice of the Admimistration?

PR --- Do you detect echoes of Moron in rdw?

" See? How do I respond in a thoughtful manner to ignorant filth like you?"

"I call you names. I say that you used an "evasion", but I don't point it out, because, well, because... darn it, your filth!" -- Shorter Grand Muffti.

DBL: I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim that the NSA intercept program was clearly illegal and/or far beyond what any prior president has done.

The FISA court itself seems to have a few more concerns than you.

And, btw, even if the president in good faith believed his actions were lawful, that doesn't make them lawful if they were not and is not a valid legal defense, so it is not the worst charge that can be made against him.

Even Pale Rider has endorsed those as justified by the situation. Although he seems to think that FISA is different somehow than the criminal courts that oversea such searches.

FISA is different. So is using NSA assets to collect on US persons as opposed to FBI assets. See the post above (sorry, it is a long one) to determine why.

FISA vs Title III--can our lawyer/law students add to what I posted please?

And also, better trolls, if you would. I do so tire of the same repetitive posting. Grand Moff Tejano said it best--we're doing the time warp all over again with people who can't come up with a good argument.

tool: you seem to think that you merit the rules of logical discourse. You do not. You have not made a single argument, you have not answered the arguments put to you, and you remain steadfast in ignoring the basic facts and law.

You're like an unlawful combatant: you don't abide by the rules, so you don't benefit from the rules.

Your conduct marks you as a weakling and a coward. I am treating you with the respect a weaking and a coward deserve.

By all means, continue pretending that my dismissal of you constitutes a victory. I expect nothing more from a conservative.
.

In any event, it's for the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitutions says on this issue. It's not Jamie's call or Bill or the Congress

Its the citizenry-at-large's job to supervise the government, to determine if their acts are out of line, and to, if they determine that they are, to petition their representatives -- including those in Congress -- to provide them a remedy -- including that provided by the impeachment process -- to address the abuse and prevent its recurrence.

Within that context, determining the approrpriateness of the President's actions, given the Constitution and statute law, is clearly within the purview of the Congress.

Now, if there is a controversy seeking a remedy at law or equity, rather than a political remedy, certainly it is the job of the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to render the necessary decision.

Pale Rider,

"Evidence obtained during a domestic national security wire interception" -- from your post. This is apparently having to do with exclusively domestic eavedropping. Where does it say that that FISA has authority over international communications? I might have missed it, but I didn't see it. Tell me, do your fourth ammendment rights apply when you are entering the US at a border station? Try making that claim next time you come through immigration or customs.

cmidcely,

I agree the Congress can write laws to fill a vacuum. But they cannot write laws that infringe on Presidential power. The Jamie/Bill carveout was to preserve the Constitutional powers of the Presidency.

If GWB decided those laws are an unconstitutional infringeement on Presidential Power he is correct to ingore them.

In this case the political problem for Democrats is they can't realistically impune his motives. This isn't Nixon and an enemies list. He's in pursuit of terrorists in a rapidly changing and more dangerous world. He kept the Congressional leadership in the loop as well as the judiciary.

He has the law on his side and he had the sound bites.

Your hair is on fire. You cannot win.

Grand Moff - Please answer this: Is a warrant necessary for the Government to eavesdrop on a telephone call from a known al Qaeda affiliate overseas and an unknown person in the US? To get a warrant, the Government has to show probable cause that a crime has been committed. I don't see how the Government could make such a showing in the hypothetical given. What do you think the right answer is? Counterintelligence ("connecting the dots") requires following lots of faint leads to see where they go, and very often there is no "probable cause" to do so. Do you think counterintelligence ought to be conducted under the ordinary rules of criminal procedure? Or do you think that we should connect the dots?

I think these are hard issues. Obviously, the Government could expose lots of plots by listening to every single telephone call and reading every single email in the US. Judge Posner suggested it would be constitutional and legal to use data mining programs to do that automatically, and then just have intelligence officers examine those communications that contain suspicious words. I think that goes too far.

Consider this: Suppose back in 1942 a postal inspector saw a letter postmarked from Sweden that had a return address that he suspected was used as a drop box for the Gestapo. Would he need a warrant to open the letter?

Maybe part of the dispute here is that you (and many others) don't really think we are at war with the jihadists. If you did, you might analyze the situation a little differently.

No, webdonkey, not everyone, just idiots like you. You keep repeating the same nonsense and are apparently incapable of realizing how stupid you look. Others have tried to explain it to you, including me. You are either too scared to read or too dumb to know what it means.

But, since your weaknesses are only my problem every four years, I don't care right now.

You are neither "independent" nor a "thinking person." You've shown that. You're just a conduit of other people's bullshit. That's what makes you useful to them and funny to me.

You're right about one thing: there is no debate here. You're not up to it.

Continue changing the subject to some vague sense of decency, which is strangely important to you now. That's the last place you and that other loser, tool, have to hide.
.

Pale Rider,

Like this thread wasn't long enough.

"Evidence obtained during a domestic national security wire interception" -- from your post. This is apparently having to do with exclusively domestic eavedropping. Where does it say that that FISA has authority over international communications? I might have missed it, but I didn't see it. Tell me, do your fourth ammendment rights apply when you are entering the US at a border station? Try making that claim next time you come through immigration or customs.

What attacks? I'm posting articles with footnotes. Is that frickin' awesome or what? College kids can steal my posts and write frickin' term papers with them. They'll fail their dang courses, but they could do that and I would just laugh.

And, as an aside, Pale Rider's comments on the aftermath of Katrina are now part of the Katrina timeline that is being compiled. I found that the other day. Hello? They must not read me very often.

Now, occasionally, I might call one of you a bad name. Pale Rider is trying to change his ways. Little trolls have feelings and cannot tolerate sunlight, the truth, or being called on their lies and bullshit.

Maybe part of the dispute here is that you (and many others) don't really think we are at war with the jihadists. If you did, you might analyze the situation a little differently.

If you're going to engage in an attacking the bias fallacy, then why should I answer your question?

See? You don't abide by the rules, you're not debating.
.

rdw: It's not Jamie's call or Bill or the Congress.

Actually, it is within the authority of Congress to decide this matter.

If it was within their authority, rather than the court's, to decide whether Clinton committed ordinary statutory crimes, then it certainly is within their authority to determine whether Bush committed constitutional and statutory crimes and abused his power.

You certainly have a weird sense of congressional power all of a sudden.

webdonkey: Debates have some modicum of decorum and respect for other participants, and those who don't tow your line.

Well, I guess that lays to rest the idea that the GOP engaged in debate during the last election cycle and replaces it with the determination that they were just throwing food.

Advocate - I didn't say you couldn't claim that the President's actions were illegal. It's a close issue and maybe they were illegal. I just said you couldn't claim that they were clearly illegal, a blatant violation of the law, when they may well have been fully legal.

cmdicely,

Agree completely with your 2:34 post.

Please pursue impeachment with all of your heart and soul. This will be as wise a move as appointing Howard Dean to the DNC. The image of Democrats scheeching at GWB over terrorists rights is pure gold.

If it turns out the people running this operaiton were clowns you have a shot at some political gain. If we find out these were dedicated professionals sensitive to privacy issues and only in pursuit of terrorists this will blow up in your face.

We have GWB in one corner fighting terrorists with every tool at his disposal and in the other corner Harry Reid with his hair on fire.

Like this thread wasn't long enough.

Yeah, why go out and get real information and data, with footnotes! and post it here to refute what the shills and trolls have to say. Why bother?

Where does it say that that FISA has authority over international communications?

Cue Sesame Street music...

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act means that it is an act that has a big word called 'jurisdiction' over communications, or things that people say to each other that are...foreign...or not from this country in origin.

doot doot dootadoot doot doot doot!

Grand Moff - I apologize if I mischaracterized your views about whether or not we are at war with the jihadists.

AG,

The congress has zero say on determiningthe constitutionality of laws it passes. The President has zero say. If pursued this will be decided by the Supreme court.

We have GWB in one corner fighting terrorists with every tool at his disposal

No. This was not a tool at his disposal, and his domestic targets have so far included people quite a bit removed from terrorists.

We now return you to your regularly schedule self-deception.

If we find out these were dedicated professionals sensitive to privacy issues and only in pursuit of terrorists this will blow up in your face.

You really need to get out more. So far, folks at NSA and FISA (the "dedicated professionals" of which you pretend to be able to speak) have been pretty pissed off and worried.
.

Where does it say that that FISA has authority over international communications?

50 USC &1801(f):

“Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes; (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18; (3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

and 50 USC §1809(a):

(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

Next question?

Tell me, do your fourth ammendment rights apply when you are entering the US at a border station?

dootanda dootanda doot de doot...

I guess they only apply if you're a US citizen.

end Sesame Street music.

"you have not answered the arguments put to you"

I clearly have,

You say Bush did it too!

Then you gave numbers of cases where things were decided, as if the merits of each was identical. Hence, the average of average comment.

Then you cite somebody's conclusion as evidence.

Then you say I didn't respond so you don't have to.

I think that about covers it. I am beginning to pity you now.

And this thread is more than my cellular card can handle. What with Pale Riders nonsensical posts of entire articles he could easily have linked to and shared some insight into why he thought it important.

cmdicely,

They only get it when you show brightly colored puppets and easy to read graphics.

As an aside--seriously, Advocate, Grand Moff, cmdicely, maunga, everyone else--

Have you ever seen the wingnuts THIS stupid before?

There's nothing to apologize for, DBL, it's just an epistemologically stupid thing to say if you want an answer.

I don't consider my loyalty to the Consitution to be a fair-weather affair, and I'm not going to change my mind because someone has a scary rumor or a weird hypothetical (not talking about you, DBL, just speaking generally).

Furthermore, I have little respect for the guts and intelligence of people who can be so easily swayed by such things.
.

cmdicely - I agree with you that Congress and the public can make their own determinations of the legality of executive action. Obviously. AT the end of the day, the public will have the final say though the ballot box.

Obviously. AT the end of the day, the public will have the final say though the ballot box.

Ultimately, you could wind up being correct, but I don't think that interpreting the Consitution or the law is a popularity contest.
.

"if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, "

Err, what if they are targeting the other guy, which appears to be the case?

What with Pale Riders nonsensical posts of entire articles he could easily have linked to and shared some insight into why he thought it important.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah, next time we'll just post you the link to TeleTubbies.

Brought to you by the letter P and the number 3.

Have you ever seen the wingnuts THIS stupid before? - Posted by: Pale Rider

Not just stupid, petulant. They reach the end of their talking points and then start whining about tone and invoking "logic" like it's "The Force™".
.

The congress has zero say on determiningthe constitutionality of laws it passes.

The Congress, however, has ultimate and unreviewable say on determining the appropriateness of Presidential actions in the context of impeachment hearings, including absolute, final, and unreviewable (though not binding on any later Congress or any court hearing any other matter) determination of applicable questions of law, including the Constitutionality of its own enactments.

The President has zero say.

This much is essentially true.

If pursued this will be decided by the Supreme court.

If pursued, it would be determined by whatever body has jurisdiction over the controversy in which it was raised -- if the context is articles of impeachment passed by the House, it would be decided ultimately by the Senate; if the context was the pursuit of a remedy at law or equity, it would be, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

cmdicely - How about you? Do you have any views on the hypotheticals I posed above? I think these are hard questions, which are worth grappling with.

texan,

Sorry but the visuals recently have been terrific for the RNC. The retreat and defeat ad with the white flag is the best political ad since the early SBV's.

The vision of an NSA agent following a trail that begins with an Al Qaeda member is hugely positive. The vision of Harry Reid expressing deep concern we're violating the civil rights of Al Qaeda members or supporters is hugely negative.

We've has a poll on this sort of thing. GWb won by 3.5M.

Nice summary, tool. I guess if you're that stupid it really is too complicated for you. You keep hiding behind the equivalence and I'll keep knowing the difference. Is that a deal?

Oh, and you still haven't found that cite, have you?

That's what I thought.
.

Sorry but the visuals recently have been terrific for the RNC. The retreat and defeat ad with the white flag is the best political ad since the early SBV's.

For those stupid enough to fall for that kind of ploy, yes. Your side rules supreme with them.

There's still not an argument to your credit.

The vision of Harry Reid expressing deep concern we're violating the civil rights of Al Qaeda members or supporters is hugely negative.

Not to mention entirely made up.
.

cmdicely,

Congress CANNOT decide on the constitutionality of ANY of the laws it passes.

There can be no impeachment without a violation of the law. They can be no violation of the law if that law is unconstitutional.

The law will have to be proven to be constitutional before any talk of impeachment has meaning. A whackado like Barbara Boxer babbling away is meaningless.

Please by all means pursue this avenue.

And this thread is more than my cellular card can handle.

So upgrade, you lameass. What, I thought that the Republicans gave us tax breaks so we could all afford expensive items? Haven't you been out buying consumer goods that you don't need? What are you, some kind of socialist or something?

Last week I refuted tbrosz with information from the Internal Revenue Service and he called in hallucinatory. Today I refute the troll arguments with information from that noted lefty moonbat organization The Federal Bureau of Investigation and they call it nonsensical.

Ah, to live in a reality-based world...

Well, we've had quite a lot of substantive rehashing of troll talking points that have to be debunked again and again, like it's Whack-a-Mole.

Grand Moff Texan, I think it was actually a thing of beauty that you had to link back to the original article about the concerns of the FISA court, which only tbrosz took a shot at addressing. No other trolls think it's interesting that the FISA court has expressed concern, or that one of its members has resigned over this. They're more concerned with Bill Clinton. Well, to be consistent, if it's clear that President Clinton defied existing law to order warrantless searches, then he should be removed from office. There!

I guess they all decided to crowd in here, instead of dealing with the biting decision from Judge Luttig and the rest of the 4th Circuit about the administration's game-playing in the Padilla matter. I would have thought that the cognitive dissonance would have kept them away from this thread, too, which is probably why they're rehashing Elian and Waco.

But rdw does have a good point about Harry Reid; he's torpedoed himself out in red-state America, all to please the extremist left in his blue home state of Nevada. Next rdw will probably point out how Reid is anti-Mormon. And as rdw's already noted, the Supreme Court had to weigh in on the Tenure of Office Act before Andrew Johnson could be impeached. Oh, wait: no, deliberately disobeying a federal law was sufficient. What are they teaching kids in schools these days?

Texan,

Although I am not a member of the reality based community I can read election results. I know you much prefer the other polls but we have elections.

I don't think the SBVs were stupid at all. They were both honest and effective. George Soros and Michael Moore has 1,000x's as much money but they didn't have the truth. I understand your scorn for common folk but as we learned their votes count. Thanks to the power of Fox and Rush and the group the people get a variety of views and can make up their own minds.

They can either believe exactly what Jamie said back in 1994 or her new convoluted re-interpretation of what she thinks she said. I think the RNC owns this campaign. Like the white flag add this will be short and sweet except all of the democratic stars will be supporting Bush this time instead of doing an imitation of French cheese eating surrender monkeys.

There can be no impeachment without a violation of the law. They can be no violation of the law if that law is unconstitutional.

FISA is constitutional, and Bush proudly admitted that he violated that law. He's a felon, and you're defending him.

Says a lot about you. Then again, you slurp up any shit that the RNC feeds you. The only people swallowing are your fellow 36% dead-enders.

DBL,

Then I take it you meant your last sentence to read something like this:

So the only charge that anyone could reasonably make [at this time] against the President is that he [may have taken] an aggressive legal position on what his executive authority is.

rdw: The congress has zero say on determining the constitutionality of laws it passes. The President has zero say. If pursued this will be decided by the Supreme court.

There you go again, pretending like you wrote something else in a previous post than what you actually wrote.

It is not the constitutionality of the law at issue, or not only that, but the president's compliance with that law and the Constitution, which Congress has a say in through its impeachment power.

That you do not understand this is not surprising, since you have previously demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of the Constitution.

rdw: Sorry but the visuals recently have been terrific for the RNC.

Yep. Katrina victims. Wounded and dead soldiers. The aftermath of suicide bombings. The president stuttering and bumbling every time he speaks. NYC commuters suffering lost dollars that will exceed what it would have cost to do right by the transit workers in the first place. NYC mayor's and GOP's greed on display. GOP operatives in handcuffs, mug shots, and conviction pics.

Great visuals!

Keep up the good work.

rdw: The law will have to be proven to be constitutional before any talk of impeachment has meaning.

Well, now we can simply add "wacko" to your list of characteristics, along with mendacious.

Ah, and the last refuge of the braindead partisan Republican fuckwit--"Bush won the election, so he can do whatever he wants!"

Geez, even the more established trolls here aren't defending this criminal activity.

Oh, and just wait until Abramoff starts to squeal--say buh-bye to the Republicon leadership in Congress, and say hello to Speaker Pelosi.
I love it! Can't wait for more smearing of federal prosecutors by Republicons who defend criminal activity by their own.

MDS,

This ain't 1865. There will not be an impeachmenton for violating a law of dubious constitutionality. This congress is well aware of how kind history has been to that congress.

This is a terrific conundrum. 1st off I think we can agree no House with a Speaker by the name of Denny Hastert will even consider discussing impreachment. He doesn't even speak to Nancy anyway.

So any even seni-serious talk of impeachment requires you actally win elections. And you think you can do that running on a blank of Impeach Bush?

I know you're feling very confident now. But think back to this time in 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003. You were just as confident then. Notice a pattern?

And the head of the DNC during those elections was actually sane!!

Please, Please I beg of you to devote your entire life toward impeachment. Make the 2006 elections about imopeaching George W Bush!!

Texan, Although I am not a member of the reality based community I can read election results. I know you much prefer the other polls but we have elections.

Which is why concerted GOP electoral fraud must be stopped. Florida twice and Ohio once. Enough is enough. This is how the Republic dies.

DBL: Maybe part of the dispute here is that you (and many others) don't really think we are at war with the jihadists. If you did, you might analyze the situation a little differently.

Well, we also have had wars on poverty, wars on crime, wars on drugs, etc., etc., etc.

So, why not just do away with the Constitution altogether, since it is an impediment to aggressive action in all these wars.

And since the war on terrorism will never end, by Bush's own admission, it won't hurt to simply get rid of the Constitution since it is, by the conservative argument, in abeyance during any time of war which now will be forever.

There are always seemingly good reasons to do away with constitutional protections, if you value life more than freedom and liberty.

Our Founding Fathers did not.

They valued the latter over the former.

Conservatives are willing to give up the latter for the former, except of course when it is sending others to their deaths.

We should have simply let the USSR take over the US and run it with a KGB-like police state, gulags, and psychiatric prisons that are all the GOP rage these days.

We would have had all the secret police, secret courts, secret trials, state monitoring, etc., that a conservative heart could desire and now argue for and not wasted all that money fighting the inevitable.

AG, Truth,

The natonal review has up on its website a letter just released from the NSA to the Senate explaining it's actions and the legal justification. The President has powers outside the Congress and was not in violation of FISA!!!

I am not discussing the constitutionality of FISA but the constitutionality of requiring the Executive to be limited by it. Congress cannot infringe on Presidential power.

Please answer this: Is a warrant necessary for the Government to eavesdrop on a telephone call from a known al Qaeda affiliate overseas and an unknown person in the US?

It is arguably within the Constitutional power of the government to do so without a warrant if it is "reasonable"; however, Congress may Constitutionally limit the exercise of powers of the government by the executive, and a warrant would seem rather clearly to be required in this case as it is excluded from the provisions for warrantless search under FISA by its failure to meet the requirement at 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(B) that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party".

To get a warrant, the Government has to show probable cause that a crime has been committed.

False; under FISA, at 50 USC 1805(a)(3), the required probable cause for a FISA warrant is probable cause to believe that "(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power [...]; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power"

There is no requirement for probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

Consider this: Suppose back in 1942 a postal inspector saw a letter postmarked from Sweden that had a return address that he suspected was used as a drop box for the Gestapo. Would he need a warrant to open the letter?

No, because universal surveillance of foreign communication in time of declared war may be reasonable, and thus within the Constitutional power of government, and Congress had by statute authorized the President to establish an Office of Censorship to engage in exactly that task. (This ignores any possible legal distinction which may exist between a postal inspector and an agent of the Office of Censorship, since it appears to me the point of your hypothetical concerns the conditions surrounding the use of executive power, not a fine-grained parsing of authority between different components of the executive branch during WWII.)

Maybe part of the dispute here is that you (and many others) don't really think we are at war with the jihadists. If you did, you might analyze the situation a little differently.

The effect of actual, declared war under FISA is to create a 15-day window during which the President can conduct surveillance without a warrant without the usual restrictions -- if he needs more, he is to avail himself of his ability to petition Congress for enhanced powers within the Constitutional limits of government, which in war it has not been loathe to grant expeditiously (both the Patriot Act, recently, and the authorization of the Office of Censorship, historically, demonstrate this.)

So, no, this disptue is not about whether or not we are at war. The question is about whether the Executive on its own or the Legislature is the appropriate branch to decide on the extent and nature of of changes to the framework established in law that is necessary and appropriate in response to war or emergency, within the limits imposed by the Constitution.

In the United States, the mere fact of war, declared or not, does not suspend the laws and transfer dictatorial powers to the President. The Constitution remains fully in effect, and any change in the law must be passed, as law, by Congress. The old maxim inter armes, silent leges, much as the Administration and its supporters seem to rely on it, is antithetical to the Constitutional order of the United States, where, even in war, the law -- and through the law the people -- remain in charge, not the dictatorial power of the military leader.

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military, not the nation.

Congress CANNOT decide on the constitutionality of ANY of the laws it passes.

You are, of course, free to point to the provision of the Constitution in which any other body is given the power to review and countermand the findings of Congress in the context of an impeachment proceeding.

There can be no impeachment without a violation of the law.

This is false. There can be impeachment and removal for anything that the required proportions of the House and Senate decide constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"; impeachment is a remedy for political misconduct in office, it is not a legal remedy, and the acts for which it is used need not be "illegal" in any sense except that the Congress decides that they are.

nemisis,

Get rid of the tin foil hat. The trends have been in place for quite a while. The country is becoming conservative. And it's going to get worse for you before it gets better.

Think of the effect of Abortion and borth control and the zero population movement. Obviously these things are going to have a more pronounced effect on the reality based community. Since Roe took effect in 1971 we have two generations of varying birth rates starting to compound. It's rather obvious when we look at college campuses we see a far more conservative student body than in 1968.

The elections were not stolen. Liberalism is going the way of socialism.

cmdicely,

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not even going to get into the weed's on impeachment law. It may be a political process but it is still created and defined in the Constitution.

The law currently reads "High Crimes and misdemeanors" If that doesn't require illegality call me shocked but accepting for argument purposes that as a rule of law it does not, as a practical matter No Congress is going to impeach a President unless there is a serious illegal act to get started.

We don't have that here. For there to be any chance of an impeachment it will have to be proven that GWB knowingly committed a criminal act. At a minimum he will have had to have violated a constitutional law.

I happen to think even if he did violate a law there will not be enough support. More than 60% of Americans favor a vigorious pursuit of terrorists. Even with a Democratic house there would not be an impeachment.

Hey Wootless, still setting up wire taps for your buddy, Frank Rizzo?

This congress is well aware of how kind history has been to that congress.

Um, well, first, it was 1868. But yeah, history has really given a beating to a Congress that was attempting to block President Johnson from derailing Reconstruction due to his sympathies to the Confederate cause. "Congress of 1868" is actually profanity to most historians. Or are you talking about the Clinton impeachment?

So, anyway, how about those concerns raised by members of the judicial branch that comprise the FISA court? You know, the subject of the actual post? Oh, but now it's up to the NSA to interpret the law. I forgot.

And migawd, here comes abortion! Is it end-of-year troll argument cleanout? What's next, rehashing how Marius overstepped his bounds as tribune by making the voting bridges narrower? How about those concerns raised by members of the FISA court in the actual post?

rdw: So any even seni-serious talk of impeachment requires you actally win elections.

You must not think much of the integrity of Republican congressional members.

Well, neither do I for the most part, but it only takes a few to defect as we've seen with recent White House and radical right defeats (e.g., drilling in ANWR, the Patriot Act, social security destruction).

I beg of you to devote your entire life toward impeachment.

Actually, we only have to devote a small portion to that activity.

Just like only a small portion had to be devoted to getting a conviction in PhoneJamGate and an indictment of DeLay.

But thanks again for your advice.

The preaching of wisdom from the unwise is always a source of amusement for us.

It's nice to see the judges refusing to be a fig leaf for Bush's naked power grab.

"Congress cannot infringe on Presidential power."

In Trolldovia, they don't have a Constitution or much in the way of laws. All they have is a Fearless Leader (usually pictured with Right Wing Dickwad's lips attached to his penis). Right Wing Dickwad thinks that the President of the USA (a country he continues to show little knowledge of) is not governed by the laws of the USA. Owing to both the lack of schools in Trolldovia, and what we can only assume is semen poisioning, Right Wing Dickwad's prattle has all the intellectual content of Faux News without the snazzy visuals.

3rd Paul,

That would be Frank Jr. Frank Sr, the beloved mayor of Philadephia, passed away some 20 years ago.

I was not a fan of Frank although he was a very interesting man. Poor Mayor but decent Police Commish. His most famous act, which most Philadephians my age remember vividly, was to shutdown the custom of fans running onto the baseball field after winning a championship. I think is was 1980 when the Phillies won. During the 7th inning stretch of the clinching game Frank had the Phila Mounted police take a highly visible parade-like walk across the warning track in the outfield just so every fan understood the stakes. Those horses are huge.

Franks made a big splash many years before in using horses for crowd control. I know from experience. They are extremely effective. This parade was on national TV and the networks made a really big deal of it. I think the year before Reggie Jackson had his shirt ripped off in NYC trying to get off the field. Rizzo wasn't about to let that happen.

He also had about 40 K-9's on the premiter of the field.

There were a lot of really stupid fans in the stands that night. But none of them were that stupid.

rdw: The President has powers outside the Congress and was not in violation of FISA!!!

I thought you said only the courts could decide the constitutionality of the president's actions and FISA.

Now you are saying the NSA can do that all by its little self.

Interesting flip-flop.

I guess that's sorta like the NSA can bypass the courts when it comes to warrants.

It gets to also bypass the courts when it comes to the constitutionality of FISA and the president's actions.

I am not discussing the constitutionality of FISA but the constitutionality of requiring the Executive to be limited by it. Congress cannot infringe on Presidential power.

Because the NSA says so?

Again with the flip-flop!

If Congress can't decide whether the president's actions and FISA are constitutional for purposes of impeachment, then I fail to see how the NSA, which has no direct constitutional authority at all, can, but please enlighten me to this extraordinary power of the NSA that is above and beyond the Constitution of the United States!

Have you removed your lips from Bush's ass yet so you can actually get a view of reality?

More than 60% of Americans favor a vigorious pursuit of terrorists.

So, if more than 60% of Americans supported concentration camps and extermination chambers for Arab-Americans, why should the Constitution stand in the way.

After all, majority rules at any given moment and an executive elected by an electoral "majority" can do whatever he thinks necessary to "protect" the nation and as long as he merely invokes that message, regardless whether the message is true or not, there are no limits to what he may legally do.

We understand your message.

Your goosestepping march is readily apparent even through the internet.

mds,

The people on the FISA court have no say unless this ends up on their federal district court in which case it sill won't matter. If this goes to the courts only one court will matter.

I do like to bring up the Roe effect periodically. I like to remind the liberals of how much they're like the French. You think alike, act alike, fear alike and breed alike. But you do have one edge. In 30 years your average neighbor won't be praying 5 time a day.

There you go, rdw, shifting and twisting without logic again.

cmdicely is having the patience to show facts, gently and clearly. Let us begin again.
1. We are not At War
2. The Administration chose to ignore a fixed, laid-down legal process.
3. The President has defiantly acknowledged that he viuolated the law, and that he will continue to do so.

Your Man said it! Why are you being the Emperor Without? How can you deny it when GWB, of whom you are a very small lap dog, said it himself?

I repeat, are you a Brownie, dependant on GWB for your bread and butter, or are you a Republican? What will you do if the Republican Party disavows the Bush Administration to try to give themselves a shot in 2006?

I know that is a couple of things to think about, but even if you escaped after only a few months on the lower deck, you must have learnt to hold at least two thoughts at the same time.

rdw: The elections were not stolen. Liberalism is going the way of socialism.

America has embraced components of "socialism" since the beginning of the nation.

Thanks for point out that "liberalism" is true to the American ideal.

And yes the elections were stolen.

Or actually, the elections were subject to fraud and criminal interference by the GOP and the presidential office was stolen.

Certainly more so than the 1992 and 1996 elections, which conservatives ranted for years were stolen.

maunga,

1. we ARE at war.

2. He did not ignore FISA. He studied it and set up a process to bypass it.

3. He did not acknowledge he violated the law althought you got the defiant part correct and the keep on keeping on.

I actually won't do anything if the GOP moves away from GWB because they have to in order to groom the 2009 President. In the meantime George
is still a human ATM machine and a brilliant political strategist. Don't take my word for it ask Tommy Daschle or Max Cleland or Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Anne Richards, etc.

Thanks to the power of Fox and Rush and the group the people get a variety of views and can make up their own minds.

"...and it was with that very utterance, that final blasphemous incantation that struck right at the heart of God that the human race ended -- not with a bang, but with a whimper.

There was no one around to record its passing of course, but thousands of years later powerful telescopes on other planets would show an entire species of people all just crumbling into the dust from which they came in the blink of an eye. Never having acquired the spiritual objectivity required to hold their molecules together they just dissipated, the universe finally deciding they were an evolutionary dead-end. No one was spared, which in retrospect may have seemed unfair, but it was when a majority of humans decided that buying and selling and the getting of power at any cost were all that mattered, the Earth experiment was considered a failure if not pedestrian and ended.

The original programming had called for humans to be individual nodes of conscious awareness, little sparks of God connected by empathy to every other living thing. But various outside influences combined with weaknesses inherent in the design such as rampant egoism and a curious sense of victimhood that manifested itself as a feeling of superiority in some which prevented that evolutionary stage from ever being reached.

Had the program originally called for a materialistic world in which perception was to be valued over truth, winning at all costs to be achieved over doing the right thing, the exercise of raw power more important than wisdom or compassion, mass hypnosis more useful to leaders than sober populace, and the accumulation of wealth above all -- well then the program would have been considered a raving success, although of necessity a short-term one in the cosmic time scale as those programs inevitably self-destruct. By those who judge such things it would have been considered a mediocre one to boot, as those worlds are commonplace and notoriously easy to make, there being many reptilian worlds in the universe where those conditios are exactly the case.

Although no cares to visit them for the obvious reasons.

As it was the cetaceans sported an amazing comeback, and being the vessels containing the highest consciousness on the newly roomy planet. they just generally enjoyed their good fortune and looked forward to a few million years of unimpeded evolution."

solar,

this isn't hard:

Congress can't infringe on Presidential power BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO!!!

CAN WE IMPEACHED CLINTON NOW FOR HIS WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF ALDRICH AMES PROPERTY, OR HIS USE OF INTELLIEGENCE ASSETS TO SEARCH FOR THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBERS??

SURELY THE LEFT WOULD VOTE TO STRIP HIM OF ALL POST-OFFICE PERKS.

America has embraced components of "socialism" since the beginning of the nation.

Aside for the whackado's of the Democratic party in the 20's thru the 80's, aka Lenim's "Useful Idiots" America ha abhored socialism. We have always had stong support for private property and individual rights. Socialism is the opposit of all of that.

In addition to being a collosal and devastating failure. Some Ivy league twit was ripped apart fairly effectively recently after blaming all wars and human tradegies on religion. Simple bastard forgot 20th century socialism which drawfs any wars fought over religion.

rdw: The people on the FISA court have no say unless this ends up on their federal district court in which case it sill won't matter.

Their opinion will matter greatly to the members of Congress and to the voting public. That's having a say.

I like to remind the liberals of how much they're like the French. You think alike, act alike, fear alike and breed alike.

We are well aware of your bigotry against the French.

In another day and age, you would be saying how much like n*ggers liberals are.

How we act alike, fear alike, and breed alike.

It's all there, except the comparator has changed from n*gger to French.

People like you always need someone they can belittle as fundamentally inferior, with references to their breeding habits (conservative obsession with sex) thrown in, and who you can take delight in tormenting.

It has become nearly impossible for your kind to voice such opinions about blacks and Jews, so you've changed to the French, Muslims, Germans, liberals, gays, Canadians, or whoever you think is responsible for your pathetic failure as a human being.

We understand completely.

AG,

Take a step back and look at all of your prized liberal institution. The UN, EU, France, Germany, Canada, the DNC.

Compare them now to where they were in 1980.

The UN only has about 5 active major scandals brewing and does not play a key role in anything important anywhere the world. Their beleved Kyoto is totally dead

Jacques ratings are less than 1/2 GWBs and even lower than the Democratic congress. Gerhard just took a job with Putin. He was already on the payroll they just formalized it. Paul Martin had to call for another election and might not hang on. Canada we know will be paying a huge fine to Russia for polluting. Canada is the country tryinh not to pollute. Russia is the country polluting at will. The EU is making progress a constitution. Well at least until the French rejected the one their former President designed. But France has partially solved their energy/heating problem. They barbaque their cars.

And last but not least the DNC is chaired by Howard Dean. God was very good to us with that one.

Liberalism is just doing great!

rdw: America ha[s] abhored socialism.

T. Jefferson was a staunch advocate of universal tuition-free public education (a/k/a gov't schools). In fact, nearly from it's inception this country was a pioneer in that area. Sounds like socialism to me, don't you think?

The people on the FISA court have no say unless this ends up on their federal district court in which case it sill won't matter. If this goes to the courts only one court will matter.

Well, that's a great system of checks and balances. Congress passes a law, and the President is free to ignore some of its provisions, because he's decided it's unconstitutional. The part of the judicial branch entrusted with overseeing the law raises concerns, and the President is free to ignore their objections, because he's decided the law is unconstitutional. (Obviously, the executive doesn't actually believe as you do, because they are finally briefing the FISA court about their activities.) In none of this do I see any indication that the Justice Department has rushed over to the Supreme Court to challenge FISA, which would be the way that the Executive would challenge a law's constitutionality. "Ignore the laws you don't like" doesn't actually appear in Article II. The primary powers that Congress has over an Executive that refuses to follow laws it has passed are investigative committees, censure and impeachment. That's why Congress doesn't go to the Supreme Court every time it passes a law to get agreement that the Executive must follow it.

But until the Supreme Court rules on FISA, we aren't allowed to consider the text of the law, Congress can take no action, and concerns raised by FISA judges are moot...but we are free to jump to the conclusion that the President is right because National Review says so. Got it.

posting by rdw on December 22, 2005 at 4:18 PM.....

My God, rdw you are monumentally thick.

You said:
"1. we ARE at war." No, cretin we are not; there has been no Congressional Declaration.

"2. He did not ignore FISA. He studied it and set up a process to bypass it." He did not; he said, just like his mentors, Stalin and Hitler, "Fuck the Law!" Not a lot of studying there, Bubski.

"3. He did not acknowledge he violated the law althought you got the defiant part correct and the keep on keeping on....." Yes he did; I heard and watched him, and from your postings it is not a big stretch to tell you I am a touch brighter than you, so I believe my recollection.

"I actually won't do anything if the GOP moves away from GWB because they have to in order to groom the 2009 President......" Your answer demonstrates you are a bit pressed in he comprehension stakes. D-I-S-A-V-O-W.... look it up; it is not unadjacent to R-E-P-U-D-I-A-T-E in meaning.

I repeat, you spent too little time in the US Navy; you learnt no logic and rationality, let alone common sense.

We are well aware of your bigotry against the French.

I am not bigoted against the French. Nor the Germans, Canadians or other EU members. I face if I wanted to be bigoted against them I'd have a hardtime. How can you tell them apart?

I dislike obnoxious liberals. I detest elitists. It so happens the French have an extreme excess of obnoxious liberals.

You have to a admit there are many, many similarities between American liberals and the French. And I am certain breeding patterns are very much alike. Look at the loss of population in blue states.

rdw: He did not ignore FISA. He studied it and set up a process to bypass it.

You don't seem to understand the term "ignore" in the context used.

Not surprising, since you often can't or don't want to follow the meaning of what others post.

But it interesting that you believe Bush violated FISA, which means he committed an impeachable offense.

. . . a brilliant political strategist . . .

So brilliant that he can't get himself above Clinton's second-term low polling number, despite unethically spending millions of taxpayer dollars for a partisan PR campaign.

Tommy Daschle or Max Cleland

Funny, I don't recall Bush running for Senator.

Advocate for God,
Section 1802 of the FISA law says: "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order... to acquire foreign intelligence information..."

NSA doesn't bestow anything upon itself. Also, you guys are rehashing old arguments. This is decided law. The President in his capacity as Commander in chief has inherent constitutional rights. They are enumerated in case law from the Supreme court and other special courts. This does not mean the President has Carte Blanche to do anything he wants just because there is a war, and we are in a war. In early 2002 we all thought we were at war as I still do today. If the President abuses his authority and it can be proved that it was for anything other than the protection of US citizens and the country, then we have a problem. I think you all just look for the next issue to try and excoriate Bush with false and misleading accusations.

alex,

Socialism puts private property and all private enterprise in the hands of the state. Russia was socialism in practice.

"Free" education is not socialism nor anything like it. In any capitalist society there is a role for government. The debate between libertarians, conservatives and liberals is over this role. Larger govt tends toward socialism but can't seriously be considered socialistic.

rdw: Take a step back and look at all of your prized liberal institution. The UN, EU, France, Germany, Canada, the DNC.

The UN, the EU, France, Germany, and Canada aren't "liberal institutions"; this is simply another one of your mendacious rants which paints you as either an ignoramus or a lying asshole.

Either works for me.

The UN only has about 5 active major scandals brewing . . .

That's a dozen less than the Bush administration!

I dislike obnoxious liberals.

Everyone dislikes people who are obnoxious, which is why we dislike you.

But not every liberal is obnoxious, just like not every conservative is as obnoxious as you are.

I detest elitists.

No you don't or you would detest Bush who is the most elitist president we've had in the past century.

It so happens the French have an extreme excess of obnoxious liberals.

Their conservatives are twice as obnoxious as their liberals, so your point is meaningless.

You have to a admit there are many, many similarities between American liberals and the French.

No, I don't.

But you do seem to have an obsession with demanding that people must agree with you on inane and transparently false propositions.

And I am certain breeding patterns are very much alike.

Please, please get help for your obsession with Clinton's penis.

It just isn't healthy.

Look at the loss of population in blue states.

Then that would be not breeding, rather than breeding, proving again your logic is Bush-like, inventing what you believe to be clever sound bites that are nonsensical when examined in the light of reason.

ag

Bush did not ignore FISA. He saw it and decided it did not apply to presidential powers. As did Clinton.

Even if it were true that Clinton decided FISA didn't apply to his powers -- which it's not, of course, and we've been over this -- Clinton DIDN'T illegally wiretap.

Bush DID ignore FISA, and we'll just have to see whether that was illegal or not.

Wait, let me say it for you: the French, tar sands, elections, Nancy Pelosi.

rdw, you are a tiresome broken record, not that different than static on the radio. I don't know what you think you're doing here, but it's not changing minds, particularly with the raft of half-truths, untruths, and blatant bullshit unsupported assertions you put forward.

By all means keep posting though; keeps you off the streets where you actually might do some harm.

the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order... to acquire foreign intelligence information...

Use of ellipsis sure is handy, isn't it? United States persons cannot be involved in those year-long warrantless searches, also according to 1802. You just have to, you know, read it. And no, association with a terrorist group is insufficient, since that is not one of the permitted foreign powers from section 1801. But we've been over this again and again.

This is decided law.

So, um, the original post was about the FISA court having concerns about the administration's actions. Why are they rehashing old arguments about decided law? Why has the Bush Justice Department not run to the Supreme Court to get FISA overturned, since it's decided law that it's unconstitutional?

Congress can't infringe on Presidential power BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO!!!

Unfortunately, you haven't shown any place in the Constitution that says the President has the power to order warrantless searches.

Just spouting "the Constitution says..." over and over again, with increasing use of caps, without any support from, you know, the text of the Constitution, doesn't really advance your case.

rdw: Socialism puts private property and all private enterprise in the hands of the state.

This is a lie and a rather blatant one at that.

Again, typical of the strategy of mendacity so common among American conservatives.

Even if it were true that Clinton decided FISA didn't apply to his powers -- which it's not, of course, and we've been over this -- Clinton DIDN'T illegally wiretap.

No one is saying Clinton illegally wiretapped. I am saying that Clinton and Jamie Gorelick specifically said FISA does not limit their Presidential powers to do warrantless wiretaps.

Carter also claimed presidential power to do warrantless wiretaps.

Wait, I've got it! Ignoring decided Constitutional law, Congress refused to repeal FISA, and even modified it after the Ames affair, to stick it to "activist judges" who believe that they, not the elected legislature, have the power to make law! Yeah, that's what happened.

Section 1802 of the FISA law says: "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order... to acquire foreign intelligence information..."

Er, that's a clever and misleading excerpt of 50 USC 1802(a)(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; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

"solar,

this isn't hard:

Congress can't infringe on Presidential power BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO!!!"

Well thanks again for answering to your true name, Right Wing Dickwad. We know you can't help yourself.

The Constitution says no such thing. It is a short document- surely you can quote the part you refer to above. Can't you, Dickwad? Or perhaps you cannot, since said section doesn't exist. Your ignorance of American law is monumental. Congress passes laws which apply to all citizens equally. The President can affect these laws by vetoing them, and the SC can affect them by declaring them unconstitutional but no one can affect the law by merely ignoring it. Congress has ultimate power over the President in that it can fire him. Lesser powers include depriving him of monies, changing or eliminating government structures, and even changing the Constitution (with the States) which can directly affect the office of the President (as it has done at least five times before). The amendment process could even be used to eliminate the office itself.

But you wouldn't know any of this because you are an unemployed, dishonest, uneducated, ignorant partisan cocksucker, huddled in your mommy's trailer in Trolldovia typing shit. How do we measure the depth of your bullshit? Simply plug this into your sentence- "President Hillary Clinton" does not have to obey any laws Congress passes. Could you type that?

BTW, what is this obsession with how liberals breed? We know you've never had sex with a woman, but what is this prurient interest in how the rest of us do it? You realize, of course, that this is just academic knowledge for a Bush buttfucker such as yourself?

I am saying that Clinton and Jamie Gorelick specifically said FISA does not limit their Presidential powers to do warrantless wiretaps.

The only thing I've seen Gorelick quoted about is "physical searches", not wiretaps (which are a form of "electronic surveillance"). And the FISA provisions regulating physical searches were -- unlike the electronic surveillance provisions, which were the focus of the original law, not implemented until after Gorelick's statement.

Unfortunately, you haven't shown any place in the Constitution that says the President has the power to order warrantless searches.

I haven't shown any place the Constitution says the President can scratch his ass either.

For the 10th time I'm not a lawyer and I'm not getting in the weeds. But I now what separations of powers are and I know the executive and legislature are co-equal branches of government and I know the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

I know we proved something in 2000 we can easily prove again. We not only have better politicians we have better lawyers. It won't hurt that we'll have Alito rather than OConnor deciding this one. That's if Harry has the balls. We damn sure know George does.

rdw: For the 10th time I'm not a lawyer and I'm not getting in the weeds.

Seems like you are getting into the political ivy, however.

Typical retreat of the conservative confronted with reality: "I'm not wading into those weeds I planted and fertilized!"

I know the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

Many of your conservative brethren disagree with you.

I haven't shown any place the Constitution says the President can scratch his ass either.

Is presidential ass-scratching an issue someone was debating?

You must be able to opine on that with some expertise, given the close proximity of your lips to the presidential buttocks.

We damn sure know George does.

We found out Bush has no balls when he refused to go to Vietnam.

He hasn't grown any since, which is why he caved in to McCain, even though Bush insisted that not caving in was critical to American security.

Either it wasn't critical and Bush lied or he didn't have the balls to stand up to McCain and the Democrats.

The balls are in your court: Is Bush a liar or a ball-less freak or both?

The House passed a one-month extension of the Patriot Act on Thursday and sent it to the Senate for final action as Congress scrambled to prevent expiration of anti-terror law enforcement provisions on December 31.

Another even bigger loss for Bush and the radical right.

Better clap harder, rdw, Bush is fading fast!

"But I now what separations of powers are..."

But you don't "now" how to spell "separations" in English, do you?

"That's if Harry has the balls. We damn sure know George does."

Right Wing Dickwad, your obsession with male genitalia assuredly falls under the category of Too Much Information. We already know how enamored you are of George's tiny balls. Why tell us the ugly details? Maybe it's polite dinner conversation in your country...

I am saying that Clinton and Jamie Gorelick specifically said FISA does not limit their Presidential powers to do warrantless wiretaps.

And that failure might be relevant if the issue here was whether or not that was a Constitutionally-reserved power of the executive. Since that's not the topic, that's a complete non-sequitur. Focus.

For the 10th time I'm not a lawyer and I'm not getting in the weeds.

Plenty of people discussing this issue aren't lawyers (myself included.) That's not an excuse for not making a coherent argument.

But I now what separations of powers are and I know the executive and legislature are co-equal branches of government and I know the supreme court decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

So you have some fuzzy recollections of what certain doctrines derived from the Constitution mean. So what?

I know we proved something in 2000 we can easily prove again. We not only have better politicians we have better lawyers. It won't hurt that we'll have Alito rather than OConnor deciding this one.

You really ought to wait until, you know, Alito is actually on the Court, if he ever is, before saying that.

That's if Harry has the balls.

How, exactly, do you see "Harry" being involved in this issue being litigated in the Supreme Court?

We damn sure know George does.

Really? I've seen George bluff and bluster and promise to push to the wall for up-or-down votes -- at the UNSC and elsewhere -- and wave veto threats and otherwise say he was determined. And, when the other side didn't cave in, I've seen him back down.

A court that oversees government surveillance will receive a secret briefing about President Bush's controversial domestic spying program, a judge on the court told CNN.

If Bush has inherent constitutional powers to do what he did, why should he have to explain himself to the courts?

Could it be he lost his balls on the White House lawn somewhere?

But I know what separations of powers are

Obviously you DON'T or you'd get what cmdicely and others are trying to carefully spell out for you above.

And falling back on "we won in 2000 with our better lawyers after you've gotten your ass handed to you -- pathetic.

Pa-thetic.

"In issuing its denial [to the government's request to move Padilla from military to civilian custody], the court cited the government's changing rationale for Padilla's detention, questioning why it used one set of arguments before federal judges deciding whether it was legal for the military to hold Padilla and another set before the Miami grand jury."

Bush even lies to the courts and conservative judges are getting tired of it.

Chalk up another loss for Bushie.

Thanks,

I think you make my point. I hate to print the whole text especialy since this is decided law but,

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

(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Is a US citizen acting as an agent for a foreign power considered to be among a foreign power? It sounds that way to me.

Why don't you print the entire text of 1801 as well so we can all decide what it means.

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

all the text and many pages not reproduced means the President has all the legal authority granted by Congress, the Constitution and the courts.

A federal appeals court yesterday refused to authorize the transfer of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla to face new criminal charges, issuing a strongly worded opinion rebuking the Bush administration and its handling of the high-profile terrorism case.

The same court that had granted the administration wide latitude in holding Padilla without charges or a court appearance now is suggesting that the detention was a mistake. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said prosecutors could not take custody of Padilla from the military and take him to Miami, where he now faces indictment on terrorism charges.

Yep.

Bush is so strong on terror that he keeps losing cases involving alleged terrorists and is so incompetent at making a case that he has to lie to grand juries and judges about the reasons for holding these people.

Wonder how long it will be before he finally pisses off the Supreme Court that got him elected enough to start ruling against him.

Collar starting to tighten, rdw, with these continuing Bush losses piling up like Colt defenders on hapless Texan runners?

Is a US citizen acting as an agent for a foreign power considered to be among a foreign power?

It doesn't really matter; the conjunction "and", as any speaker of the English language should know, means that the provisions in (A), (B), and (C) of 50 1802(a)(1) all must be met for warrantless searches. A US citizen acting as an agent for a foreign power may be a legitimate target under (A), but if one of the targets is a US citizen, it is impossible for (B) to be met for warrantless surveillance under 50 USC 1802.

. . . all the text and many pages not reproduced means the President has all the legal authority granted by Congress, the Constitution and the courts.

If that's true, then Bush never needed court orders for any of the things he was doing when he was getting warrants and was remiss in delaying intelligence collection to get them in those cases.

But, we'll see what the FISA court has to say about it when the Bush adminisration crawls to them with explanations.

Maybe those explanations will be more consistent and believable than the ones in the Padilla case (see above), but I wouldn't count on it.

Given the opportunity to lie or tell the truth with the same outcome either way, Bush will choose to lie.

It is simply his character.

berlins,

Also not that 1802(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) refer to "a foreign power as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title", and, as you yourself posted, "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor" is a "foreign power" defined in section 1801(a)(4), and therefore not a qualified target of warrantless search under 50 USC 1802.

berlins: . . . all the text and many pages not reproduced means the President has all the legal authority granted by Congress, the Constitution and the courts.

Unfortunately, there's that pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment that renders your opinion vis-a-vis the Constitution premature, even if your FISA argument were correct.

Where did rdw go?

Is he busy looking for Bush's balls?

If he has any, they should be easy to spot right in front of you, rdw, under Bush's ass.

You will have to pull back a bit and remove your lips from Bush's buttocks to actually check, unless you want to use your hand . . .

But, we'll see what the FISA court has to say about it when the Bush adminisration crawls to them with explanations.

I'm not sure the FISA court is likely to say anything; they'll get a classified briefing that they'll be legally forbidden to discuss and which won't be connected to a particular application before them, so there won't be anything, most likely, to see or here. Bush is doing this to prevent the FISA court from being hostile to those cases where he does request warrants.

cmdicely,

Why don't you stop the insults and stick to the facts.

"It doesn't really matter; the conjunction "and", as any speaker of the English language should know, means that the provisions in (A), (B), and (C) of 50 1802(a)(1) all must be met for warrantless searches. A US citizen acting as an agent for a foreign power may be a legitimate target under (A), but if one of the targets is a US citizen, it is impossible for (B) to be met for warrantless surveillance under 50 USC 1802."

It must also meet the Minimization procedures of (C) which you have choosen not to speak to and which makes the case for the President.

cmdicely: I'm not sure the FISA court is likely to say anything . . .

Probably not, but then who would've thought one of the judges would have the balls to resign in protest or that other judges on the court would openly and publically question the administration's actions?

They would likely be the best judge of their own jurisdiction and some of them may have an opinion to voice, at least Congress, if they find the Bush administration's arguments unconvincing.

Why don't you stop the insults and stick to the facts.

The fact is, if a US person is the target, the condition of 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(B) cannot be met and, therefore, regardless of whether the conditions of 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(A) and 1802(a)(1)(C) are met, it is impossible for any surveillance targetting such a person to be a valid occasion of warrantless search under 50 USC 1802.

It must also meet the Minimization procedures of (C) which you have choosen not to speak to and which makes the case for the President.

This doesn't make any sense at all. It has to meet (A), (B), and (C). Since it can't, by definition, meet (B) in the case you are outlining, I have no idea how you it meeting (C), if it did, would make any case for the President, since it still would be illegal because of the failure to meet (B).

Advocate,

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and that "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"

"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."

That pesky 4th amendment doesn't protect U.S. Citizens acting as terrorists or as an agent of a foreign power from reasonable search and seizure.

These are limited circumstances. The abuse of this power is serious and wrong if used for any other reason. But in this case, so far, I see nothing wrong.

cmdicely,

Then why is C. even in there. It is because the activity incorporates the fact that a US Citizen is involved somehow in communications with foreign powers. This Section is there to ensure their rights while at the same time not letting them get away with espionage or terrorism.

cmdicely,

If there is no substantial likelihood. If there is C. must be met as well. Does that make sense?

(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; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Then why is C. even in there.

C is to provide for minimization of incidental, unintended intercepts of communication from US persons in cases where there is not a substantial chance that a US person's communication will be intercepted (based on the expectation prior to the surveillance).

It is because the activity incorporates the fact that a US Citizen is involved somehow in communications with foreign powers.

No, it is because a US person's communications may accidentally and incidentally be monitored by surveillance directed at communication exclusively among foreign powers.

This Section is there to ensure their rights while at the same time not letting them get away with espionage or terrorism.

No, it is not. Surveillance of US persons suspected of being involved in espionage or terrorism requires a warrant under FISA. Indeed, terrorist groups are excluded from the "foreign powers" against whom warrantless searches are authorized by 50 USC 1802, requiring warrants for surveillance directed at those groups generally.

If there is no substantial likelihood. If there is C. must be met as well. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. That would only make sense if the conjunction between (B) and (C) was "or", not "and", since (B) specifically requires that there be no substantial likelihood.

Berlinls: your clipped quote was dishonest. The entire point of the debate is that there is a fundamental distinction enshrined in the law.
Under FISA the president cannot order warrantless wiretaps of communications involving Americans with the NSA. Debating this basic point on a blog is pointless, and reminds me of scientific debates where laymen utterly misstate the facts under question (e.g. evolution.)

You also betray an utter misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. You say "that pesky 4th amendment doesn't protect US citizens acting as terrorists". Damn it all, it protects ALL US citizens. The Bill of Rights is absolute for very good reason. Otherwise there will always be some yahoo claiming that their favorite cause requires their suspension. You could use exactly the same argument to say the 4th amendment doesn't apply to criminals. They're bad people! The problem: not everyone accused by the government is actually a criminal...or a terrorist.

You do know why laws like FISA were passed in the first place, don't you?

You say "that pesky 4th amendment doesn't protect US citizens acting as terrorists". Damn it all, it protects ALL US citizens.

Its protections extend beyond citizens, too.

marc,

I assume debate in general is a good thing tough, right?
When you have no arguement, you can turn to insulting your opponent, that will work.
To what clipped quote do refer, I printed the entire 4th amendment and the section to which I was speaking. probable cause is probable cause.
I said the 4th amendment does not protect terrorists or criminals, it protects US citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. I see probable cause and nothing unreasonable. sorry that I don't meet your standards for debating the issue

It does not take anyone special to discuss the constitution. Laymen, of all people, should feel free to debate any issue. Should uninformed voters be allowed to vote?

I suppose you know all about FISA laws and the constitution as well so you should have no need for blogs like this right.

I see probable cause and nothing unreasonable.

You see probable cause for what? "Probable cause" and "reasonableness" can only be judged in the context of the particular facts underlying a particular search. The mere subjective suspicion of involvement in terrorism on the part of the searcher is neither "probable cause" nor "reasonable" by any reasonable interpretation of the language.

A G,

Miss me? I actually do have a life away from this post. But thanks for your concern and my collar is not starting to tighten. I don't pay too much attention to the day to day gyrations in this Congress.

Sensenbrenner got into some kind of snit with the Senate over the Patriot Act and would not agree to a 6 month extension. I'd have preferred 6 months to put the discussion right in front of the election. Mr I voted for it before I voted against it knows how hard that can be. It had nothing to do with Bush.

Perhaps you saw the speculation on Rumsfeld who in Iraq now? Expect an announcment soon on troop withdrawals to bring levels well below the old standard. Several units scheduled for deployment to Iraq have received cancellation notices.

cmdicely,

Thank you as always for your thoughtful and well reasoned argument. I think that Kevin Drum ought to give you a rosette for single-handedly raising the tone of his blog.

On probable cause, would the fact that an AQ affiliate was placing a call to an unknown person in the US be sufficient to establish probable cause that the unknown person was an agent of AQ?

I take it you reject the argument of Prof. Sunstein that Congress's authorization of the use of force against AQ and the Taliban was broad enough to encompass spying on communications between foreign AQ persons and persons in the US.

I take it you also reject the argument of John Schmidt (Clinton's associate AG) that the president has inherent constitutional power to spy on communications to or from hostile foreign powers and that Congress cannot restrict this executive power, whether via FISA or otherwise.

I confess I have not read the cases and so have not come to a firm decision. Just based on your arguments and the counter-arguments, it seems like a very close issue to me. I would greatly prefer to know more facts before making up my mind: What communications were intercepted? How did the NSA decide which ones to listen to? Who were the foreign parties? Who were the domestic parties? How many calls/emails were intercepted over what period of time? etc.

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond in such detail.

On probable cause, would the fact that an AQ affiliate was placing a call to an unknown person in the US be sufficient to establish probable cause that the unknown person was an agent of AQ?

Standing alone, almost certainly not; I suppose it might if, for instance, you established that that particular al-Qaeda affiliate used that phone specifically (or particular class of phones -- say that person used as series of prepaid mobile phones in this role) to contact other al-Qaeda agents, and conducted all other business through other channels.

I take it you reject the argument of Prof. Sunstein that Congress's authorization of the use of force against AQ and the Taliban was broad enough to encompass spying on communications between foreign AQ persons and persons in the US.

It would not be an untenable reading of the AUMF in the absence of FISA (and particularly its declared war provisions), but I think, in context, its an unreasonable reading. A declaration of war effects (absent limiting language) a blanket authorization of force, but clearly Congress intended a declaration of war to have only a very limited effect on search authority under FISA. It is unreasonable to read, then, the authorization for all force to include an expansion of warrantless wiretapping authority beyond that provided in FISA even for declared war, absent specific statutory language addressing such surveillance in the AUMF.

I take it you also reject the argument of John Schmidt (Clinton's associate AG) that the president has inherent constitutional power to spy on communications to or from hostile foreign powers and that Congress cannot restrict this executive power, whether via FISA or otherwise.

The government clearly Constitutionally has such power; the idea that it is an inherent executive power is tied well to no language in the Constitution, and is pretty strongly contradicted by the Art. I, Sec. 8 powers of Congress. There is a strong case, I think, that the President's powers with regard to defense and foreign relations are broad in the sense that, in addition to clear, express Constitutional powers like the treaty power, he may exercise some powers -- including those of search and seizure -- for such purposes without express statutory authority, particularly in the context of war or other emergency, so long as Congress has not acted under its own express Constitutional powers to regulate that action, which FISA quite directly does.

However, the idea of a vast array of "inherent powers", grounded in vague penumbras and emanations of the Commander-in-Chief function and/or other foreign policies roles of the President, not subject to regulation by Congress, is far too divorced from the text to be credible, and, frankly, far too dangerous to liberty to be acceptable.

cmdicely,

You are correct. None of us know the facts behind what was done or the reasons the administration thought it was neccessary. the people who do know are in the FISA courts, Congress and the current Administration.

I don't want the Executive to have the power to deny innocent citizens the civil rights. I also do not want to tie the hands of the commander in chief when it comes to protecting the country and its citozens.
The FISA courts try to balance this need know versus the civil rights to which everyone is intitled.

If the President has gone beyond his authority and abused his power in this area it will come out bad things could happen to him.
It seems something has been exposed. What is it? I don't think we know enough facts to say it is infringing on anyones rights or that it is illegal.

Wooten the witless,

Thought you were checking on the availability of classes in the Philly area. Classes, such as: English as a 1st language, Spelling for Dummies, perhaps any course pertaining to Reading Comprehension, History of the 19th Century and 20th Century. Might try Spanish, so you could write your old bar butties from Rota, especially Ramon who would love to hear from you.

See that the Concord had mounted .50s. Did they ever fire and scare you; cause you to hide under your bunk? Must have been rough being Permanent Head Orderly and missing all of that action top side. All of those "INCOMING" cans of beans, soup and powered milk. What an adventure, sailing the ocean blue on a cargo ship, especially with all of your intellectual skills going to waste in the Heads. No wonder, you despise those "elitist" officers who served on fighting ships and boats.

Why don't we ask the opinion of someone involved with the program itself? Russell Tice apparently has a few things to say:

Dear Chairman Roberts,

Under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These acts involve the Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

These probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs (SAP)s. I was a technical intelligence specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations at both NSA and DIA.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or congressional members to participate retain the proper security clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities available for these discussions.

Please inform me when you require my appearance on Capitol Hill to conduct these discussions in relation to this ICWPA report.

Very Respectfully,

Russell D. Tice

Former Intelligence Officer, NSA

http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20695

Windhorse,

What does that have to do with anything? Isn't this a whistleblower upset about his treatment for suspecting a daughter of someone working for NSA of espionage?

I don't know Berlins, particularly because what he's going to testify about is classified. All I know is what I read from his press release, which seemed relevant as it is timed to coincide with the story we're discussing, and which includes this statement:

"In addition to knowing this fundamental commandment of not violating the civil rights of Americans, intelligence officers are required to take an oath to protect the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state."

An NSA officer who believes that we've "decayed into a police state" seemed related to what we were discussing here.

This may be relevent then.

Testify Before Congress About Threats To National Security

11-30-5

Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, yesterday postponed a hearing on national security whistleblowers.

The decision came one day after the US Supreme Court denied cert in the case of translator Sibel Edmonds against the FBI. The Edmonds case highlighted a Bush administration policy of harassment and termination of intelligence and law enforcement agents who demonstrate any degree of independence, adherence to ethics, or skepticism. Edmonds and other national security veterans formed the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition as a result.

The following letter was sent by wrongfully terminated National Security Agency (NSA) analyst Russ Tice to Shays prior to the postponement of the hearing:

28 NOV 2005
The Honorable Christopher H. Shays,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations,
U.S. House of Representatives,
1126 Longworth Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515-0704
Dear Congressman Shays,

I am a former intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA), where I was retaliated against for following regulations, and reporting my suspicions that a coworker was involved in espionage.

I have recently found out that the mother of the person I suspected was very-highly placed at posts in the Department of Defense (DoD) at the Defense Information Security Agency (DISA), as a Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon for Intelligence, and the Principal Deputy Director of the Defense Security Service (DSS).

She was granted these posts and given our country?s highest security clearances despite the fact that, as young women, she was a product of Communist China who came to the United States in 1960. Considering this, I believe the prospect of her daughter being involved in espionage is greatly enhanced.

The means of retaliation used against me by the security office at NSA was to have me declared psychotic in order to revoke my security clearance. This action was taken despite the fact that the very same office at NSA conducted my routine psychological evaluation only nine months prior and found me to be normal.

The DoD Inspector General, and the Merit System Protection Board have already sanctioned this outrageous act. As you know, the whistleblower laws both current and proposed do not protect me from such a vile act as this. Consequently, I believe I would be a perfect candidate to testify at your subcommittee hearing on national security whistleblowers and the abuse of security clearances.

I have been informed by POGO that my name was submitted to your office as a candidate to testify at this hearing, yet I have received no word from you. From what I understand, your hearing will include the bureaucratic entities that condone and foster the very misconduct that is in question.

I likewise have heard that the two whistleblowers to appear were not removed from their posts nor were their security clearances revoked in retaliation. Can you please explain to me why I was not contacted by your office about this upcoming hearing or why no intelligence officers will be testifying? At this date I am still very willing to testify at your hearing and I would think that the retaliation dealt to me by the ?National Security? Agency (NSA) would be very pertinent to a hearing on ?national security? whistleblowers.

As it currently stands, your proposed hearing does not represent me or the abuses perpetrated against U.S. intelligence officers. It also omits the only organization that is specifically dedicated to national security whistleblowers, the National Security WhistleBlower Coalition (NSWBC).

To the detriment of the security of our citizens, the Intelligence Community (IC) is using security clearance revocations as weapons of retaliation to silence officers as a means of covering up malfeasance, misconduct, and incompetence. In this letter I have intentionally included some specifics of my case to alert you to the gravity of the potential consequences that involve national security whistleblowers.

It is with this in mind that I implore you to forgo the 06 December hearing and reschedule it to include intelligence officers that have been victims of security clearance abuses and other NSWBC members who have recent and firsthand knowledge of what these abuses mean in terms of our nation?s security. Anything other will be a travesty of justice and a serious breach of faith of the American people in terms of their safety and security that is entrusted into your hands.

Very Respectfully,
Russell D. Tice
Former Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, National Security Agency
Member, NSWBC

Shay's postponement notice:

POSTPONEMENT NOTICE
11/29/05

TO: Members of the Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations The Subcommittee hearing entitled:

National Security Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost in a Labyrinth and Facing Retaliation by Security Clearance Revocation originally scheduled for December 6 has been postponed.

Issues involving security clearances and whistleblower protections are both complex and controversial. Invited witnesses, particularly the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), requested more time to gather information and prepare testimony.

In the meantime, the Subcommittee has directed inquiry letters to key federal agencies seeking documents detailing the myriad of regulations, policies and practices that govern security clearance suspension and revocation. Clearance actions can be used as a retaliatory tool against whistleblowers. Agency responses are due on or before January 9, 2006. The hearing has been rescheduled for January 24.

This article in today's Christian Science Monitor
may be germane to the Tice case:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1130/p01s01-usfp.html
http://waynemadsenreport.com/

Berlins,

I didn't know that was the background to his press release, although I do vaguely recall hearing about the CSM story. If he's ever able to testify, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. Although if his experience is anything like that of Sibel Edmonds, the world will never know.

A few days ago, I was trying to make the case that people who handle classified material are protected under the whistleblower laws. This fellow Tice needs to find someone in DC who's handled a good whistleblower case and then get ready for a protracted fight, hopefully with someone who's in it for publicity not the money. There's at least one or two lawyers in DC who aren't all about money. He just needs to hook up with one of them.

cmdicely could accelerate through law school, pass the bar, and wipe the government up one side of the courtroom and down the other if he put his mind to it. I don't know about Stefan--I think he'd probably shake the foundations of government so badly that we might end up with a caesar at the end of the day. Windhorse, you and I can watch as it crumbles and feed info to thethirdPaul and all the other people by secretly sending text messages from a BlackBerry...

berlins,

I haven't seen you make one salient point, other than literally do whatever it takes to hide the fact that the President broke the law by sidestepping the FISA court.

I love the fact that rdw finally admitted that the President decided to 'bypass' the court. So much for the rule of law in this country. The day when American citizens can defend a President, regardless of what party that President belongs to, for blatantly and willfully ignoring the law, a standing court, and proceeding with an action which strips basic civil liberties from American citizens is the day when we might as well admit it...

America is not going to be a kick-ass country again until we throw these hacks into prison.

Pale Rider,

I believe America is a kick-ass country already. There is no better country in the world in my opinion.

berlins,

So why continue letting GWB and his gang of four run it into the ground?

You know damned well they broke the law; you're dancing around the point.

Sidestep the FISA court, you go to jail. End of story.

I would like to add that I believe America is a kick-ass country regardless who the president is or to what party he belongs.

Pale,
You would like that to be true. If it were the Democrats will make sure it happens. If not I guess its sour grapes for you.

Uh huh.

So it's perfectly okay for the President to have NSA collecting on civilians without approval from the FISA court?

Seems to me, when I was in the Army sort of around all that kind of stuff, hmmm, you couldn't do that, there was a thing called USSID 18 and all that, and, well...

I guess we could hem and haw. You're not as stupid as the other trolls. I would be sitting here right now, telling you, yep, if Clinton did this, he should be impeached. We're talking FISA not Title III. Where do you stand?

Conservatives believe in a kick ass America. Hell, we could see George Allen elected President in 2008. Think he'd put up with this shit? We all know McCain wouldn't.

I could not say what other people like Allen or McCain.
Is it "perfectly okay" no, just okay. Because it isn't happening for reasons like getting information on someone so you can ruin him politically, but for stopping a terrorist from wrecking havoc in this country.

Honestly, it is irrelevent for whom and where you used to worked and what you did while you were there.

I think using words like impeach are not warrented.

FISA not Title III because I believe that Title III would need to be used for prosecutions. FISA is one of the organs setup to handle this kind of situation.

Is it "perfectly okay" no, just okay.

Goodbye to your civil liberties then. And when a Democrat does it, shut up.

Seriously, all of you trolls--nobody should have the right to sidestep the FISA court or ANY court anywhere in this country.

It's called the rule of law, and it is the basis for Western civilization. Yep, it's what distinguishes us from emperors and kings and potentates and dictators. The rule of law is the basis for the freedom everyone enjoys in this country, and the Republican Party is on the side of history which says, 'nah...there were terrorists and we're scared so the rule of law doesn't mean anything anymore...'

The rule of law matters.

Seriously, ya'll better shut the fuck up when a Democrat ignores the law to protect this country from harm. Ya'll better just shut. the. fuck. up.

Which won't happen--you can't stop being scared of some guys with rags on their head. What happened to the America I knew? The one that wasn't the least bit afraid of the Soviet Union? A couple thousand guys wearing their laundry on their head, howling about Allah has the Republican party pissing itself silly. And get Clinton's penis out your mouth I mean mind.

On the flip side if President Hillary Rodham were to to be doing this and it was for the same reason ie.. protecting America and its citizens from terrorist attacks by intercepting communications from foreign countries to American citizen or visa versa, I would have to give her a pass. the Program is not being used on a massive basis, There are special circumstances. If it's for nefarious motives involved then by all means somehting needs to be done. This is not a systematic abuse of Americans civil Liberties.

Pale,

You need to settle down. You act as though only you care about civil liberties. Guess what, when your dead from a terrorist attack your liberties are dead too.

so much for civil discourse as well. good night.

it's video poker night.

Guess what, when your dead from a terrorist attack your liberties are dead too.

Patrick Henry faced the reality of death up close and personal every day. At any moment it could happen from the end of a bayonet or a musket, from cannonballs or a hangman's rope.

And he seemed to view the situation a little differently.

But he was funny that way.

just won with an Ace high flush.

Wind horse,

That's great what Patrick Henry said but let's not forget what he did to secure his liberties.

That's great what Patrick Henry said but let's not forget what he did to secure his liberties.

Stood up to a tyrannical government? Ensured the blessings of liberty for himself and his posterity? Bitched about governing done in secret like the Constitutional Convention, because government should be transparent in a healthy democracy?

I thought that's what we were doing here.

[hint: if you're making an analogy, the Bush administration corresponds to the English Throne, not the terrorists, who would be more like the unfriendly Native Americans of the time]

The mere subjective suspicion of involvement in terrorism on the part of the searcher is neither "probable cause" nor "reasonable" by any reasonable interpretation of the language.

I disagree and am quite confident a large majority of americans will disagree. Even pre 9/11 a large number would disagree.

It would help if we had examples. Everything is subjective. The suspicion obviously has to be reasonable. If someone is on the phone with an al Qaeda member then ALL of that persons communications s/b reviewed until and unless we can be confident they are not suspicious.

You are trying to compare Patrick Henry and his fight for independence with GW trying to defend the Country against terrorists.
Whatever.
Funny thing about Democracies, they inherently never please a majority of the people. So you will always have a set a disaffected people who are forever unhappy with the current government. Sort of lik Windhorse and Pale Rider.
It would not matter in the least if GW acted within his authority and under the law. To these folks he is the anti-christ, he is the Satan incarnate, he is Buddy the dog.

That you would liken the terrorist to Native Americans is funny. I would have thought you would have supported their cause and today be speaking Cherokee.

I love the fact that rdw finally admitted that the President decided to 'bypass' the court. So much for the rule of law in this country. The day when American citizens can defend a President, regardless of what party that President belongs to, for blatantly and willfully ignoring the law, a standing court, and proceeding with an action which strips basic civil liberties from American citizens is the day when we might as well admit it...

I have no idea how you read 'finally admitted' into my 'bypass' comments. GWB bypassed the courts the same way he bypasses the French the Canadians, The UN, etc., every day. They are irrelevent. GWB has the authority by virture of the power in vested in the Presidency by the Constitution. He can 'bypass' FISA because it does not apply. This has been my position from the very beginning. There's no 'finally'.

America is not going to be a kick-ass country again until we throw these hacks into prison

And let me guess bring back a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton? There's a reason Americans think Democrats are weak on national security. BECAUSE YOU ARE!!!

History will prove Jimmy Carter to be the biggest sap of the last 100 years. What the Russians did to show their total contempt for his is still an embarrassment. That Mr. Malaise is only a bottom 10 President is a disgrace. He's bottom 5. We were real kickass for 444 days weren't we?

We can at least agree Bill Clinton would never have been President if there had been a Soviet Union and certainly not in a post 9/11 world. Osama's writings show the exact same contempt al Qaeda had for Clinton that the Iranian students, the Russians, Cubans, Angolans, et. had for Carter. If the admitted draft dodger had run against the fighter pilot in 2004 he'd have gotten his butt kicked. But then that's why you replaced Dean with Kerry. Clinton would not have made it through the primaries.

"The mere subjective suspicion of involvement in terrorism on the part of the searcher is neither "probable cause" nor "reasonable" by any reasonable interpretation of the language."

If the searcher is one of those professionals whose job is to determine such probable cause then yes it is reasonable. We train these people to find these things out. Probable cause does not mean absolute certainty.

A couple thousand guys wearing their laundry on their head, howling about Allah has the Republican party pissing itself silly

Are you really calling our Middle Eastern neighbors towelheads?

I'm having a hard time figuring out what 'pissing itself silly' means. If sending 140,000 rangers and marines over the to kill 50,000 insurgents is pissing oneself silly I guess you are correct. If sending 140K troops over there and telling the French, Germans, Russians, Canadins, Kofi, Jimmy Carter and Sean Penn to shove it up their *ass is pissing oneself silly I guess you have a point. If getting over 60M Americans to vote for the guy who sent 140k troops over there while telling the French, Germans, Russians, Canadians, Kofi, Jimmy and Sean to shove it is pissing oneself I guess you have a point.

How can 60M Americans be so stupid? Seems like they were so busy pissing themselves.

I think I left out the Kyoto crowd. My guess is they hate GWB far more than you do. I will admit they're not pissing themselves. Not yet. They're too stupid. They have absolutely NO idea how badly Canada is going to miss it's commitments nor do they know how many others. It will be fascinating watching the citizens of these morally superior nations fork over big bucks to the Russians as they literally sneer with contempt at Canadian stupidity. I'd like to suggest I'm too big a person to take joy out of the trials and tribulations of others but in this case I'm going to love it. Liberals never heard of the Asian-Pacific Paternership. That's how good the MSM is. Kyoto has already been replaced and those morons are reporting 'watershed agreement' after the disasterous Montreal meetings. Life in the reality based community

Liberals are many things. But kickass is not one of them. You are NOT the party of JFK. You ARE the party of Jimmy Carter.

rdw: Expect an announcment soon on troop withdrawals to bring levels well below the old standard.

Yep. Bush giving in again to the polls. The insurgency hasn't relented or been contained and Bush said we needed the troops for that and that bringing them home now before the insurgency is defeated would be sending the wrong message, but he's going to do it anyway because its Christmas and his polling numbers are in the tank.

What balls!

Not.

We can at least agree . . .

You use this phrase a lot.

I don't think you understand what it means.

We don't agree with your pedantic, mendacious, and specious opinions and alleged facts.

Saying that we do and speaking for others won't change that fact anymore than . . .

"We (rdw and myself) can at least agree that Bush is a cock-sucking asshole liar . . ."

And you wonder why we call you arrogant!

Liberals are many things. But kickass is not one of them.

Liberals didn't negotiate with terrorists.

The GOP did.

They traded arms for hostages.

Reagan admitted it.

Liberals didn't finance a drug dealer because they trembled in their boots at the pathetic Sandanistas.

The GOP did.

Liberals didn't ally themselves with a murderous Pinochet because they were trembling in their boots about losing economic control over South America.

The GOP did.

Liberals don't teach people to constantly fear and to react out of fear (i.e., to be cowards in the face of terror).

The GOP does.

And Bush is the biggest, balless coward of all the GOP.

Well, next to you.

If sending 140,000 rangers and marines over the to kill 50,000 insurgents is pissing oneself silly I guess you are correct.

Funny. Those 50,000 insurgents don't seem to be dead. Yet Bush is bringing troops home.

Yep.

Pretty much pissing himself silly that he can't figure out a way out of the war without looking like a fool, a coward, and a hypocrite.

Pissing himself silly because he knows he's going down as one of the most vile and embarassing presidents of the last century - right up there with Hoover and Nixon.

Yep. The GOP is the party of Nixon, not Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy actuall fought criminals; the current GOP are the criminals.

"If sending 140,000 rangers and marines over the to kill 50,000 insurgents is pissing oneself silly I guess you are correct"

Right Wing Dickwad, a non-American and a miserable fucking idiot to boot, is unaware that the entire strength of the USMC is some 178,000 and that the 75th only has about 2,000 Rangers. There aren't 140,000 Rangers and Marines in Iraq. Are you completely ignorant about every fucking thing in the world?

cmdicely,

It seems this little exercise will not make it to the supreme court unless someone with standing files to sue. That has to be someone who has been directly harmed and it's unlikely that's happened or if they'd even know about it.

There is a possibility the Justice Department will start an investigation of the leakers of the classified program. We know from the Plame Case the NYTs will have to identify their sources or the reporters will sit in jail.

I doubt if you are interested but if you go to Hugh Hewitts website you'll find a transcrpit of his interview with Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a self identified liberal and member of Jimmy Carter's Justice Dept. The good professor seems to think George has by far the better legal argument and that the MSM has done an abysmal job of coverage.

This is clearly another case of liberals with their hair on fire. You can only claim the sky is falling so many times. We've seen how this works. The MSM gets everyone agitated but misstates or ignores all the important facts. These facts in the post Fox-Rush-blog-Dan Rather world get out but it can take a little longer. We do know more people interested in these stories get their facts from the alternate media than from ABC. It doesn't help your cause either that average Americans have a far better appreciation for the decency of those working to defend America, such as soldiers, police, fire. emts, FBI, etc. than they do for a liberal from San Franciso such as Nancy Pelosi so immersed in partisan politics and Bush hatred.

Liberals really haven't figured out this shift yet. Until you can prove there was some funny business with this program most Americans will see it as the security agencies in a fight with terrorists doing everything they legally can to win with the maximum support of their C in C.

pissing himself silly...

That describes rdw completely.

rdw: We've seen how this works. The MSM gets everyone agitated but misstates or ignores all the important facts.

We've seen how you and the Bush administration work. You get everybody agitated about WMDs and WMD programs but lie about, mistate and ignore all the important facts. Then, you fail to catch the perpetrators of 9/11, making all your anti-terrorist activites appear futile and without credibility.

A G, Pale Rider,

It's not me saying it's the perception of a majority of Americans that liberals are weak on national security it's every pollster in the land.

John Kerry is proof. There is no chance he gets the nomination over Howard Dean or anyone else if not for the fact he was a WAR VET with medals. The Democratic party AND the democratic primary voters AS WELL AS the MSM ALL felt you needed a candidate who could prove his 'toughness'. The effete Dean, the only candidate with a pulse, was tossed aside.

This is a known achillies heel of the Democratic Party. It is accepted wisdom the liberal left turn in 1968 has been a disaster on this score. Jimmy Carter was only elected due to Watergate and Clinton's nomination was only made possible by the collapse of the USSR. Carters 50.1% was the only time after 1964 a Democrat could get a majority of the popular vote.

Don't attack me. These are the facts and the conventional wisdom.

Pale Rider,

I live 25 miles outside Philly in beautiful Chester County. I am 3 miles from horse country in one direction and 15 miles from Amish country in another. I am far from any major bases. I am as safe as safe can be.

My party is in control of the federal government, chester county and the state legislature. Fast Eddie Rendell is a Democrat but as a former prosecutor hardly qualifies as liberal. He campaigned on getting slots passed to use the money to lower property taxes. As the former mayor of Philly he favors gun cotrol but would not dare act on it in this state. It would not matter if he did. He can't bypas the state legislature.

Only GWB can bypass the legislature.

Pissing myself? Over my good luck maybe

What weakness brings

From the London Telegraph's Anton La Guardia:

A wave of arrests across Europe has thrown new light on a European terrorist network being developed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most prominent insurgent in Iraq....
"Zarqawi thinks he is bigger than Iraq," a British source said. "He is spreading his tentacles in Europe. There is a sense that attacks are inevitable.

"Even before the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi had a network in Europe that provided funds and recruits. The same pipeline will sooner or later pump the other way, from Iraq to Europe."

In France last week Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, said that a sweep of 25 alleged Islamic militants and common criminals had broken up a terrorist network with links to Algerian and Chechen organisations and "indirect relations with al-Zarqawi"....

This week Spanish police arrested 15 people in raids across the country. Those detained are suspected of recruiting fighters for Iraq.

The terrorist know we'll come after them where they live and kill them as well as those who help them. Osama is either living in a hole or he is dead. This is so because George W Bush destroyed his home and everyone who stayed beind. We have killed 50,000.

The choice of attacking Europe or attacking the US it's not all that hard. Not only is it much easier but even if caught and convicted it's only 15 years.

Funny thing about Democracies, they inherently never please a majority of the people. So you will always have a set a disaffected people who are forever unhappy with the current government

Right as rain there. I remember this set of disaffected people during the roaring 90's. They were called Republicans, Dittoheads to be more precise.

That you would liken the terrorist to Native Americans is funny. I would have thought you would have supported their cause and today be speaking Cherokee.

I was just going with the analogy you suggested, and it's a historical fact that many Indian tribes were unfriendly to the people encroaching on their land.

Weird, I know.

But, since I am part aboriginal I am very sympathetic to the plight of the First Peoples in America. If you haven't read "1491" by Charles Mann I recommend it. The most recent archaeological evidence suggests the "savages" that roamed this land were in some respects more advanced than the Europeans, but had the poor misfortune of having their numbers utterly decimated by disease quickly after Columbus arrived, laying them open to colonization.

It would not matter in the least if GW acted within his authority and under the law. To these folks he is the anti-christ, he is the Satan incarnate, he is Buddy the dog.

It's not that Bush is the anti-Christ, it's that he keeps acting like it by making the wrong choices. The major theme that rdw is actually correct about which at the same time is the most damning for his own case is that Bush does do well politically -- by consistently making the poorest moral choices and justifying them by appealing to the fear and bigotry of the masses.

Also, hiding the fact that even during the campaign he had designs to go into Iraq, not taking terrorism seriously when he came into office then using 9/11 and the scare of WMD's for political cover for an invasion - that's beyond disgraceful. It truly is impeachable. People can talk about "bad intelligence" all they want, the "truth" (and I know that means nothing to you rdw) is that intelligence agents were throwing themselves on their swords prior to the invasion trying to draw attention to the fact that the administration was manipulating their findings.

That's how I and people like me knew with utter certainly there would be no WMD's found, simply by paying attention.

With regard to the issue at hand, the real danger is of any chief executive spying on Americans without oversight, and that's why it is so important to prevent that precedent from ever being set. Even if Bush doesn't use it for nefarious purposes, the guy ten years down the road might.

Safeguarding the future for our children and their children is an important responsibility of being human, not just winning elections at any cost.

[cue bizarre rdw rant on how Democrats are doomed]

AG cmdicely Pale Rider solar,

It seems when confronted with ideas and facts that you don't like you turn to name calling and degrading your opponent. That may make you feel better but does nothing to further your argument. It also lessons the impact of your statements.

So in the spirit of congenial debate I must apologize to cmdicely for calling him/her delusional once.

"Did you catch that last sentence? "Why do we even exist if the Bush administration claims absolute wartime power to do anything it wants without our approval?"

I think the point is when fighting a war the President does not need to go to a court, a judge or the Congress to act in defense of the Nation.

"the fact that the administration was manipulating their findings."

Things like this you know are not true. But then again the 9-11 comision can't be trusted either because there are Republicans on the panel.

"appealing to the fear and bigotry of the masses"

You mean a democracy, right?

"That's how I and people like me knew with utter certainly there would be no WMD's found, simply by paying attention."

That is not what the U.S., Russian, German, or French intelligence agencies believed nor the
U.N..

"With regard to the issue at hand, the real danger is of any chief executive spying on Americans without oversight, and that's why it is so important to prevent that precedent from ever being set. Even if Bush doesn't use it for nefarious purposes, the guy ten years down the road might."

You are absolutely correct in this statement in context to domestic crinimality, but I must cavet that with this: When in the conduct of fighting a war and yes we are at war regardless of what you think, The President may act with all expediency and without a FISA warrent, to intercept terrorist communications whether they are going to another terorist or a US Citizen.

Things like this you know are not true.

Prior to the invasion Karen Kwiatkowsky at the DoD complained the administration was "cherry-picking" intelligence and in some instances representing it to mean exactly the opposite of what the reports said. She was one of a number of voices risking their careers to point this out.

The Congressional Research Service determined just two weeks ago that Congress did not see the same intelligence as the White House. The raw intelligence seen by the WH contained all sorts of caveats, enough to through suspicion on the entire endeavor; these were sanitzed from the Congressional reports.

Larry Wilkerson contends that neither he nor Colin Powell believed the "chinese menu" of intel given to them prior to the U.N. presentation. In his public talks he characterizes the conclusions given them as "clearly contrived" and says that Powell spent four days arguing on the phone with Tenet about presenting that info.

You may believe what you like about my predispositions, the fact of the matter is that I began as an avowed believer in the presence of WMD's, having been initially duped by Judith Miller, but by carefully following the news I eventually realized there were none.

And it doesn't matter what any other intelligence agency thought: we had inspectors on the ground who were telling us there were no weapons. We pulled them out before their conclusions could be certified and put the prospect of an unjustified war at risk.

"appealing to the fear and bigotry of the masses: -- You mean a democracy, right?

Sure it's democracy but it's an abuse of leadership and of democratic ideals. The costs of such abuse are terrible, not only in the destruction of public trust (what you sense here) and damage to discourse (what you also see here) but in the case of Iraq the terrible price paid in blood, treasure, and almost certain future blowback.

and yes we are at war regardless of what you think

Your asserting it doesn't make it true. There can never be a war against a tactic. Criminal organizations exist that want to hurt western interests -- they also want to hurt eurpean and Israeli and Russian and Jordanian and Eyptian and Saudi Arabian and Balinese interests and others. You war against a state with armies and weaponry. When it's a few hundred or few thousand guys around the world, that's a criminal organization.

windhorse,

Elitists like youself are your own worst enemy. The average citizen you show such distain for is just as dumb as GWB. That is, dumb enough to smell an elitist a mile away and know that whatever they say and do, do the opposite.

You are the kind of fool like Jimmy Carter, Richard Holbrook, Strobe Talbot, Mad Maddy Albright, John kenneth Galbraith, etc. who spent the 70's and 80's preaching we needed to understand socialism was a perfectly viable system and we had no business imposing our values on those choosing it and to learn to live with them.

You shot your wad. You have virtually every Ivy League professor and most other profesors on your side. Intellectually speaking Reagan delivered you such an ass-kicking NO ONE looks to academia for much of anything policy wise. There is no intellectual left. Just as the term 'liberal' has fallen from favor so has the reputation of academia. The most common connection attached to a faculty member is 'Odd Duck', high IQ, zero common sense. As George Orwell once said of socialism, "only intellectuals could believe something so stupid"

All a GOP candidate need do in a red state or border state is use the elitism charge effectively and they win. This is so not 1968 anymore. Politicians are far too smart to run at the mouth as you have but we can still smell them a mile away.

The National Inteligence Estimate, 17 U.N. resolutions, 2 Authorizatrions to Use Military force. These things did not come about unless there was something there. Trott out all the people you want who didn't see eye to eye with the President that means nothing. You can do the same thing about every war we ever fought. WWI, WWII, Korea .... Its is so easy to be in the conspiratorial camp because circumstantial evidence is all you need to make your judgement.

"appealing to the fear and bigotry of the masses: -- You mean a democracy, right?
Sure it's democracy but it's an abuse of leadership and of democratic ideals. The costs of such abuse are terrible, not only in the destruction of public trust (what you sense here) and damage to discourse (what you also see here) but in the case of Iraq the terrible price paid in blood, treasure, and almost certain future blowback."

You suffer from the fact that your party is out of favor with the American People and instead of just supporting your ideas you have to say that those who don't are ignorant bigots. I couldn't disagree more. You can't think for everyone, You can only express your opinion and hope it takes with the people. You claim the other side lies the other side claims you lie.

"Your asserting it doesn't make it true. There can never be a war against a tactic. Criminal organizations exist that want to hurt western interests -- they also want to hurt eurpean and Israeli and Russian and Jordanian and Eyptian and Saudi Arabian and Balinese interests and others. You war against a state with armies and weaponry. When it's a few hundred or few thousand guys around the world, that's a criminal organization."

If we can declare war on Barbary Pirates then we can declare war on UBL and his cohorts. I think that you put far to many limits on what the US can and should do. States have not always needed to exist for war to be waged.
Is handling UBL in a Criminal court the right way to go about fighting him? Shall we form a police unit to go out and round up his people? Should we make sure that the all of his civil rights are not abuse in tracking him down and capturing him?

And for those who think the 4th amendment is absolute, as someone mentioned, as a civics excercise find me all the Supreme Court exemptions to the 4th amendments where warrents were not needed for domestic law enforcement. I would like everyone to participate.

rdw, thank you for stepping up with your usual and predictable manic outburst.

There is nothing elitist about valuing learning, knowledge, information, or discernment. Ranting against these thing only reveals you for the brownshirt that you are. The sum total of every one of your posts on this board is the same: morality doesn't matter, truth doesn't matter, lives don't matter -- all that matters is winning in the political arena.

And that is simply monstrous.

As for my background, I grew up in a lower-middle class blue-collar family with immigrant grandparents on one side and poor policemen and farmers on the other. There is nothing elitist about me. As an average American, I have every right to point out that the American public is fooled as easily as anyone else. Critics from de Tocqueville to Twain to Mencken have observed this. By your own logic they can be fooled, because if they couldn't they wouldn't have supported Clinton so vigorously or kept Democrats in Congress for forty years, right?

Berlins, my party is not out of favor because I am an Independent. Right now I'd vote for a true conservative in a second over the neocons we have in office. You are correct that careful reasoning is out of favor, however, having given sway to fear and reaction.

As for using the police to round up Al-Qaeda, that has been happening since 9/11 and continues to happen.

Trott out all the people you want who didn't see eye to eye with the President that means nothing.

It may mean nothing in terms of political power, but in terms of truth it is significant, just as evidence in any criminal case is significant.

You claim the other side lies the other side claims you lie.

I didn't lie. I claimed that Saddam did not have weapons and was contained and that war would start a disastrous inter-ethnic conflict in the country. And I was correct.

Who lied? At best, who "exaggerated?" I seem to remember definitive claims from the administration that they "knew" Saddam was supporting al-Qaeda and the "knew" he was reconstituting nuclear weapons and they "knew" the WMD's were somewhere in the Sunni triangle and they "knew" the war would cost $30 billion but pay for itself and they "knew" 300,000 troops was too many, etc, etc.

Who lied?

Not me.

As for my background, I grew up in a lower-middle class blue-collar family with immigrant grandparents on one side and poor policemen and farmers on the other. There is nothing elitist about me.

You could be from slums and still be an elitists. Elitism is a state of mind not a financial condition. Sneering contempt for the easily fooled 'masses' is but one sign.

As an average American, I have every right to point out that the American public is fooled as easily as anyone else.

The bill of Rights does indeed cover elitists.

Critics from de Tocqueville to Twain to Mencken have observed this. By your own logic they can be fooled, because if they couldn't they wouldn't have supported Clinton so vigorously or kept Democrats in Congress for forty years, right?

Bill Clinton didn't fool anyone. We knew exactly what we were getting when we elected him. There isn't a single thing that occurred during his administration that could be considered even remotely surprising based on his previous history. His nickname, Slick Willie, was 25 yars old. Thus I don't share your pretension of the 'masses' being fools. They knew what they were getting and betting he'd 'matured'.

I didn't vote for him but that's life in a Democracy. GHWB committed suicide by raising taxes and destroying the support of his conservative base. Ross Perot recognized oppotunity as did Clinton. A lot of more seasoned and better known Democrats decided to pass early on and Clinton himself probably didn't think he could win but wanted to get national exposure for 1996. He benefitted creatly from the collapse of the USSR, Perot and GHWB wooden campaign. He also worked his ass off.

I thought it was a mistake then and still do. He was a weak President and it was our fortune he lost Congress so quickly and Reagan left us so dominant.

Sneering contempt for the easily fooled 'masses' is but one sign.

I don't have contempt at all, sneering or otherwise for people who believe differently than I. Good people are as able to be misled, and I've been misled many times in my life.

Most of your posts, however, show sneering contempt for anything remotely Democratic, liberal, European, or values human life above making a dollar.

Reagan left us so dominant.

And that's the heart of it, isn't it? Anyone who disagrees with the "dominant" and therefore "correct" part of society is "elitist," and subject to scorn or ridicule. And people involved in teaching or research or science may be ahead of the curve in society in terms of their knowledge, so all these are individuals are suspect at best and to be ridiculed or marginalized at worst.

See my earlier Brownshirt remarks.

I have a suspicion it's not smart people who bug you, because you're pretty intelligent, but it's people who appeal to a moral or spiritual scheme in their arguments that really get your goat.

I wonder why that is?

"It seems when confronted with ideas and facts that you don't like you turn to name calling and degrading your opponent."

You degrade yourself with your broken English, dishonesty, and twisted facts and logic. You need no help from me. Oh, and fuck you.

And for laughs, Right Wing Dickwad used "intellectually" and Reagan in the same sentence. Come to think of it, Reagan was an intellectual compared to RW Dickwad. Tell us more about the 140000 Rangers and Marines in Iraq, would you?

I have a suspicion it's not smart people who bug you, because you're pretty intelligent, but it's people who appeal to a moral or spiritual scheme in their arguments that really get your goat.

Smart people who think they're smarter than everyone ele bug me. People who think because they have a college degree they're smart bug me. My father had a great line. A moron with a college degree is still a moron.

You've lost me completely on the moral and spiritual thing. If you are suggesting the Democratic party is more moral or spititual that's just stupid. A party can't be moral or spiritual, only people. I you are suggesting your 'idea's' are more moral that's just as stupid. I don't think either group is more moral or spiritual than the other although the Democratic party is clearly more anti-organized religion and consumed by political correctness.

I don't disrespect true blue liberals who just believe their way is the better way for society. I just disagree with them. I have a great deal of respect for Bono because it's clear his cause is about results, not him. Sean Penn is a bufoon. George Clooney is mostly bufoon but is learning. I respect Susan Saradon a great deal but her husband is an asshole. Susan would probably poke my eyes out in a minute but she comes to her beliefs honestly and is far more sincere in her efforts. Penn, Glooney, Tim Robbins are ego. They grandstand before the hometown fans to hear the cheers. It's about them. Bono learned quickly he could do that or he could be effective. Sneering is not an effective sales campaign.

Bono in fact tried to tell Clooney if he wanted to be more effective he had to drop the partisanship. He can't. He's made it clear he thinks the term 'liberal' has been tarnished and he wants to restore it. George is clueless. He puts out two agenda movies with the oldest liberal stereotypes in the world, i.e., republicans are evil, democrats are good, oil companies are evil, the MSM is very good, etc. George is trapped in that 60's, vietnam, watergate politically correct liberalism that is so repulsive to so many. He can only be what he is. Obviously he can't restore liberlism AND be non-partisan. Worse for George is he lives in an echo chamber.

The shame of it is George, Tim and Sean mean well. They're just to egotistic to do well.

solar,

check this out:

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

The Rankings

Monday, September 12, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

In February and March 2005, the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal asked an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rate the presidents on a 5-point scale, with 5 meaning highly superior and 1 meaning well below average. Eighty-five scholars responded, and the presidents are ranked in order of mean score, adjusted to give equal weight to Democratic- and Republican-leaning respondents.

RANK NAME MEAN
GREAT
1 George Washington 4.94
2 Abraham Lincoln 4.67
3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.41
NEAR GREAT
4 Thomas Jefferson 4.23
5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.08
6 Ronald Reagan 4.03
7 Harry Truman 3.95
8 Dwight Eisenhower 3.67
9 James Polk 3.59
10 Andrew Jackson 3.58
ABOVE AVERAGE
11 Woodrow Wilson 3.41
12 Grover Cleveland 3.34
13 John Adams 3.33
14 William McKinley 3.32
15 John Kennedy 3.25
16 James Monroe 3.24
AVERAGE
17 James Madison 3.07
18 Lyndon Johnson 3.05
19 George W. Bush 3.01
20 William Taft 2.97
21 George H.W. Bush 2.95
22 Bill Clinton 2.93
23 Calvin Coolidge 2.77
24 Rutherford Hayes 2.73
BELOW AVERAGE
25 John Quincy Adams 2.66
26 Chester Arthur 2.65
27 Martin Van Buren 2.63
28 Gerald Ford 2.61
29 Ulysses Grant 2.57
30 Benjamin Harrison 2.54
31 Herbert Hoover 2.50
32 Richard Nixon 2.40
33 Zachary Taylor 2.30
34 Jimmy Carter 2.24
35 John Tyler 2.23
FAILURE
36 Millard Fillmore 1.85
37 Andrew Johnson 1.75
38 Franklin Pierce 1.73
39 Warren Harding 1.65
40 James Buchanan 1.31

Reagan, a college graduate in economics in the early 30's, would hate to be called an intellectual. He saw what they did the last century. Let's just say a man of amazing accomplishment.

Still answering to Right Wing Dickwad? Good troll, nice troll.

Tell us more about the 140,000, would ya, ya moron.

P.S. When they talk about you, they call you a buffoon (note sp.).

solar,

How'd you like those rankings? Most libs are horrified at Ronald Reagan #6, Near Great.

Quite correct about the 140K. We had 160K over there for the elections. Very cool isn't it that GWB gets to announce big troop withdrawals now? We'll have several more such announcements before the 11/06 elections of course. American troops returning in victory won't be hurting the GOP even a little bit.