I guess I kinda agree with Wittmann. When you look at the details, the wiretaps are against what in today's terror climate are considered suspicious people in this country making international calls.

Also, Bush's illegal wire taps (and they are illegal) are in defense of the country. He ought to get the FISA thing worked out so the monitoring is legal. No prez is above the law.

But if a few more wrinkles appear in the story, then it will get ugly. Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag. Ok, getting warmer.

But if we find that the NSA was tapping political groups to help win elections, al la Nixon, then the shit will hit the fan. Not saying this is the case, but if it is, the outrage will have some real fuel. At this point, I'm giving Bush the BOTD. But I'm skeptical.

Karl Rove with NSA wiretaps. Now that is impeachable.

Americans WANT the FBI to wiretap Al Queda. Isn't that obvious?

So lemme see if I've got this: National Dems aren't quite sure about what they think, so until they can be reasonably sure what'll play with the focus groups, they'll keep comfortably decorous, polite.

That's sure an inspired way to persuade people that you can be courageous and make tough national security decisions, you bet!

By the way, the NSA wiretap program is legal and it has precedent from previous administrations.

Why is Steve Benen acting like the program is illegal?

By all means, let's listen to Wittmann--he's doing a fabulous job of making sure that every RNC talking point is backed up by admissions from Democrats like himself that the talking points are true.

Feh!

Bush broke the law. Period. This certainly qualifies as a "high crime," given that the penalties prescribed by statute make it a felony. Forget civil liberties, or "protecting America," or any of the other fatuous claptrap that can get twisted and spun. There is only one issue here:

Is the president bound by the laws of the United States?

We have more than 200 years of jurisprudence that state unequivocally that he is. He even takes an oath of office, swearing to uphold the laws.

For anyone to state that Bush should not be bound by our laws is to reject utterly the very foundations of this country. And that, by definition, is hatred of America.

Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances

WHAT check and balances are you talking about? What should Democrats insist on?

Bottom line: what would you recommend Democrats do if Republicans proposed a bill permitting Bush to do exactly what he is doing right now? Should they vote yea or nay?

Shorter GOPGregory:

Ignorance is my only solace!

I understand Democrats being gun-shy about this. They know that the other side will always attack them as weak on national security and they are afraid of giving them more ammunition.

On the other hand, short of pulling a Lieberman and wholly endorsing the President's foreign policy in every way, there is nothing, nothing, nothing that will keep a Democrat from getting called a pansy weak-ass who lives in a September 10 world (tm). They might as well accept this and do the right thing, which is to say that the brave new post-9/11 world doesn't give Bush the right to break the law. Even assuming that this will keep the Democrats a minority party, I'd rather have a minority party that does the right thing than a majority party that does the wrong thing. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate in 2002, and they screwed up by giving Bush the authority to fight the Iraq war; they're doing a lot more good now as a minority party, because they are at least making some token gestures toward doing the right thing.

If the suggestion to not criticize W for spying on Americans is taken so seriously by the Democrats, the Democratic Party deserves all the electoral defeats that it will endure in the coming years.

Republican: Security through tyranny.

Democratic response: I'm all for security.

(cross posted from carpetbagger.com)

However, if it's "We need to eavesdrop in order to protect the country" vs. "Go right ahead, just follow the law and allow for some checks and balances," it's at least a fair fight based on the facts.

Absoluetly right. Not abuse of power–that's too theoretical. Not eroding our civil liberties–that's too complicated.

Law and order. They broke the law. Breaking the law is not okay. That's something that the all-important swing voter can understand and be angry about. Plus, it forces the GOP to say, "No, we didn't break the law because [insert legalistic reasoning here]."

To which we reply, "You broke the law. You didn't like the law and even though your party controls Congress you didn't change the law. You decided you were above the law. No one is above the law."

Double plus, it fights right in with the whole Delay, Abramoff sleaziness.

By all means, let's listen to Wittmann--he's doing a fabulous job of making sure that every RNC talking point is backed up by admissions from Democrats like himself that the talking points are true.

There's that point, too. Y'know, maybe it's possible that, despite his own self-promotion as some kind of political divining rod, Wittman doesn't represent anything other than his own grab bag of prejudices and reactions? Hell, the guy can do a complete 180 from one Moose post to the next. After a while you realize that you may as well be listening to the crank at the local bar....

Law enforcement always wants more power. That is natural and a given. Not only does it want more than is good and proper for our nation and Constitution, law enforcement wants more than is good for itself.

Like a kid in a candy shop, it is "I NEED this", "I NEED that". But it creates nothing more than a belly ache.

Too much information is even more deadly than not enough. There is no Google for terrorists. Law enforcement will commit suicide by drowning in information if it is not stopped. It is an addiction, and overdose is always a threat.

I repeatedly point out that everyone admits that US agencies, the FBI in particular, had all the information they needed to uncover the 911 attacks. The so called 20th hijacker was in custody, the info was on his PC. The FBI chose not to explore that information against the specific requests of the field agent in charge. They had the ability to gain access, but the reviewer insisted on improperly leaving out the required details that the field agent, Crowley, had specified.

Allow the FBI, et al, more access to data and we will find even less functional capability.

The Bull Moose could be right about the political dangers, but of course he himself is one of those painting the Democrats as weak on national security. And if Wittman is really a Democrat, I don't understand his motivation for trusting and praising Bush:

And does anyone seriously believe that the targets of these calls were anyone else than potential security threats?

Yes, a lot of us have serious doubts about that, especially since the recent revelations that the government has been spying on peaceful activists supporting peace, abortion rights, and animal rights.

What we do know is that we have not suffered another attack on the Homeland since 9/11. That is a miraculous fact. And President Bush should be applauded for protecting the country rather than excoriated, to say nothing of impeachment which is on the lips of some Democrats.

This is just embarrassing, repeating Cheney talking points. If the Moose wants to go all weak in the knees at our godlike commander-in-chief, he should go back to being a Republican.

The truth is that there is a PR infrastructure willing make an organize assault on any politician or figure who criticizes Bush in public. This isn't a matter of poll-testing or other such things. It's a fact. Don't believe me? Just examine the timing of which politician your curmudgeonly bush-supporting uncle was complaining about, and you'll notice it lines up exactly with whatever set of talking points the hate-radio guys were pushing that week. Unless the Democrats hit back on Bush's illegal wiretapping in an organized fashion, and hit back hard-- to the point where even Marshall Wittman is willing to parrot the Democratic party line for his own good-- then the Democrats are screwed on this issue. It's not a matter of whether it will make them look weak on national security, it's a matter of whether they can stand up to the PR attacks.

democratic leaders are acting like battered wives. they are afraid of being battered if they stand up for what is right, knowing fully well that the Republicans' assault on them and on their supposed weakness on national security will be equally vicious whether they criticize the President or not.

what a bunch of seventh grade sissies.

Of course there's also the very valid point that the President's lack of respect for the Constitution and ever-poor judgement has made America once again less safe from the very threat he says he's protecting us from since now each and every conviction against a terrorist will be challenged on the grounds of illegally gathered evidence. Way to go, jackass!

But don't worry, Bush was also using the NSA to spy on you and me, since we were the biggest threat to him. I mean what was more likely, a terrorist forcing Bush out of the White House or the American people? And we all know that the number one concern of Bush and his cronies has never been the safety of the American people (see PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" for further evidence, or the 9/11 Commission report card). First and foremost Bush cares about power, getting and keeping it. And if these callow shameful jerkoffs have shown us anything in the last five years it's never to let the truth get in the way of their agenda and never pass up an opportunity to ratfuck your political opponent.

The best predictor of future performance is past behavoir. What's that tell you is at the heart of the NSA scandal, protecting the country or the Chimp?

Yes, a lot of us have serious doubts about that, especially since the recent revelations that the government has been spying on peaceful activists supporting peace, abortion rights, and animal rights.

Well, y'know, those PETA terrorists are a fearsome bunch, liberating dairy cows, haranguing cheese eaters, etc.

Bush had 4 years to figure out how to do this legally. He had a Republican congress to work with. But he chose to do it illegally. The choice wasn't whether or not to conduct surveillance--the choice was whether to do it legally or illegally.

He broke the law and we still don't know why. Why did he choose to break the law?

I'd like to see the Democrats propose a Constitutional amendment asserting a right to privacy.

Q. Who is for govt intrusion into private lives?

A. The Republicans

The biggest threat to the US has alwys been from within. There is no credible external enemy with the power to destroy the US outside of total nuclear war. There is no credible external enemy with the power to even dent the US. The US is the strongest nation on Earth, and will remain that way until we screw up enough to change that.

The US population is its own worst enemy. We have a system in place that is capable of the most outstanding of human achievements, and of near perfect self regulation. All citizens need to do is be smart, and vote.

But we don't. And we get led by our fears and vices, and put a leader who is a perfect reflection of those fears and vices in charge of the government.

Soft democrats (such as Kevin Drum) enable fear to continue to rule us. He was proud to beat the war drums up until the last second, repeating republican neocon talking points almost without question, and being more than willing to tell everyone how wrong we were to think of anything other than security, even through the last election. My god, the world must seem a scary place to them. We still get periodic installments from Kevin about how vital our external security is, a philosophy that only cuts the feat from under the wiser and braver souls who know the only way to pull America back from the abyss is to not let our diminutive enemies control our actions through fear.

Democrats need to find the spirit of Roosevelt again. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. We can NEVER win the security arguement, because there will always be a republican demagogue willing to be more extreme than us.

We need a leader to give a "buck up, princess" speech, and tell us the bad men are pissants who got a lucky break due to an incompetent administration. We need a leader who will pull out of Iraq, and finish off Al Qaida. We need a leader who will concentrate on the internal threats - stupidity, poverty, racism, crime (of all colored collars), greed.

Steve, any chance you you staying here permanently?

I get it.

The Democrats are Republicans' bitches. The Democratic party leaders play their assigned role rather too well.

Bush and Cheney have left one door wide open for the Democrats, from the beginning, and maybe it is time for the Democrats to show courage by walking through that door.

I am talking about opposing the "GWOT" wholesale. The Bush policy has been to treat Al Quaeda et alia as a semi-military organization, as someone to go to war with/against. All of their tactics have been, "forget the rules, let's go at these guys with everything we've got".

The alternative is to treat Al Quaeda as a criminal organization: "follow the rules, be careful and systematic, and bring in your man."

Overall, the Bush strategy has not been a winning one. Lawless wiretapping is just one element in a totally misconceived "GWOT", which prevents or hinders doing what we should have done, from the beginning, to bring the bad guys to justice, while advancing global peace, stability and harmony.

But don't worry, Bush was also using the NSA to spy on you and me, since we were the biggest threat to him.

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives. I guess you are implying that you do. If so, well, too bad that you get spied on.

If the controversy boils down to "Bush wants to spy on bad guys and Dems aren't happy about it," it's a phony debate that skirts the real issues.

The last time I checked, most people don't seem to understand or care when debates are phony. See: Swift Boats, ID vs evolution, War on XMas.

A recurring problem is that Democrats might be *correct*, but only a small minority hears through the noise of the mighty wurlitzer. They need better, more concise and aggressive talking points - 'the president broke the law' - and they need a more widespread and organized messaging infrastructure.

I was wodering how the repugs seem to be a step a head, Now we know why, wiretapping to win Elections. Impeach!

Bush and Cheney have left one door wide open for the Democrats, from the beginning, and maybe it is time for the Democrats to show courage by walking through that door.

More than that -- show some fucking courage. Some national leader (preferably a Dem, but...) needs to follow the advice of Mysticdog, above, and point out that the Republic can only be threatened by cave-dwelling medievlists if Americans agree to throw away their best traditions. People talk about Bush's shining moment after September 11 -- hell, I never heard that speech from him, and I still haven't, and I don't expect I ever will. Instead, he's turning us into Guatemala writ large. Dems need to quit pussyfooting around about this.

Marshall Wittmann expressed similar concerns last week when he argued, "[T]he donkey is effectively "rebranding' and 'framing' itself as weak on national security."

Demanding that the administration's use of eavesdropping that has substantial chance of monitoring the private information and conversations of US persons be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has robust protections of security, can issue warrants after the fact, etc., is not "weak on national security". Its giving the executive every power it could legitimately need to conduct monitoring for national security purposes while, at the same time, providing oversight to assure that it is not abused, as past administrations have abused monitoring ability provoking the passage of FISA, as a tool to surveil domestic groups, for non-foreign-intelligence purposes, without oversight.

The issue of civil liberties is inseperable from the issue of accountability which is inseperable from the issue of national security, and, particularly, providing monitoring to assure that the executive is using resources assigned to "national security" for that and rather than, say, personal or partisan political purposes.

This is not a monarchy. There are requirements for either Congressional oversight (of non-warrant-based surveillance) or judicial oversight (of warrant-based surveillance) that the executive has avoided not out of any legitimate national security interest, not out of necessity or time pressure (since both requirements are after-the-fact), but simply and plainly out of the desire to avoid accountability, which is inexplicable unless the surveillance undertaken, is, in the administration's view, unjustifiable and unable to survive review, or unless the Administration has a desire to defy the law for the sake of defying the law, or both. Now, members of the Administration -- Dick Cheney foremost -- have stated that they don't like the post-Watergate laws put into place to provide accountability for domestic abuse and they seek to restore the Presidency to its unrestrained state before those laws were implemented, so its pretty clear, and not even hidden, that, whether or not the acts were justified, at least part of the motive for evading the legal requirement was to spit on the Constitutional duty of the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed. And that reason alone is enough to demonstrate that the leadership of this Administration is unsuitable for any position of trust, and certainly shouldn't be trusted with powers of arbitrary surveillance.

I, for one, don't make international telephone calls

Yo Al, you missed the latest talking points. Domestic calls were tapped as well.

Question Al: would you be okay if it was President Hillary Clinton doing what you think Bush did?

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives. I guess you are implying that you do. If so, well, too bad that you get spied on.

Ya never know, Al, they might be listening to your militia buddies, too.

While you people frolic in your own reality, have you checked out what the Democrats are doing who are actually going to be facing voters in 2006?

My favorite coal-mine canary in these issues is Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen all the news yet this week, but I think we're still waiting for her big Bush-bashing speech on the NSA issue.

Some are making the error that Democrats are unfairly having their national security credentials taken away from them. Sorry, but they're still firmly in the negatives on this. The Democrats have taken the wrong side on most national security issues for thirty years now, and they've got a long way to go to prove they can be trusted with the issue.

Remember, Republican candidates don't have to be great to win elections. They just have to be better than whatever Democrats are running against them. I think you found that out the hard way in 2004.

Democrats need to find the spirit of Roosevelt again.

Now THAT'S funny. FDR, undisputed champion of civil liberties in wartime.

Speak for yourself! I, for one, don't make international telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives.

And, so long as Bush's surveillance of US persons isn't subjected to judicial review as the law explicitly requires, there is no reason to believe any administration claim that those monitored do, either, except the word of someone who openly betrays their sworn duty, and his willing followers.

BTW, Steve, this isn't a "frameup." It's mostly the Republicans simply letting the Democrats run off the edge of the cliff with an issue again. It's worked pretty well so far.

Good grief. We can't have both security and protection of our liberties? I guess if we view government as being as totally incompetent as the Michael Browns of the world - I can see the concern of these pretend Democrats. The problem, however, is that this Administration is generally incompetent at fighting a real war on Al Qaeda saving all its expertise in a partisan war on we Democrats even as they go well beyond what Tricky Dick and his gang did over 30 years ago. There is no excuse for either their incompetence at fighting GWOT or their end running the law and perhaps our civil liberties. I'm sorry but any Democrat who wishes to defend this garbage is welcome to leave my party.

But GOPGregory ... if they're spying on Al Qaeda, they'll have no problem getting FISA approval, which they can do AFTER they've already spied.

Get it?

WHAT check and balances are you talking about?

If you want to spy on communication channels substantially likely to contain the communications or information of US persons on the basis that that channel contains foreign intelligence information between foreign powers and their agents, you should present evidence to the FISA court, with its already robust security procedures and capacity for after-the-fact review, demonstrating probable cause that the channel is being used between foreign powers and/or their agents, and identifying the minimization procedures designed to prevent capture and retention of information unrelated to that intelligence objective from US persons on the channel.

That's the "checks and balances". And no change to the law is needed.

Dearest GOPGregory

Say it with me brother:

Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance
Freedom through Surveillance

I think Greg should offer up his household for a pilot program to see just how effective Freedom through Surveillance would be. Like all his phone lines tapped and cameras in every room of his house with direct feed to the local precinct house.

Would do wonders in keeping his household free of burglary, rape, islamofascists, murder, commies, theft, socialists, and even the temptation to pick his nose or commit some aberrant sex act other than humping the wife face to face.

I mean we have read about this type of sincere concern of the government for our complete safety in books like "1984" but has any of you ever dreamed that such serenity would be possible.

I am tearing up just thinking about it. (sniff)

Those slippery slopes are tricky just ask any anti-big government conservative.

What these jackasses don't get is that giving in on an issue like this does NOTHING to prevent Dems from looking 'weak on national defense'. Hell, the fact that they echo the points that the issue DOES make them weak on national defense only perpetuates it. They're giving in to the big lie.

I'll give the Democrats hell over this if they take this advice to heart and cave in, since that just means they've fucking internalized the same damn message and have gone far beyond giving up their spine, especially when something like this falls into their laps.

What the Dems need to do ISN'T focus less on this issue. It's actually FRAMING the damn issue so people like these Jackasses can't brush it off as 'Oh, Democrats are being too zealous and look like their against safety'.

"But if a few more wrinkles appear in the story, then it will get ugly. Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag. Ok, getting warmer."

um, not only was this extensively reported 3 years ago...but if you think that it's newsworthy or unusual for any administration to spy on diplomats at the UN (or anywhere else)....oy!

Tbone,

"The Democrats have taken the wrong side on most national security issues for thirty years now, and they've got a long way to go to prove they can be trusted with the issue."

Of course, you and I may not agree on what "the wrong side" is. We probably don't even agree on what a "Democrat" is. But as our resident moral compass and infallible arbiter of right and wrong, perhaps you'd like to cite some examples?

Raw story is reporting that NSA taps were used against UN diplomats in the run to Irag.

Communications among UN diplomats and between UN diplomats and their home governments are fairly clearly within the scope of warrantless surveillance allowed under FISA for foreign intelligence purposes.

Yo Al, you missed the latest talking points. Domestic calls were tapped as well.

Yup. It turned out that some of the al Qaeda operatives who were called (and who we thought were in a foreign country) were actually IN THIS COUNTRY!

Bad, BAD Bush. He should never, ever spy on al Qaeda operatives who are IN THIS COUNTRY.

If you want to spy on communication channels substantially likely to contain the communications or information of US persons on the basis that that channel contains foreign intelligence information between foreign powers and their agents, you should present evidence to the FISA court, with its already robust security procedures and capacity for after-the-fact review, demonstrating probable cause that the channel is being used between foreign powers and/or their agents, and identifying the minimization procedures designed to prevent capture and retention of information unrelated to that intelligence objective from US persons on the channel.

Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable. Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy going into the election with the choice between Bush wanting to surveil such calls and Democrats advocating prohibiting such surveillance.

Steve Benen wrote: The White House and its allies would prefer that all criticism of the warrantless-search program be dismissed as petty ideological squabbling over civil liberties. Why any Dem would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

The White House and its allies would prefer that all efforts to protect fundamental civil liberties -- which is to say, to protect the very essence of what America is all about as a free society -- be dismissed as "petty ideological squabbling".

Why Steve Benen would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

No one ever seems to want to talk about how risk averse we have become -- positive wimps compared with earlier generations. The Bush administration (read Rove) know how to play this very well, and the Democratic Party just bumbles on, responding obediently in the language of the opposition's agenda.

If we could only get back the concept of a more "muscular" democracy in which we -- as individuals -- are aware that we're going to have to be smarter and more vigilant and more engaged in self-government, and one helluva lot more willing to accept risk as the price one pays for an open society, freedom, and a progressive future! Don't look for leaders who'll do it all for you -- we ought to know by now where that takes us!

As Kryptik points out (above) we need to reframe the language of the debate so that we win the argument and quit ranting on with the same old sobs and hiccups.

"Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable. Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy going into the election with the choice between Bush wanting to surveil such calls and Democrats advocating prohibiting such surveillance."

I have to say that Al's on point here. Some posters do seem to be missing the fact that surveillance could well be useful...even necessary, in situations where probable cause didn't exist....in a legal sense. However, I don't understand why the administration didn't seek to modify FISA to accomodate this.

GOPGregory writes: "By the way, the NSA wiretap program is legal and it has precedent from previous administrations."

Legal? The why all the cowardice, secretiveness, going behind everybody's back?

Precedent? Yes, the Nixon administration.

There is no way in the world Bush's actions will stand. He will not be allowed to continue to do this. Most Americans are not at all interested in allowing a President that much power.

His actions were illegal and the mainstream legal establishment knows it. You have the same old chickenhawks preening and trying to accuse Democrats of being weak on national defense. That's always been a joke and still is.

When in his life did the "tough" George Bush ever stand up to a bully, face to face? He's only tough while he has the American military as his play toy.

impeachment of the bushcriminal will settle any issues related to politcal framing.

Having said that, it is well within my understanding why fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseurs like tbrosz would defend Bush's attacks on fundamental civil liberties, since their so-called "libertarianism" consists of absolutely nothing but a pathological hatred of paying taxes, and they'd be perfectly happy to have Bush not only wiretap everybody but start herding Democrats and liberals into concentration camps, if that's what it takes to protect their tax cuts.

Well, since probable cause doesn't exist for the calls surveiled by the NSA program, a warrant would not be obtainable.

If you are asserting that there is no 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", then how can you make the claim that this surveillance is, in fact, necessary to surveil al-Qaeda or other enemies and their agents?

Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

Well, I am assuming that, as the right has argued in defense of the necessity of these programs, they are directed at targets for which, while there is not probable cause of a specific criminal violation, are exclusively conversations where the target is a foreign power or agent thereof, used in part to identify other agents of foreign powers threatening the United States. Are you saying that the defense of the program is based on lies?

Accordingly, you would apparently prefer that we do NOT surveil these conversations at all.

Its possible that a case could be made that a case could be made for additional grounds for issuing a warrant based on probable cause to believe some other justification, but the arguments so far made for the Bush program that I have seen all fall within the grounds for which warrants may already be issued under FISA. Your claim that there is no probable cause to believe that the targets against whom the surveillance is directed are agents of foreign powers or foreign powers themselves is novel.

showing anti-America repukelicans standing shoulder to shoulder with the bushcriminal on his illegal acts is perfect for the dems.

It turned out that some of the al Qaeda operatives who were called (and who we thought were in a foreign country) were actually IN THIS COUNTRY!

Hey, but in your next post, you claim there is no probable cause to believe that the people called or calling were al-Qaeda operatives. I mean, that's your whole case for why FISA rules are too restrictive. Make up your mind.

athos:

One good example is arms control, where in almost every case, the Democratic Party in the final years of the Cold War adopted the Soviet negotiation positions on disarmament, missile deployment, missile defense, weapons production, etc.

We could also get into the various "revolutionary" movements in this hemisphere that were clients of the Soviet Union. Where did the Democrats stand on attempts to prevent this?

How about the Democratic position on building up the U.S. military in the 1980s?

If we get into the Left in general instead of the Democratic Party specifically, it gets a lot worse. Of course, recently it's been hard to tell the two categories apart.

Does it bother you at all that al Qaeda's propaganda often uses the same talking points as the Democratic Party?

Some posters do seem to be missing the fact that surveillance could well be useful...even necessary, in situations where probable cause didn't exist....in a legal sense.

Apparently not useful enough to justify writing the laws to allow it. Your statement is a pure hypothetical. "It might well be useful for the president to order an assassination of anyone he chooses on american soil." Yes, fine, but killing people without due process is also against the law.

their so-called "libertarianism" consists of absolutely nothing but a pathological hatred of paying taxes

Not true. Some of the younger ones want pot to be legal, as well.

SecularAnimist:

The main problem with your statement is that much of what is listed as violations of our civil liberties on this board are largely imaginary. I've seen many posts that assume as fact the idea that Bush is using the NSA for political spying.

But, please, go ahead, Democrats. Do your very best Slim Pickens imitation up until next November and ride this bomb all the way down to the ground.

Constantine: I don't think it's hypothetical. That doesn't mean that FISA shouldn't have been altered but here's an easy example:

I don't think it can be disputed that it would be useful to monitor all telephone calls placed from the northwest tribal regions of Pakistan to the U.S....or vice versa.

The White House and its allies would prefer that all criticism of the warrantless-search program be dismissed as petty ideological squabbling over civil liberties. Why any Dem would want to help in that endeavor is beyond my understanding.

Because many Dems expect to regain the White House in 2008 and would love to have this tool?

I've seen many posts that assume as fact the idea that Bush is using the NSA for political spying.

Isn't spying on the UN political spying? Or PETA and other fringe left groups?

And the point isn't so much that Bush is spying, but whether the office of the president, all the way down to the NSA night-shift supervisor, can be trusted with that much power. Again, do you want Hillary and her team to have this same right in 3 years?

Other than the Moschella letter to hill leaders, all the arguments being made by Bush and his lackeys are spectaculary "political" ones. Have they failed to realize that the court of opinion is not where this issue will be judged? No degree of obfuscation will trump the Constitution.

Does anyone genuinely believe that the founding fathers "intended" for the Executive branch to have total unchecked power “without” the oversight of the Legislative branch of government? Ultimately, This issue will come down to this question. The Constitution is a document that assumes our rights pre-exist and provides deliberate limits and restrictions on governmental power and authority so that no one branch of government, and certainly no individual, is in a position to even “unintentionally” comit acts of tyranny. The fact that Mr. Bush is attempting to sell the argument that he has been granted sole discretion in the authorization of abridging our pre-existing rights would be anathema to the founding fathers and is contradictory to the intent and purpose for the creation of the Constitution.

"Isn't spying on the UN political spying?"

not in the sense that was intended -- domestic politics. spying on diplomats at the UN -- or UN diplomats -- is normal espionage actually. it's pretty amusing that some are surprised by this or think that it's abnormal.

A comparison of the Bush bootlicker brigade's commentary on this thread, and the previous thread regarding the Department of Homeland Security's abject failure to implement crucial measures to protect America from actual terrorist attacks, is very illuminating.

Here they are defending attacks on essential civil liberties by secretive, authoritarian government -- claiming that if you don't support such measures, you are "weak on national defense".

In the previous thread, they are defending the Bush administration's failure to implement the very measures that Bush's DHS itself identified as essential and top priority steps protect America from terrorist attacks -- claiming that if you criticize Bush's DHS, you are just being "political".

What these people are really about, obviously, has nothing whatever to do with America's national security, and everything to do with establishing the permanent rule of a corrupt, criminal, authoritarian single-party state, of, by and for the ultra-rich, hereditary, neo-fascist corporate-feudalist ruling class of America.

This should not be hard at this point for Dems. If Bush zigs, Dem should automatically zag.

Oppose anything and everything the WH is trying to do.

Bush is a lame duck and should be treated as such. His own party will realize this sooner than most Dem politicians.

tbrosz: I could care less what al Qaeda's talking points are day to day. Their propaganda does not impact my thinking. My perception is that sometimes our (USA) right-wingers are reacting to what they say literally, which is exactly what they want.

Your arms control example is amusing. We did not “adopt” Soviet positions, we literally forced them to accept our positions, with pressure, short-term and long-term.

When Carter negotiated deploying all those missiles in Europe, it certainly was not easy, but he succeeded. By the time the dates arrived for them to be deployed, we had a big careless mouth as President who was foolish enough to run around Europe talking about “winnable” nuclear war. It causes such a furor that there were demonstrations and demands that Germany renege on its agreement to deploy the missiles. Fortunately, Reagan realized he had better shut up so that the missiles could be deployed.

That kind of carelessness is not funny to people and me who populate the real world. Now days, the right brags about Reagan ending the cold war. Ha. They brag about him deploying the missiles, being to ill informed to realize they are giving the wrong guy credit. That’s pretty damn pitiful.

The right has faith in big talk, but they don’t back it up by doing their homework and by backing weapon system that will actually be deployed. Where’s SDI? Reagan promised that it would be deployed in the early nineties?

Those revolutionary movements in this hemisphere? Talking about Nicaragua? What a joke. Nicaragua was buying weapons from Carter and talking about how they were unaligned. Reagan changed all that with his bluster just because a few mid-level Sandinistas had one claimed to be communist. Again, it was a joke. Nicaragua was no threat whatsoever. A dirt poor third would country the size of Mississippi, but totally unable to threaten the Mississippi National Guard.

The right needs bogeymen, straw men to knock down. Our only hope is that we can educate our people enough to quit falling for these games. Our right-wingers bouncing off of “their” right-wingers.

The 80s arms build up? I’ll give you a challenge. What weapon systems were initiated in the 80s that were actually ever deployed?

Since no one is saying Bush shouldn't carry out surveillance on Al Queda suspects inside the US, Al, that's a nice strawman. Very flammable too.

The question is whether Bush is following the contraints of the law and the constitution in carrying out surveillance.

If he thinks FISA is too constraining he's had years to propose changes. He hasn't. The claim that he couldn't ask for changes without revealing important info to Al Q doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the face of it.

In any case, he could have called Congress, or at least the Senate and House Intelligence Committees into closed session to lay out his case instead of informing a few people under gag order that prevented them from even checking on the technical implications of whatever it is NSA was doing that couldn't be covered under FISA even with the "tap first, warrant later" clause.

The strong implication is that this is a massive data mining project of the type previously rejected by Congress that taps lots of purely domestic communications in the process of trying to filter out rare tidbits of real intelligence. Furthermore, I suspect it's picking up a LOT of information in the process, with no safeguards at all to insure that stuff is ignored and flushed if it isn't relevant. (Since you might want to go back and check prior data based on a new item.)

And, of course, once all that juicy info is sitting around and there isn't even the slightest outside oversight.

tinfoil:

When I was talking "political," I was thinking more along the lines of Nixon bugging Democratic facilities. Eavesdropping on specific political opponents.

Any president that WASN'T spying on the U.N., given the U.N.'s behavior, would probably be derelict in his duty.

As for animal rights people, a minority of them are probably the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists. Damn right somebody should be watching PETA. Keep in mind that this particular issue refers not to the NSA, but to the FBI, which is supposed to investigate U.S. citizens.

We could also get into the various "revolutionary" movements in this hemisphere that were clients of the Soviet Union. Where did the Democrats stand on attempts to prevent this?

Well, that's the thing. The Democrats were on the less popular side, but they were on the right side. Indeed, Reagan's actions in Nicaragua -- supporting the Contras, a thuggish movement very similar to the current Iraqi insurgency, even if he had to break the law to support them -- were very wrong and based on a paranoid, ridiculous idea that a few left-wing governments in small countries posed a threat to the U.S.

So the Democrats' position was the less popular one there. It was also the correct one. Sometimes you have to do the right thing.

But, please, go ahead, Democrats. Do your very best Slim Pickens imitation up until next November and ride this bomb all the way down to the ground.

Is any right-winger whatsoever going to note that that Rasmussen poll doesn't ask whether people would be in favor of this program if it turns out it broke the law, and as such, is totally irrelevant?

"Most of the criticisms seem to emphasize the rule of law, the constitutional process, and Bush circumventing the judiciary... "

Let's substitute Clinton for Bush in this sentence, and talk about lying under oath and you will have the right's side of the impeachment kerfuffle.

Instead of "It's about Clinton's Penis", we now have "Terrorist bill of rights" And you have the equvalent of the left's side of the Clinton kerfuffle.

I guess it all comes down to whose ox is being gored. Plus ca change...

The only winning way to frame this is to make Bush's power grab part of his larger FAILURE TO KEEP US SAFE. Thus, while Bush is running around in secret, playing Austin Powers w/the Quakers and PETA, he's FAILING to secure our borders, chemical plants and nuclear plants. Look at Katrina, look at what the 9/11 commisssion just said -- this administration, and this party are NOT KEEPING US SAFE. -- Bush is so damn busy breaking rules and defying Congress that he can't be bothered to follow the basic rules of disaster prevention and management and actually execute the power Congress gave him.

Unless we hammer this failure home, and tie it to Bush's secret spy campaign and illegal power grab, then WE WILL LOSE. Bush will be Dirty Harry, breaking a few rules to protect the wimmen and kiddies, and we will be the suits, the stiffs, the i-dotters and t-crossers who put legalisms before human life.

Oh, I forgot, Clinton's right to sexually harrass his employees and volunteers is far more legitimate that Bush's duty to defend the US against proven enemies. So my analogy does not hold.

What the Dems need to do here is to let the process do the hard political work for them.

There are going to be Congressional inquiries into this issue. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress seem to be pretty clear that what the Bush WH has done has gone way beyond what it is allowed to do Constitutionally. Whatever the supposed benefits might be of these actions, the Bush WH does finally have to answer to some kind of rule of law, or try to explain why it imagines it doesn't have to.

Let them come out with that "explanation". Let Republicans try to spin their spin in the face of the obvious defiance of the FISA law.

THAT is the context in which Dems can press their case to good effect. Until it reaches that stage, the Bush WH can probably spin their actions as "protecting the country", and it will do Dems little good to object too insistently. When the WH has to explain how the Constitution allows it to perform these actions in front of a sceptical Congress is the point at which it all starts to look a bunch less wholesome.

tinfoil: Or PETA and other fringe left groups?

There's nothing "leftist" about PETA. PETA is a nonpartisan and apolitical organization. "Fringe" is arguable; some of PETA's positions are entirely within the mainstream of the animal protection movement, and others go beyond that. And FBI surveillance of PETA, including the use of undercover FBI informants working in the PETA offices, has been going on for around 20 years.

More generally, it's important to realize that political spying by the US government within the USA is nothing new. The specific actions of the Bush administration that are of concern today are just the latest in a pattern of authoritarian government abuses that go back, in my own personal memory and experience, at least to the 1960s with the spying on, and infiltration of, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.

And fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseurs like tbrosz just love that stuff -- as long as it's used to protect their tax cuts from the evil depradations of the Communist Party ... oh, I mean the Democratic Party. Well, according to tbrosz, there's no real difference between them anyway.

And according to tbrosz, it was perfectly fine and OK and lovely and wonderful for the Reagan administration in the 1980s to support both state and non-state right-wing terrorists in Latin America who tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent people -- raping and murdering priests and nuns for god's sake! -- because all of those innocent people were "clients" of the Soviet Union.

Protecting those tax cuts is tough, and sometimes dirty work. But somebody's got to do it.

"Is any right-winger whatsoever going to note that that Rasmussen poll doesn't ask whether people would be in favor of this program if it turns out it broke the law, and as such, is totally irrelevant?"

Yeah, I will. The poll is totally irrelevant. I suggest you follow you instincts. The American people will definitely take the side that we should not listen to terrorists, no matter what. This is the issue you guys will ride to power. I can see it, already.

"How about the Democratic position on building up the U.S. military in the 1980s?"

Twhores, as we all know, is a delusional troll, barely capable of typing the nonsense his handlers provide for him. This lovely bit of regurgitated pap above is typical lying Republican bullshit (as was everything else contributed by Twhores in this thread). It was a Republican President (Reagan) who kept force levels even throughout his 8 year presidency in the 80s. And it was Republican President in the late 80s and early 90s who carved half a million men and women from our armed forces. Bush and Cheney deliberately hacked our conventional forces apart then (and I'm sure Twhores applauded with his mouth full then too).

Yeah, I will. The poll is totally irrelevant. I suggest you follow you instincts. The American people will definitely take the side that we should not listen to terrorists, no matter what. This is the issue you guys will ride to power. I can see it, already.

Again, right-wingers have this amazing robot-brain ability to overlook the fact that this poll doesn't mention the issue of breaking the law, and as such has nothing to do with the issue. Hell, 64% is a rather low figure for Americans saying that the government should listen to terrorist suspects. If the question is "should the government break the law to listen to terrorist suspects," the figure would be quite a bit lower, don't you think?

Anyway, whether this is a winning political issue or not is not really relevant, is it? Bush broke the law; he should not get away with it even if 99% of Americans think it's perfectly hunky-dory. We are arguing for Democrats to take the moral and right position. You right-wingers care nothing for what's moral or right.

Now days, the right brags about Reagan ending the cold war. Ha.

This is how Russia remembers it. But what the heck would they know, right?

tbrosz wrote: One good example is arms control, where in almost every case, the Democratic Party in the final years of the Cold War adopted the Soviet negotiation positions on disarmament, missile deployment, missile defense, weapons production, etc.

I don't know if your claim about the positions adopted by "the Democratic Party" (which you seem to delusionally believe is some sort of well-disciplined monolith that unanimously adopts such "positions") are true.

But in the final years of the Cold War, Gorbachev's negotiation positions on nuclear disarmament were objectively better than Reagan's positions.

When Gorbachev and Reagan met, Reagan completely blew a very real chance to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, because he was beholden to the US military-industrial complex and its "Star Wars" missile defense boondoggle, which was and is nothing but a criminal scam designed to rip off the American taxpayer and enrich a bunch of "aerospace" corporate fat cats.

But we already know that you are perfectly happy to rip off the American taxpayer, for example to subsidized the economic failure of the nuclear power industry -- as long as it's other taxpayers, those less well off than yourself, who get ripped off.

Damn that Reagan. Nicaragua is now a democracy where the Sandanistas lose elections. Another black mark on the Republicans.

Now Bush is trying to do the same thing in Iraq. When will they learn?

If you are asserting that there is no 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", then how can you make the claim that this surveillance is, in fact, necessary to surveil al-Qaeda or other enemies and their agents?

The targets here are people who are LINKED to al Qaeda. I assume that a "link" to al Qaeda doesn't consitute probably cause that the target is himself an agent of a foreign power.

Well, I am assuming that, as the right has argued in defense of the necessity of these programs, they are directed at targets for which, while there is not probable cause of a specific criminal violation, are exclusively conversations where the target is a foreign power or agent thereof, used in part to identify other agents of foreign powers threatening the United States. Are you saying that the defense of the program is based on lies?

No. The targets are not persons for whom there is probable cause to believe they are agents of foreign powers. As I understand it, these are people who are linked to agents of foreign powers. We then take the information we have learned from the surveillance, run it through a data mining operation, and see if anything comes out that would THEN (after the data minig operation) tell us that the target is an agent of a foreign power.

Its possible that a case could be made that a case could be made for additional grounds for issuing a warrant based on probable cause to believe some other justification, but the arguments so far made for the Bush program that I have seen all fall within the grounds for which warrants may already be issued under FISA. Your claim that there is no probable cause to believe that the targets against whom the surveillance is directed are agents of foreign powers or foreign powers themselves is novel.

It's novel? Really??? I've seen it all over the place. In fact, I believe Kevin himself has said it.

If the question is "should the government break the law to listen to terrorist suspects," the figure would be quite a bit lower, don't you think?

Since the law was, in fact, not broken, it's a rather misleading question, don't you think?

"Again, right-wingers have this amazing robot-brain ability to overlook the fact that this poll doesn't mention the issue of breaking the law"

How does my post support your argument in any way? I agreed with you, 100% If you find that hard to believe, it says something about your confidence in the issue. Naaah!

Damn that Reagan. Nicaragua is now a democracy where the Sandanistas lose elections. Another black mark on the Republicans.

Um, Nicaragua was moving toward democracy without Reagan, as evidenced by the 1984 elections, which were not perfect (the Sandinistas sent out thugs to intimidate voters, etc.) but were better than average for a former dictatorship. Instead of pushing the Sandinistas to become more democratic, Reagan funded goons to kill a lot of Nicaraguans. After Reagan, Bush I adopted a less wingnutty policy, and another election was held, better than 1984's, where the Sandinistas lost.

In other words, Reagan's funding of the Contras had nothing to do with "democracy." It just caused a lot more Nicaraguans to die, just as Bush II's policies do nothing but cause a lot more Iraqis and Americans to die.

Apologies for intruding on the current thread with an issue from last week (ancient history?), but Kevin really should return to the thread from 12/24 regarding the NY subway strike.

According to Bloomberg (see below, and note the irony that the Mayor's company is among the first up reporting on the strike) the TWU and the MTA have reached tentative agreement, which the union is urging its members to ratify.

The deal maintains the current system, but all workers make an increased contribution to healthcare.

This is a settlement and a process democrats ought to endorse. It preserves three key democratic demands - better wages, while preserving pensions and healthcare, and has plenty of give and take by both sides. It was achieved through industrial action, which though unfortunate, was nonetheless necessary to bring management to the table.

The workers sacrificed a hell of a lot: not only in pay (two days for each day lost) but their union lost three million as a result of the judicial fines. And every employee - current and future - will pay more for healthcare.

Why? To preserve current benefits for FUTURE workers - those not yet even hired by MTA. This act of beautiful solidarity preserves union unity, but more importantly prevents the creation of two-tier second-class category of employees on the subways. Current employees put their jobs (and money) on the line to preserve young workers' access to a decent life: a pension which is a necessity for avoiding old-age poverty.

In the face of Bush's onslaught on workers - and especially on social security - this is a substantial and important victory which we should salute.

We are everywhere looking for fighting dems - well, in the 37,000 TWU members, don't you think we've found some? Don't you think you can find a way of embracing their efforts? Or maybe, at a minimum, talking about them? I'll tell you what - if I was in a difficult fight, I'd feel better if I knew the TWU brothers and sisters had my back.

Here's the Bloomberg piece:

New York Transit Union Asks Members to Ratify Contract Offer
Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- The board of New York's main transit union approved a new contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority last night and recommended the 32,000 workers who staged a three-day strike last week ratify the agreement, union president Roger Toussaint said.

Transport Workers Union Local 100 and the MTA concluded negotiations earlier in the day on a three-year contract. It preserves the existing pension system for both current and future workers -- a key demand of the union -- while requiring that employees make a first-ever contribution to their health insurance amounting to 1.5 percent of their salaries.

``This tentative contract provides the necessary cost- savings and productivity to keep the MTA solvent, mitigate fare increases and allow for vital investments in our transportation infrastructure,'' Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement issued after Toussaint's announcement.

Bloomberg had denounced the union's ``illegal strike'' in violation of the state's Taylor Law, which bars walkouts by public employees. The Dec. 20-22 work stoppage brought buses and subways used by 7 million daily riders on the largest U.S. transit system to a standstill and cost the city economy an estimated $1 billion.

The union's executive board, meeting at the union's headquarters on Manhattan's West Side, voted 37 to 4 to recommend acceptance of the contract, with one abstention, Toussaint said shortly after 11 p.m.

Thanks All Around

``I'd like to thank all the members of Local 100 for their unerring supporting and perseverance in the course of these very difficult past few weeks,'' Toussaint said. ``We'd also like to thank the riders and working people of New York for their patience, forbearance and understanding, for the equally difficult time spent by this entire city.''

A call for comment to MTA spokesman Tom Kelly after Toussaint spoke wasn't immediately returned. Earlier, Kelly said the contract also would have to be approved by the state-run authority's board. Its next regular meeting is Jan. 25, and Kelly said he didn't know if a special session would be scheduled sooner.

The union's members will vote by mail, a process that may take several weeks. The previous contract expired Dec. 15.

If they accept the contract, workers will receive pay raises of 3 percent in the first year, 4 percent in the second and 3.5 percent in the third, Toussaint said.

In the days leading up to the strike, the MTA made at least two proposals that would have treated current and future employees differently on pensions.

Refunds

One would have increased the retirement age for full pensions to 62 from 55 for new workers. The last one rejected by the union before the strike would have kept the retirement age for new workers at 55 while taking 6 percent of their salary, compared with the 2 percent contributed by current workers.

Toussaint said the final agreement provided for a ``refund of member contributions to pensions over the past several years.'' He didn't provide specifics, and didn't take questions from reporters.

Toussaint said there were other gains, including maternity leave stipends for female employees, improved benefits for families of workers who die in the line of duty, and provisions that will establish ``a greater degree of respect'' for workers in their day-to-day relations with MTA management.

``It's a significant victory for the union,'' said David Gregory, a professor of labor law at St. John's University in New York, as details of the framework for the agreement emerged in published and broadcast reports yesterday. Still, ``it's a victory that will cost them a lot of money,'' he said.

Penalties

The Taylor Law penalizes workers two days' pay for each day on strike. The union itself was fined $3 million in a court decision that is under appeal.

The workers went back to their jobs after state mediators won the MTA's agreement to reconsider its pension proposals and the union agreed to consider paying toward health care.

``In collective bargaining, it's important for both parties to get used to losing because they have to make initial demands or offers and then they have to be willing to accept less,'' said Gary Chaison, professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Union members probably will ratify the contract because it would be ``near suicidal'' to strike again, he said.

Subway operators earned an average of $62,438 a year, including overtime, under the previous three-year contract, the MTA said. Train conductors averaged $53,000, subway booth clerks $50,720, and bus drivers $62,551.

The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Actually, tbrosz, go into any Russian city and talk to ordinary people -- as I have -- and they associate the dissolution of the USSR with Gorbachev. The central reason for the implosion of the Soviet Union was the demoralization of its elites. True, its foreign policy rivalry with the West provided additional strains -- but those started with the Truman administration, not the sainted Ronnie.

Of course, even if you hadn't typed it, one could have predicted that you'd recycle the old myths. But "little ole jim from red country" has a much more accurate take on the actual history than you do* -- maybe you should pay attention?

* Never fails to astonish, the depth of ignorance of the history of their own country that right-wingers display.

M.A.
Once again, you are right. how can I argue with it? I just can't. It would just be trolling.

"Bush II's policies do nothing but cause a lot more Iraqis and Americans to die."

As opposed to Bush I, whose failure to remove Saddam condemned hundreds of thousands to execution and mass graves. Er no, let me rephrase that, supported the self determination of the Iraqi people, 80% of whom wanted to be ruled by the bloodthirsty 20%

Another winning issue for the Democrats! The elections in December never happened. One more huge issue and you guys will get a veto proof Senate and an impeachment minded Congress.

And Impeachment of Bush will be the third winning issue for you guys.

tbrosz: As for animal rights people, a minority of them are probably the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists.

That's absurd. Members of a right-wing militia group in Texas were busted last year, in possession of a huge stockpile of weapons and a cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands of people, and materials for making more such chemical weapons.

If they hadn't been discovered -- purely by accident, because a package of forged documents they mailed to another militia member was delivered to the wrong address by the post office -- they would have made Timothy McVeigh look like a schoolchild with a firecracker. And these folks were members of a wider network whose other members remain unidentified and at large.

And you think people who release minks from fur farms are "the closest thing we have to domestic terrorists."

You are just plain silly.

The strategy of the Democrats is obvious. They know there are libertarians and far Leftists out there who, if they voted in droves, outnumber conservatives and moderates when the conservative base is not out in droves, e.g., if an issue like gay marriage is not at-issue. they want libertarian votes in states where they count like Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, states upon which the election can turn given the demographics. Democrats will try to stay away from social issues that rouse the ire of religious people, instead harping on issues that sound like privacy but cannot be tied to abortion or gay marriage, i.e., "civil liberties".

This is a smart-move in 2008 given that no one from Bush's administration will be running for President. In other words, there will be no claim that Democrats are just anti-Bush administration -- indeed, several Republicans will have to distinguish themselves from Bush, i.e., show they are true blue (or red) conservatives in order to win the nomination, or make a serious run for it. It will be hard to rally "conservatives" when many conservatives are simply right-wing libertarians who take "civil liberties" arguments SERIOUSLY.

It's a Democrat wedge-issue. They'll be using it and they'll be using Darfur as well.

"They'll be using it and they'll be using Darfur as well."

Where is the first sign of this? Democratic darlings in China, Europe, and at the UN seem rather intent on looking the other way.

I would love to see the Democrats, this time without irony, take up Darfur as an issue. It is there for the taking, you might even get the Instapundit on your side. It is a lot better than trying to tie the president's hands in the war on terror.

Imagine a bumber sticker like this: "Free Tibet, Keep Taiwan free too!" It would be like a line on a hockey team, left wingers, right wingers, and the center working toward one goal.

There's nothing "leftist" about PETA.

The idea that "rights" of individuals should be conceived of as applying to broader classes (non-property holders, non-whites, non-men, etc.), is one of the central distinguishing traits of "leftism", so its not at all a stretch to call an organization who conceives that some rights should be held to apply to non-humans is, in that regard, a fairly radially "leftist" group, though perhaps one with a particularly narrow focus.

a stupid tool wrote: Nicaragua is now a democracy where the Sandanistas lose elections.

The Sandinista government of Nicaragua held two national elections, both of which were declared by international observers to be free and fair. They won the first election. They lost the second election -- during which the Reagan administration waged a terrorist war against the people of Nicaragua, killing innumerable civilians, brutalizing many more, and destroying crucial civilian infrastructure; provided massive funding to the Sandinistas' political opponents; promised to shower Nicaragua with money if the Sandinistas were voted out (a promise which was never fulfilled, by the way); and promised to shower Nicaragua with death and destruction if the Sandinistas remained in office.

The Sandinistas lost, and left power legally and peacefully as they had committed to do.

The story of Nicaragua is the story of a small and courageous country that overthrew a brutal, decades-long, US-backed dictatorship, and then established and defended its democracy in the face of a murderous, US-backed terrorist war. To the extent that Nicaragua is a democracy today, it is in spite of, and not because of, the Reagan administration.

M.A. wrote: Um, Nicaragua was moving toward democracy without Reagan, as evidenced by the 1984 elections, which were not perfect (the Sandinistas sent out thugs to intimidate voters, etc.) but were better than average for a former dictatorship.

I agree with your main point, but that's not an accurate description of the 1984 elections. International observers found them to be substantially free and fair. At that time the Sandinista government had overwhelming popular support and had no need to intimidate anyone in order to win by a large margin.

It's also important when contemplating some of the Sandinistas' troubling actions against their "political opponents" in the 1980s that many of these so-called "political opponents" were funded, backed and directed by the US and were allied with the Contras, who were basically former members of the Somoza dictatorship's secret police who the CIA rounded up after they fled Nicaragua in the wake of Somoza's overthrow and then funded, armed, trained and organized into a terrorist army whose only purpose was to spread misery, death and destruction throughout Nicaragua in order to undermine support for the Sandinista government.

If a newspaper in the USA today started printing editorials calling for the violent military overthrow of the US government, and the publishers of the newspaper were openly funded by the governments of Iran and Syria as well as by Al Qaeda, how long do you suppose the US government would allow it to keep operating? That was almost exactly the situation with some of the "political opposition" in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

If the slippery slope argument can be used on any issue, it has to be the Goverment's domestic spying. Once you allow it, even for people who are somehow mystically deemed to be terrorists by the government, it's only a small step before a full fledged 1984.

It's shameful that Americans are so easily giving up their rights.

It is certainly possible that somewhere in a back room, or a series of them, the long heads of the US Democratic Party are working out a clever strategy and are not presently ready to show their hand. It is possible that at some point, quite soon, that party will spring to life and show the boldness and political depth it once had a number of decades ago, when people believed better times were coming, not going. It is possible that the greater part of the US population is paying close attention to the stench of corruption and cultural decay emanating from the forms of media and will rise like a tidal wave and throw off all this rubbish to be, you know, like Joe Palooka once again.It is even possible that unlike the citizens of many former empires (like the British, the French, the Russian, the German and so on) the American people is not prepared to accept the constant commission of crimes against humanity as the price of its material prosperity.

But it is also possible, more, that Americans have a pretty good idea what foul deeds are done daily in their name, they know it is the price of empire, and they are going along with it just as the populations of the European countries have done in their turn.

The only important difference that one can see is that the volcanic eruptions of the global economic order, unplanned, uncontrollable, and hugely destructive, will not allow the USA the time former nations have had to sort of sneak out of empire.

You Americans are for the high jump. You say you want to build a fence along the US / Canada border? Fine. You can start today.

.

tbrosz: How Russia remembers it? Then you link to a page quoting a bunch of public relations types and Soviet dissidents? Boy, that’s convincing.

Good gracious. Let’s see if you can find the statement by the Soviet General who told Gorby that he should encourage the Americans to keep investing in Star Wars because it was an expensive boondoggle. The Soviet military people were not all fools and they had no fear of Star Wars. There’s a real world out there that has nothing to do with people coloring history.

Gorbachev had no fear of Star Wars; he did favor disarmament and ending the Cold War long before he became head of state and long before he dreamed Reagan would ever be President.

Reagan scared nobody. They thought he was foolish. Gorbachev backed him down big time at Reykjavik where Reagan’s own people had to pull him out of the meeting, stopping him from signing a treaty they did not like. He was an embarrassment.

After Ronald Reagan spoke on missile defense during the 1987 summit in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev addressed him more in sorrow than anger. "Mr President," Gorbachev said, "You do what you think you have to do... And if in the end you think that you have a system that you want to deploy, go ahead and deploy it. Who am I to tell you what to do? I think you're wasting money. I don't think it will work. But, if it's what you want to do, go ahead."

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1221-05.htm

Gorbachev backed him down big time at Reykjavik where Reagan’s own people had to pull him out of the meeting, stopping him from signing a treaty they did not like.

Oh, that's the version now? Don't remember that being the Left's take on it back then when Reagan was blasted from all sides for failing to agree with Gorbachev the Glorious Peacemaker.

Gorbachev, still worshipped by the Left today, walked off with a Nobel Peace Prize. As for Reagan, I figure in another twenty years, people like you will have Carter as the president who ended the Cold War.

Just wondering...what are you using for sources?

Gee, I hope the spelling is alright. I thought this was a greast article thought you guy's would like to read it. Gotta go get the limbaugh turds out of my hair.
FISA vs. the Constitution
Congress can't usurp the president's power to spy on America's enemies.

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

In the continuing saga of the surveillance "scandal," with some congressional Democrats denouncing President Bush as a lawbreaker and even suggesting that impeachment hearings may be in order, it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."

When the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay--America's most experienced diplomat and George Washington's first choice to be secretary of state--wrote in Federalist No. 64 that there would be cases in which "the most useful intelligence" may be obtained if foreign sources could be "relieved from apprehensions of discovery," and noted there were many "who would rely on the secrecy of the president, but who would not confide in that of the Senate." He then praised the new Constitution for so distributing foreign-affairs powers that the president would be able "to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest."

In 1790, when the first session of the First Congress appropriated money for foreign intercourse, the statute expressly required that the president "account specifically for all such expenditures of the said money as in his judgment may be made public, and also for the amount of such expenditures as he may think it advisable not to specify." They made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them. And in 1818, when a dispute arose over a reported diplomatic mission to South America, the legendary Henry Clay told his House colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the president's contingent fund, it would not be "a proper subject for inquiry" by Congress.

For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection--especially in wartime--was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.
Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War. It is enough to observe that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, and when Congress attempts to usurp powers granted to the president, its members betray their oath of office. In certain cases, such as the War Powers Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it might well have crossed that line.

Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

I'm not saying that what the president authorized was unquestionably lawful. The Supreme Court in the 1972 "Keith case" held that a warrant was required for national security wiretaps involving purely domestic targets, but expressly distinguished the case from one involving wiretapping "foreign powers" or their agents in this country. In the 1980 Truong case, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless surveillance of a foreign power, its agent or collaborators (including U.S. citizens) when the "primary purpose" of the intercepts was for "foreign intelligence" rather than law enforcement purposes. Every court of appeals that has considered the issue has upheld an inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence searches; and in 2002 the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, created by the FISA statute, accepted that "the president does have that authority" and noted "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.

Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.
Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

Mr. Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, served as counsel to the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, 1982-84.

The following development just may change the equation on how wise the Iraq adventure was, and thus the fortunes of Democrats in 06/08. Check out http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/n...ld/ 13495329.htm :

Kurds in Iraqi army proclaim loyalty to militia

By Tom Lasseter
Knight Ridder Newspapers

KIRKUK, Iraq - Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren't gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq's fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga - the Kurdish militia - and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

"It doesn't matter if we have to fight the Arabs in our own battalion," said Gabriel Mohammed, a Kurdish soldier in the Iraqi army who was escorting a Knight Ridder reporter through Kirkuk. "Kirkuk will be ours."
...

Told you it was a greast article.

Actually of you think about it, the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire can easily be traced back to the day the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

If Carter had nipped this Russian misadventure in the bud, the demise of the Soviet state would have taken much longer than it actually did.

By his inactions, Carter hastened the inevitable end to the Soviet regime.

tbrosz: what I said about Gorbachev, Reagan, and Reykjavik is accurate. I followed it closely at the time. Just google on any combination of these words, then read: Gorbachev, Reagan, Star Wars, SDI, Reykjavik.

Here's the transcripts: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/

The address I provided previously is interesting, but read widely as you want about what happened at Reykjavik.

And I think I know to whom the work "worship" applies; those who idolize Reagan.

By his inactions, Carter hastened the inevitable end to the Soviet regime.

Assuming this was serious: Wow, that didn't take long.

jim:

Missed the part in that transcript where Reagan was pulled out by his "handlers" before he could sign an agreement. Can you point it out?

Space does not permit a discussion here of the congressional lawbreaking that took place in the wake of the Vietnam War.

Translation: I've got nothing. Space allows me to bloviate endlessly on peripheral issues, but not to support the central argument of my article: that the legal restrictions passed in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, particularly FISA, were, in fact, unconstitutional. Now this may seem odd, since without making the case for this contention, the whole article is just a puff of meaningless hot air, but I desperately am hoping no one notices this.

Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order." The question is whether Congress had the power to limit such authorizations to a 15-day period, which I think highly doubtful. It would be akin to Congress telling the president during wartime that he could attack a particular enemy stronghold for a maximum of 15 days.

The analogy is bad as, under FISA, the President has unlimited authority to conduct warrantless searches against foreign powers, hostile or not, so long as they aren't targetting US persons; the 15-day window allows surveillance, without a warrant, of any person, for any purpose (subject only to the limits of the Fourth Amendment) and is intended to allow the President the time necessary to seek the particular authority from Congress he believes necessary to fight the war. As FDR did -- before the restrictions in FISA existed -- in securing Congressional authorization for an Office of Censorship empowered to monitor all foreign communication to and from the United States.

America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far).

False: at least one, and possibly more (the anthrax attacks never having been traced to a particular attacker) fatal al-Qaeda linked terrorist attack (the LAX ticket counter attack) has occurred since 9/11 within the United States.

But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country.

If this effort was directed at persons suspected of being foreign terrorists on some reasonable basis, there would be no need to violate FISA.

The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.

The opponents of illegal surveillance do not want no surveillance done, they want the FISC to exercise the oversight it is designed to exert to assure that monitoring notionally directed at foreign powers is directed at such powers and not US citizens in violation not only of the statute law, but the Fourth Amendment. There is no reason to seek to avoid this process except the desire to circumvent the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of US persons.

Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists.

False. That, as courts have noted, is the test for whether the power is within the purview of the US government. It is not the test for whether it is within the power of the executive branch unconstrainable by Congress.

And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.

No doubt. All of this is within the purview of FISA. The government unmistakably has the Constitutional power to conduct such surveillance, the question is whether it is instrinsically an unconstrained, unreviewable power of the President that cannot be subject to warrant requirements or Congressional procedural limits to assure that actions outside the scope of foreign intelligence surveillance are not done with that as the pretext. This argument again deliberately avoids the central point.

Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law.

True.

Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant.

Every modern President's self-serving opinion, even if this argument were true, is, ultimately irrelevant; every court of appeals that has addressed the issue at all has considered, to the best of my knowledge, the issue (any other comments are dicta) of the power of the President to conduct warrantless surveillance and other searches for foreign intelligence purposes where Congress has not acted to constrain that ability, or, alternatively, the extent to which FISA extended executive authority over what would exist without it. None have considered the question of whether the President may act contrary to statute, and there is little reasonable basis for the claim that FISA is outside of Congress Article I powers.

The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.

Perhaps, but the President is not right to needlessly ignore the FISA process for doing such, since such surveillance of our nations declared enemies, no matter who they communicate with, is clearly permitted by FISA, and complying with its requirements would protect the ability of the President to use information gained from such lawful surveillance to support applications for surveillane that is related to foreign intelligence but not necessarily connected to the war effort, or for other purposes. By defying the FISA process unnecessarily, the President has acted foolishly as well as illegally.

Latest news: NSA sites used to put "cookies" on our computers.

Not persistent cookies! As if no other websites do this on a regular basis.

I think this issue just jumped the shark.

By his inactions, Carter hastened the inevitable end to the Soviet regime.

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, this was by design. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the word among Carter's inner circle was, "We now have the opportunity to give the Soviet Union its Vietnam."

False: at least one, and possibly more (the anthrax attacks never having been traced to a particular attacker) fatal al-Qaeda linked terrorist attack (the LAX ticket counter attack) has occurred since 9/11 within the United States

False. The LAX ticket counter attack was not linked to al Qaeda.

The opponents of illegal surveillance do not want no surveillance done, they want the FISC to exercise the oversight it is designed to exert to assure that monitoring notionally directed at foreign powers is directed at such powers and not US citizens in violation not only of the statute law, but the Fourth Amendment.

False. Since (as I pointed out above) there is no probable cause to surveil the targets of the NSA program, the effect of a requirement that NSA follow the FISA requirement to obtain a warrant is that the NSA surveillance is terminated.

So, what you are really calling for is the termination of the NSA program.

Perhaps, but the President is not right to needlessly ignore the FISA process for doing such, since such surveillance of our nations declared enemies, no matter who they communicate with, is clearly permitted by FISA

But the targets of the surveillance are NOT "our nations declared enemies". The targets are, rather, people who have been linked to "our nations declared enemies". And, because there is no probable cause to surveil people who are merely linked to (as opposed to those who actually are) "our nations declared enemies", there IS a need to bypass the FISA process, to the extent permissible by our Constitution. Which is exactly what Bush has done.

many conservatives are simply right-wing libertarians who take "civil liberties" arguments SERIOUSLY.

This is totally untrue. Many "libertarians" are merely right-wing conservatives who use "civil liberties" arguments as a cover for their love of tax cuts and a means of reinforcing their fantasies of being "super men" who deserve freedom from petty government rules and regulations. The history of preserving Americans freedoms is protecting the Americans from the authoritarian instincts of much of its electorate.

Take Action Now!

Join the purchasing strike against some major Republican contributors. It appears time for an economic revolt against the companies that fund George W Bush and the Republican Party. We have had enough of white trash Republicans ruining the lives of innocent people with their mean spirited attitudes and actions.

You have the power. If you don't email or call these companies then you only have yourself to blame when people less fortunate than you continue to suffer under a bigoted Republican Party and their white trash followers that do not care about anyone but wealthy people other than their own families and friends.

Browse http://www.boycott-republicans.com

Libertarians for the most part appear as Republicans who like tax cuts, cheap labor for others, unregulated capitalism and marijuana, and plenty of sexy women.

The libertarians tolerate the fundies as long as they get fundies votes and remain in power so they can savage the poor, and lower middle classes and keep an imaginary gated community intact for their Ayn Randian fantasies.

If you want to pull the rug out from under the Republicans boycott their money contributors en masse. Tell others to boycott them.

Borwse http://www.boycott-republicans.com

The Dems had BETTER work to make sure the public understands what this fight is really about, because a large chunk of the press -- to my horror -- DOESN'T seem to. For the latest example, see today's Rasmussen Poll ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm ) -- specifically:

(1) "Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?" Not surprisingly, the answer was an overwhelming "yes".

(2) "Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?" Not surprisingly, the answer was an overwhelming "no".

Not a peep in the poll about the two magic key words which are at the center of the whole fight: "...without warrants".
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

I spy, with my little eye...safety! And fascism on the march!

Republicans: Where creating a dictatorship here so we can fight dictatorships over there.

Republicans better than Democrats on National Defense?

That lie exploded with the first plane that hit the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001.

Repeat after me.

The Bush provoked 9-11 attacks happened on the Republicans watch.

The Bush provoked 9-11 attacks happened on the Republicans watch.

Ok, do you have this clear?

"Not a peep in the poll about the two magic key words ..."

Not a peep in your comment that 68% of respondents had followed the story, which has been all about the issue of warrents. Keep it up you guys. America is stupid, lead us to the light.

So. Hate to say I told you so but have you worked out that this is a losing issue yet?

Look at all the predictions you fools were making about Bush approval headed down, down, down.
Wrong again Democrats!

Perhaps you guys are in the bubble.

Izzat you again, tool of dumb sort? Blabbering again, I see.

Why are Repubs considered strong on Nat'l Security? Weren't they in charge on 9/11?
Seems to me that proves they suck at it. Or at least Bush sucks at it.

you got it Gus ! bingo !

Look at all the predictions you fools were making about Bush approval headed down, down, down.

Wrong again Democrats!

And thanks there to McAristotle, our Malaysian Republican.

Tbrosz: "Latest news: NSA sites used to put 'cookies' on our computers. Not persistent cookies! As if no other websites do this on a regular basis. I think this issue just jumped the shark."

Mind explaining why, since we still have no idea what else they've been doing -- and since there are currently no safeguards from keeping either them or future administrations from listening in on ALL our conversations in a way which has no practical restrictions at all?

Bush rant:

"Democrats are weak sissies who love Osama and hate America!"

DNC approved answer comes out two weeks later:

Oh Mr. Bush, how could you? We don't quite agree with you sir. We love America and we prove it because we are almost, but not quite, as tough as you! Sticks and stones may hurt our bones but...We're sure you have the best intentions, sir, but here is a 34 page position paper approved by sixteen different focus groups that suggests you, at least in part, are incorrect! Oh, it so hard speaking this boldly! We're feeling an attack of the vapors coming on!"

Bruce:

You honestly think that the NSA popping a cookie onto my computer is worth a news story?

Look: if Democrats won't stand up for civil liberties, as the Taft Republicans did during the second world war, who will?

The Americans may have won the revolution, but the tension between Federalists and Antifederalists was never resolved, and became the basis for political partisanship in American history. As early as the 1790s, we had a party of big government and a party of limited government, and federalism; that has always been the case. The voting patterns of the period among members of Congress reflect this partisanship more than anything else.

Periodically, America goes through episodes of serious national crisis. In the depression and WWII era, the Federalists (then known as Democrats) went to war on the political battlefield with the Antifederalists (then known as Republicans) and won; something close to a super-majority of Americans was behind FDR until almost the 1940s. In the Civil War Federalists (then known as Republicans) went to war literally with the Antifederalists, and defeated them on the battlefield.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to suggest that we are entering another such period, although I don't think this one will be exactly like either of the earlier two. The country is as evenly divided between Federalists (this time known as Republians) and Antifedaralists (this time known as Democrats, even if they yet to entirely figure out their role) as in the 1860s, but there is not going to be a civil war between the two sides. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the big government neoconservative Republians are going to win a super-majority in the country, like the New Deal Democrats.

What needs to happen this time around I think is a kind of grand bargain between Federalists and Antifederalists - the sort we saw after the American revolution - with deep, and far reaching legislative and even constitutional reform. America could become a much looser federation of states, with a kind of "radical centrist" order at the federal level. The trouble in the coming years though is that Federalists and Antifederalists are not at all unified on the Federalist (neoconservative) project abroad the way they were about defeating the British and establishing a constitutional republic, so I expect this whole situation to get much more unpleasant before it gets better.

[...meanwhile, a scant ten years back in time]

tbrosz,

You honestly think that the president having access to my FBI file is worth a news story?

Jesus X Christ! I Never read such wimpy stuff! For the real thing, read PW and Kryptik! If ML King had been a modern Democrat he would have called off his protests because his focus groups showed Americans thought protesters had Communist sympathies (A take pushed by the Bushes and Roves of those times.)

Are the Republicans the only ones allowed use the words freedom and democracy? You Parsers deserve to lose!

What war was it the republicans won? Korea,Viet Nam, War on drugs. Oh yeah reagan's war, grenada

I don't know why you guys are fooling with tbrosz. It isn't like his views are any different from the fake tbroszs we see. "Reagan ended the Cold War?" What a joke. That's as stupid as saying that Reagan lowered taxes and increased Federal Revenues. It only happens if you ignore so many things as to move yourself into fantasy land.

Given the line of thinking we are talking about here I could prove that Clinton balanced the budget without raising taxes by merely ignoring the 1993 budget resolution and only referring to the tax cuts he implemented. Likewise Reagan "won" if you ignore Carter's funding of the Afghanis, Kennedy's Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, systemic failures of the Politburo including corruption and the fundamental problems of a command economy as well as the boost to Soviet nationalism imparted by such foolish moves as calling them the "Evil Empire" and the massive boondoggle of "Star Wars," and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

Reagan wasn't even there when the Berlin Wall came down or for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. These marked the “end of the Cold War,” and Reagan wasn't even there for them.

Does the police storming into my house in the middle of the night and confiscating my copy of SolidWorks merit any fuss?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that what we're concerned about here is that the President deliberately and knowingly broke the law? And gets his DoJ to tell him that he's allowed to break the law, 'cause he's the President?

We're not opposed to wiretapping Al Qaeda, for Christ's sake! We just want the man to get a freaking warrant, like the law says! What is so hard to understand about that?!

Not a peep in your comment that 68% of respondents had followed the story, which has been all about the issue of warrents.

So? That's not what the question asked. The question asked "should the NSA be allowed to do this" not "...without warrants." Since both sides of the argument covered by the story agree that the NSA should be allowed to monitor conversations of legitimate terrorism suspects, the difference being over what safeguards should be implemented and whether the President violated the existing law and his Constitutional duties in the manner in which he pursued such surveillance, its unsurprising and, additionally, completely irrelevant to the issues dispute that the vast majority agree that the NSA should be able to monitor such conversations.

Its, of course, not at all surprising that Rasmussen, a Republican-friendly polling outfit, would produce such an easily abused poll, nor that the administrations dishonest defenders would run it up the flagpole as if it meant something. It doesn't. But nice try.

False. Since (as I pointed out above) there is no probable cause to surveil the targets of the NSA program

That contradicts your claims that the NSA program specifically targets conversations where at least one endpoint -- the notional target -- is a member of al-Qaeda since you are now claiming that there is no probable cause to believe the target is, in fact, such a person.

Since the alleged fact of such narrow targeting is the basis of your arguments that this is not something about which innocent persons should be concerned, I think you must resolve the inconsistency in your arguments, rather than merely restating them over and over.

Additionally, once you've decided which of your conflicting claims you want to stick with, you should provide some reason to believe that that version of your story is in fact accurate rather than merely politically convenient.

We're not opposed to wiretapping Al Qaeda, for Christ's sake! We just want the man to get a freaking warrant, like the law says! What is so hard to understand about that?!

See, you've already lost, here. If you're explaining you're losing. tbrosz and the other Bush sycophants believe that the president should discard any laws he doesn't like. They're no better than the sycophantic courtiers of Louis XVI. Simple as that.

But the targets of the surveillance are NOT "our nations declared enemies". The targets are, rather, people who have been linked to "our nations declared enemies". And, because there is no probable cause to surveil people who are merely linked to (as opposed to those who actually are) "our nations declared enemies"

If the kind of link provides probable cause to believe that either the person they are actual agents of al-Qaeda, then, yes, there is probable cause.

If the kind of link is something along the lines of "he was once in the same restaurant with a suspected associate of a known member of al-Qaeda", then, yeah, there is no probable cause, and also no rational relationship between surveilling him and any substantive foreign intelligence need.

If there is no probable cause, the surveillance is Constitutionally unreasonable, whether or not it is the type that Constitutionally requires a warrant, and whether or not the power to conduct reasonable searches for the purpose at issue is an Congressionally unrestrainable Article II power, a Congressional Article I power, or a generic foreign policy power of the government than the President may exercise barring Congressional restraint but which Congress may constrain.

cmdicely,

Does FISA allow for warrentless "searches" (wiretaps and all that) if the courts are informed within 15 day for the "search".

False. The LAX ticket counter attack was not linked to al Qaeda.

The perpetrator certainly was.

Does FISA allow for warrentless "searches" (wiretaps and all that) if the courts are informed within 15 day for the "search".

No, those aren't the criteria for warrantless searches under FISA. See 50 USC 1802 for details.

cmdicely,

Was it ever confirmed that the Eygyptian perp was a member of Eygyptian Jihad? I am not sure if that wasn't just uncorroborated rumor.

cmdicely,
When are warrentless searches allowed?

cmdicely,
Well, good night. I have to get up early in the morning and this issue will come up again I'm sure.

See, you've already lost, here. If you're explaining you're losing.

Constantine, what would be your preferred strategy? You could do a TV commercial:

FADE IN: JOE reading newspaper in kitchen in morning. Birds twitter. Lite FM playing in BG. He sips his coffee.

FEDERAL AGENT #1 (OFFSCREEN)
(through bullhorn) Federal Agents! Open
up!

Joe looks confused.

ANGLE ON FRONT HALL: Joe approaches the front door, coffee in hand, looking perplexed.

JOE
Sorry, who -

The door BURSTS OPEN. FBI agents in body armor, carrying automatic weapons, file in, pushing the startled man aside.

FEDERAL AGENT #1
Team Blue, take the upstairs bedroom.
Team Orange, the home office.

JOE
Now wait just a goshdarned sec!
What's this about?

In the BG, an agent is curiously fingering a "No Snowmobiles" button. Another is yanking at a locked drawer in the breakfront.

FEDERAL AGENT #1
You know perfectly well what it's about.
Six calls to Pakistan?

JOE
My checking account was overdrawn!
The call center is in Karachi!

In the BG, Federal Agent #2 breaks the lock on the drawer and opens it.

FEDERAL AGENT #2
(in BG) What have we here!

He pulls out a handgun.

JOE
I want to see your warrant!

FEDERAL AGENT #1
We don't need a warrant, buddy.
We search whoever we want.

JOE
Who says?!

FEDERAL AGENT #1
The President, is who.

How's that?

It's, of course, not at all surprising that Rasmussen, a Republican-friendly polling outfit, would produce such an easily abused poll, nor that the administrations dishonest defenders would run it up the flagpole as if it meant something. It doesn't. But nice try.

Well, if you're right, and all the respondents somehow interpreted the question as an abstract one instead of being related specifically to the case being pushed in all the newspapers, then the Democrats have nothing to worry about in 2006.

By all means, the Democrats should commission their own poll, with their own questions ("Should the president be allowed to break the law and hurl this nation into the Thousand Year Night?"). We can get some idea then of what the approximate truth is.

From some of the responses to the non-story about the NSA and "cookies," I'm beginning to wonder if some of you have no idea what "cookies" on a browser are, and what they do.

There is no such thing as a cookie on a browser unless you use your laptop for eating deserts.

I leave with this from an article by Barr for the idiot corner to ponder on.

Two of the most powerful moments of political déjà vu I have ever experienced took place recently in the context of the Bush administration's defense of presidentially ordered electronic spying on American citizens.

There is no such thing as a cookie on a browser unless you use your laptop for eating deserts.

Cute. I know what cookies are, how they're stored, and where. I also know that the ones the NSA used--they don't use them any more in any case--were probably harmless, and if they weren't most systems with proper defenses would have kicked them out. Not something to get worked up about.

For a person who knows that they were probably harmless you sure are speaking mightily confidently about this being a non-story.

I just realized I miss Kevin's West Coast late-night posting. All the new stuff that would show up about 10 PM Pacific.

BTW, is this board getting carpetbaggerreport rehashes, or the other way around?

Let me explain this in small words:

The President broke the law

No matter how many idiots are polled who support the President breaking the law*, the Rule of Law applies to everyone.

The only question is, do the Republicans support the Rule of Law, or do they support the President?

*I realize the poll doesn't say that, but for the sake of argument let's assume it means what the right wing nutcases are arguing.

What needs to happen this time around I think is a kind of grand bargain between Federalists and Antifederalists - the sort we saw after the American revolution - with deep, and far reaching legislative and even constitutional reform.
he trouble in the coming years though is that Federalists and Antifederalists are not at all unified on the Federalist (neoconservative) project abroad the way they were about defeating the British and establishing a constitutional republic, so I expect this whole situation to get much more unpleasant before it gets better.

warrant, and whether or not the power to conduct reasonable searches for the purpose at issue is an Congressionally unrestrainable Article II power, a Congressional Article I power, or a generic foreign policy

I don't think it is an exaggeration to suggest that we are entering another such period, although I don't think this one will be exactly like either of the earlier two. The country is as evenly divided between Federalists (this time known as Republians) and Antifedaralists (this time known as Democrats, even if they yet to entirely figure out their role).

Let me explain this in small words:

The President broke the law

Posted by: heavy on December 29, 2005 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINK

That's funny, if he's using a power he has under the constitution, you'd think that an amendement rather than a law is needed to restrain it....

Exaggeration without thinking, just keeps eroding the credibility of the left more and moroe.

We just want the man to get a freaking warrant, like the law says! What is so hard to understand about that?!

Posted by: brooksfoe on December 29, 2005 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Who says the law says that?

Secondly, how did Democrats suddenly get legalistic. On Clinton's perjury...the defense was always that it was a private matter.

So McAristotle, you're saying that the President authorizing the NSA to listen in to the conversations of thousands of Americans without a warrant is "a private matter"?

I disagree. I think that whether or not the President is drinking himself into a stupor now and then, or whether he snorted coke in the '70s, is "a private matter". Authorizing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance is "a public matter".

Why do I bother responding to you, anyway? You haven't got a clue, and you can't vote.

No. Its not a private matter. However your sudden willingless to argue its 'that simple' and the President broke the law is inconsistent with ignoring Perjury, which is also a law because its a 'private matter'.

My guesses, seem to be closer to public opinion than this site and its posters in general... so lack of a clue must be an edge.

BTW, how did Clinton's AG search Ames house without a warrant?

That's funny, if he's using a power he has under the constitution, you'd think that an amendement rather than a law is needed to restrain it.... Exaggeration without thinking, just keeps eroding the credibility of the left more and moroe.

You can't make this stuff up.

Most legal scholars say that it's the President who's exaggerating when he claims the right to set aside the law in conducting warrentless searches.

"Exaggeration without thinking", indeed.

Let me make myself perfectly clear.

Fuck: Messrs O'Hanlon, Penn, and especially Senor Wittmann.

from the very bottom of my heart.

Most legal scholars say that it's the President who's exaggerating when he claims the right to set aside the law in conducting warrentless searches.

Posted by: No Preference on December 29, 2005 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK

So, how did Clinton search Ames house without a warrant?

FISA did not cover physical searches at the time Ames' house was searched. However, FISA did cover electronic surveillance when Bush instituted his secret spying. Clinton did not break the law. Bush did.

See here for further explanation.

Why do you guys argue with the trolls here? You cannot defeat willfull ignorance, why bother trying? The wingnuts are cowards who seem to share rush's drug addled brain. Shit they repeat him word for word and think they just had an original thought.

When i look at a scandal, ultimately, the question to me is whether there's a chance of convincing 2/3 of the Senate that it's a big deal. In the current climate, that means that a scandal has to be so clear-cut, and so indefensible, that there's simply no good face to put on it. It was clear to me from the day the Times first reported this that the wiretap scandal simply doesn't come close to that standard, because it's too easy to hide behind national security, and too easy to muddy the waters by being vague about what the program actually does. Contrast that with Plame, for which the President really had no defense at all (other than complete innocence, i.e. Libby et al were rogues, working out on their own, and Bush was shocked to learn about it)--if that could be tied directly to the President, even a cowed, GOP controlled Senate would have had an enormous amount of trouble avoiding impeachment, because there is simply nothing ambiguous, and nothing defensible, about revealing the identity of CIA agents.

In another world--a world with an independent Senate controlled by the opposition party--the separation of powers issues here could possibly have been fleshed out and articulated in a way that would have hurt Bush badly. That's a different world, though, and there's no use pretending we live in it. In other words, this is a scandal that people predisposed to be outraged about Bush's activities can gnash their teeth about all they want, but nothing will come of it.

Incidentally, I'm surprised I haven't heard Democrats sum this up as "the President claims to have the power to wiretap anyone he wants, without any oversight, and without any constraints. If that's the case, then if Hillary is elected in 2008, she'll have that power too. Now do you see the problem?" Of course, that just brings it to the level of a policy dispute, rather than a question of illegality--but I'm pretty confident that if Democrats hammered it that way, the practice would, at the very least, end.

Another Al From arguement.

This is why Dems keep losing - they're told to fear everything and just let Bush frame the debate. Democrats keep losing because centrist Dems tell us that we need to fear Bush over and over again.

This middle of Road - just let Bush have his way is never going to do a damn thing for Dems - just keep them losing time and time again.

The questions should be this: Is Bush looking only at terrorist related activites with his wiretapping - I don't think Bush is - knowing how vindictive and paranoid this administration has always been, the way this administration goes after people it doesn't like - if Bush is simply looking at terrorist relate wiretaps than surely Bush won't mind a invesitgation into matter - just who was Bush looking at?

I bet Bush wiretapping had more to do with war protestors and not terrorist related anything - thus the reason Bush DIDN'T use the FISA courts.

Why can't those congressional Dems just say that?

Another episode of ALWAYS FOLLOW THE LINK, brought to you by tbrosz:

Jim: Now days, the right brags about Reagan ending the cold war. Ha.

tbrosz: This is how Russia remembers it. But what the heck would they know, right?

From the 2004 msnbc article tbrosz links:

Retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin said that trying to field a response to Reagan’s Star Wars had “certainly contributed” to Soviet economic demise but argued it didn’t play the decisive role.

“The Soviet economy was extremely inefficient and nothing could save it,” said Dvorkin, a senior Soviet arms control negotiator during the 1980s.

Didn't play a decisive role. Hmm. Certainly doesn't sound like they are crediting Reagan with winning the cold war to me.

cheryl,

What war proterstors?

You think they're having some kind of impact?

The Reagan cheerleading squad who keep obsessively crediting him with "winning the Cold War" by threatening the USSR into surrender via Star Wars really ought to keep in mind that Reagan himself repeatedly made it clear that he WASN'T trying to do that. The man did have enough sense to recognize that there was a serious risk that the Soviets would respond to our unilateral development of Star Wars by instead launching a first strike against us before we could activate it -- which might very well have happened if the paranoid Andropov hadn't had that very fortunate cold.

And so (like William F. Buckley) he repeatedly proposed giving the Soviets a copy of it so that both nations could activate their systems simultaneously. The transcripts of his conversations with Gorbachev, recently declassified by the Kremlin, show him telling Gorby: "I never would have proposed such a system if I didn't think it could be shared."

The Soviets turned him down because they were pefectly aware that such a shared-technology system would just enable both nations to identify the holes in each others' SDI systems, making both systems instantly useless (something Reagan couldn't get through his head, thanks to the combination of his growing Alzheimer's with his preexisting mental fuzziness -- I don't know what Buckley's excuse was). But at least it proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that he not only didn't deliberately force the USSR to end the Cold War, but didn't even try to do so -- he still intended, like everyone else with even minimal sense, to just continue our policy of containment and pray that when the USSR finally did collapse from within, it would do so peacefully. (As John B. Judis notes, thank God that by the time he reached the White House he had abandoned Goldwater's "Why Not Victory?" idiocy and adopted standard-model Eisenhoweresque containment.)

Why does McA keep asking about the warrentless "physical" searches of Ames's house?

Is he really that obtuse? We've already established that during the Clinton presidency, FISA allowed for warrentless "physical" searches. That has since been addressed and changed and they are no longer legal.

So, moot point McA.

Why does McA keep asking about the warrentless "physical" searches of Ames's house?

I think our Malaysian friend -- understandably given his distance from the US political system -- believes in a false dichotomy. Either the President may Constitutionally perform such searches without a warrant and Congress cannot constrain such authority, or the President may not conduct such searches without a warrant in any case.

I think he fails to recognize the possibility than the President's powers over foreign and security matters is often defined negatively, where he may act within the powers not denied to the government as a whole so long as Congress has not expressly, by exercise of its own powers, acted to constrain the President in the area he is acting.

We've already established that during the Clinton presidency, FISA allowed for warrentless "physical" searches. That has since been addressed and changed and they are no longer legal.

It would be more precise to say that, at the time of the Ames search, FISA did not address physical searches, and it has since been changed and now does address and constrain such searches. It does not categorically prohibit warrantless physical searches, but places rules for them very similar to those for warrantless electronic surveillance.

adult personals - adult personals and adult singles top

choice

free adult personals - free adult personals, adult singles

and adult chat rooms

adult dating - adult dating for adult personals and adult singles

free adult dating - free adult dating with free adult web cam and

free adult chat - adult dating free

adult swingers - adult swingers and adult personals use this free

adult web cam and adult chat

free adult swingers - free adult swingers, free adult personals -

adult sex dating

adult chat - adult chat and free adult dating for adult personals

free adult chat - free adult chat and free adult web cam

adult friend - adult friend and adult personals free adult dating

adult web cam - adult web cam and free adult chat for sex

personals

adult finder - adult finder for adult personals

free adult web cam - free adult web cam and free adult chat

adult dating service - free adult dating service with free adult

chat

sex dating - sex dating for adult personals and erotic adult

personals

adult sex dating - adult sex dating for adult personals and adult

singles

adult singles - adult singles for adult sex dating

sex adult dating - sex adult dating, adult singles site

adult dating service - adult dating service, sex adult dating

adult models directory - top adult models free directory

adult friend finder - find adult friend for free

adult finder - adults find friends for free!

adult chat - best adult chat available here

best porn stars - best and most famous porn stars

adult dating - top adult dating site

adult dating chat -
adult dating chat - any adult welcome!

adult sex dating - adult sex dating portal

free adult dating - free adult dating available here

adult dating online - adult dating online best choice

adult dating personals - find adult dating personals here

adult dating site - best adult dating site

adult xxx dating - adult xxx dating available here

adult singles dating - adult singles dating top site

porn star gallery - most famous porn stars free gallerys

porn star gals - best porn star free gals

famous porn stars - most famous porn stars free photos

porn stars - porn stars and adult models free photos

free porn stars - free porn stars listings and galleries

top porn stars - top porn stars free listings

online dating service - free online dating

service

dating services - free dating services, online

personals

single dating - singles dating online

internet dating - best internet dating site!

christian dating - christians dating services

free

christian dating service - dating service for

christians

christian dating services - dating services

for christians

free online dating - free online dating services

online dating Louisville - Louisville online

dating

hispanic dating service - hispanic dating

services

dating lexington online -
dating lexington online singles and personals
Discount Pharmacy discount pharmacy
best choice

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy
store,

Discount Online Pharmacy at best prices.

Sildenafil Citrate
Sildenafil Citrate pills

Tadalafil - Tadalafil
pills and Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis pills

Vardenafil HCI

6-Tablet Trial Pack

Carisoprodol (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-soma.html">Generic
Soma

Finasteride (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-propecia.html">Generic
Propecia

Atorvastatin (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-lipitor.html">Generic
Lipitor

Sibutramine

Celecoxib (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/celebrex.html">Celebrex

Metformin (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/glucophage.html">Glucophage

Amlodipine (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/norvasc.html">Norvasc

Simvastatin (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/zocor.html">Zocor

Tretinoin

Atomoxetine (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-strattera.html">Generic
Strattera

Bupropion SR (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-wellbutrin.html">Generic
Wellbutrin

Eszopiclone (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/generic-lunesta.html">Generic
Lunesta

Fexofenadine (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/alegra-D.html">Alegra
D

Loratidine (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/claritin.html">Claritin

Ranitidine (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/zantac.html">Zantac

Regalis (

href="http://www.rxwanted.com/cialis.html">Cialis

Sertraline

Free games free games

free ringtones free ringtones

free online games free online games

free screensaver free screensaver

free credit report
free credit report

free clip art free clip art

free downloads free downloads

free stuff free stuff

free wallpapers free wallpapers

free email free email

free people search free people search

free translation free translation

free chat rooms free chat rooms

free chat free chat

free software downloads free software downloads

free sample and free samples

free desktop wallpaper free desktop wallpapers

Skin treatment skin treatment

natural skin care natural skin care

Natural skin treatment Natural skin treatment