Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 1, 2006

STILL MISSING THE POINT....It's been 12 days since the president has had to deal with questions about his warrantless-search program, a respite Bush has no doubt enjoyed. But today, after visiting with some injured troops, the president took a few questions from reporters. Guess what they wanted to talk about.

"It's seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al-Qaida or an al-Qaida affiliate and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why," Bush said. "They attacked us before, they'll attack us again."

Bush spoke to reporters at Brooke Army Medical Center where he was visiting wounded troops. He said the leak of information about the secret order to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists causes "great harm to the nation."

Asked how he responds to Americans worried about violations of their privacy, he responded, "If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why.... I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking."

Yes, of course we want to know. To fight a war on terrorism and defend the country, we need to know. In fact, the FISA court would be delighted to give the administration a warrant so officials can know why someone is chatting with terrorists. It leads, of course, to the one question the president doesn't want to hear and can't answer: why not spy on the bad guys without circumventing the rule of law?

As for today's revelation -- that the Justice Department was hardly on board with this warrantless-search program -- the AP account explained that Bush "dodged a question about whether he was aware of any resistance to the program at high levels of his administration and how that might have influenced his decision to approve it."

And with that, the fight to frame the controversy continues. For Bush, it's "there's an enemy, so spying is a necessity." For his critics, it's "spy all you want, just get a warrant and allow for some oversight." 'Round and 'round we go....

Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (91)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

This is a counter productive tack for the Dems, unless they want the ACLU to fight the WOT. This is just more evidence that the Dems, especially the left wing here, does not consider the GWOT a serious matter. I think it's a loser for you but, if you want my advice, keep digging. There's got to be water down there somewhere.

Posted by: Mike K on January 1, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, screw that good citizenship, rule-if-law bullshit. If it's a loser politically, that's all that matters!

Posted by: Kenji on January 1, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

rule-of-law, that is.

Posted by: Kenji on January 1, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

My questions are: Is he tapping ONLY the communications of people connected with Al Qaeda? Is he tapping any newspeople? Is he tapping any Democrats--Kerry, Dean, Gore? Is he tapping Joe Wilson's communications? Is he tapping the communications of any bloggers considered liberal, democrat, left wing?

Posted by: Mazurka on January 1, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

The man said that he is tapping the phones of only those receiving calls from terrorists. So even if it is God almighty getting a call from the caves of Western Pakistan, it's the President's God given right to know what Al Queda is thinking.

What's your problem?

Posted by: neocon on January 1, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K.
You (sheeple) just aren't making sense.

If someone from Al Qaeda called someone in the US, it would trivial to get a court order to wire tap (even after the fact)

So the reason for going around FISA must have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The real question is still - Why did they not want to go to a judge after they tapped someone?

The only answer that I've heard that makes any sense is they were tapping someone they shouldn't have.

Posted by: rob on January 1, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

The spying is probably more extensive than we care to imagine. Data mining I believe it's called. Not just phone calls but most financial transactions. Private companies are helping the NSA. This is Big Brother.

For a president who wears his religion on his sleeve he seems to have forgotten a saying of the man he so freely professes to believe in..

The only way to get rid of your enemy is to make him your friend.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

What is this horseshit about the ACLU running the war on terror? The existing law basically bends over backward to let him have the warrants he needs anyway--why the hell does he need to break it?

Posted by: mwg on January 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

"This is just more evidence that the Dems, especially the left wing here, does not consider the GWOT a serious matter. "

I think most Dems are so serious about terrorism that they understand that to descend to the level of ones opponent is to lose.

Our adherence to the rule of law is the only distinguishing characteristic that keeps us from being terrorists ourselves.

Also, the only reason the FISA has denied a warrant was for politically motivated wiretaps.

Perhaps that is why Bush needs to ignore the law?

Posted by: Sky-Ho on January 1, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

"If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why..."

How about if I just promise to tell them if the El-Quedras give me a ring?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on January 1, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Mazurka asks: My questions are: Is he tapping ONLY the communications of people connected with Al Qaeda?

Yes. That's what he said. The NYT articles and Mr. Risen's books don't claim differently.

Is he tapping any newspeople?

No. Do you know of any who have been tapped?

Is he tapping any Democrats--Kerry, Dean, Gore?

No. Do you know of any who have been tapped?

Is he tapping Joe Wilson's communications?

No. Who would bother with Joe Wilson today?

Is he tapping the communications of any bloggers considered liberal, democrat, left wing?

No. Who would bother with left wing bloggers today?

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah! Those objectively-pro-Saddam America haters like vegans, anti-war protestors, PETA, and Catholics are just the people we need to watch.

"Liberals, who may well mount a fifth column" (Andrew Sullivan) -- liberals just want the destruction of American freedoms.

Liberals are connected to the / Saddam bone; Saddam's connected to the / Al-Zawahiri bone; Al-Zawahiri's connected to the / Al-Qaeda bone..."

See? Osama Bin Laden WAS talking directly to Kevin Bacon!

Posted by: Phobos Deimos on January 1, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Rob writes, The only answer that I've heard that makes any sense is they were tapping someone they shouldn't have.

There's other reasons. First, the amount of data coming through is enormous. There's no intent to use any of it for criminal prosecution purposes -- it's for military intel (find the terrorists and whack them, and roll up their networks). To take each tap to the FISA court is 1) onerous 2) counter-productive (again, no criminal prosecution intended) and 3) may tip one's hat.

Also, we know now that a couple of the FISA judges (Clinton appointees, wotta surprise) were balky about issuing warrants.

Finally, it's standard practice in a war to listen in on one's enemies, wherever they may be. The NSA program wasn't being used to spy on Americans, it was being used to listen in on enemies who were contacting people in America. That's a standard intel practice in wartime, and you darn sure want to be able to do it. It's the Bush admin's contention that such listening doesn't require a FISA warrant. I tend to agree but I'm not a con-law expert (neither is anyone else at Political Animal).

If -- a big if -- one can prove that the NSA program was being used to listen in on domestic conversations that were non-WoT related (tapping John Dean's phone line, for instance) then you have a major issue that has to be fixed. As long as this was used strictly to listen in on calls from potential enemies to people in the US, and it's clearly WoT related, then (my opinion again) this program is legal and proper without FISA warrants.

Feel free to attack it, but remember a key Republican campaign point for the 2006 elections: "The Democrats don't even want the government to listen in to what al-Qaeda is plotting to do to kill Americans." If that meme gains currency, the Dems are toast.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

If you KNOW the answers, Steve White, then you have revealed information about a classified program. If you are just speculating, then who gives a damn what you think.

If the tapping is legitimate, then why not let a judge see it. Or would you rather that Padilla goes free on a technicality.

Posted by: b on January 1, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

If this wire-tapping is only about AlKiduh folks trying to call each other then why are mosques being screened for radiation?

By my reasoning, all muslims are suspect in the eyes of George's folks.

Anyone checked how much faith-based US dollars have gone to mosques recently?

George "knows" our enemy. He is above the law so *&%$ off all you liberal ninnys.

Last time I checked the history books show a president impeached for illegal wire-tapping of his "sworn" enemies.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Nicholson writes, The only way to get rid of your enemy is to make him your friend.

Or, one could simply kill him.

Once your enemy is dead, it's very difficult for him to harm you.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,

What about DNA? Don't those twisted strands remember the hatred across the grave?

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Nicholson writes, If this wire-tapping is only about AlKiduh folks trying to call each other then why are mosques being screened for radiation?

Because a fair number of the mosques are funded by Saudi money and have become radicalized over the years. Because that group of mosques have become hang-outs for militants who use the mosques (and the peaceful people who attend there as well) as cover. Because the consequences of missing a single nuke are catastrophic.

By my reasoning, all muslims are suspect in the eyes of George's folks.

That's a silly over-statement. I hope you are not blind to the fact that militant Muslims (Islamists, Islamofascists, take your pick of names) have sworn to kill us and bring down our country. Some of their bluster is comical, but some of it is deadly serious.

We know that 95% of the world's Muslims are peaceful, decent people who want nothing more than what the rest of us want -- a decent life for themselves and a better life for their children. It's identifying and dealing with the ones who do wish us harm that's the issue.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Or, one could simply kill him.
Once your enemy is dead, it's very difficult for him to harm you.
Just a thought.

Gee Steve, I guess you're not from the Christian wing of the Republican party.

Posted by: LW Phil on January 1, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Some questions for Steve White:

Given that the president's program is secret, illegal AND unnecessary for national security, why should we then believe that only phone numbers from al-Qaida are being tapped?

Wouldn't you like someone to ask the president if any reporter's or political opponent's phones are being tapped, just so he can answer that question directly to the American people?

Shouldn't you have maybe just a teaspoon of scepticism about this president's actions by now?

Posted by: caribou on January 1, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

b writes, If you KNOW the answers, Steve White, then you have revealed information about a classified program. If you are just speculating, then who gives a damn what you think.

My good fellow, what is the reason for blogs and their comments sections if not to talk about what we all think?

I don't know the answers. I try to be informed and I read widely. Feel free to disagree with me, you won't be alone.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

LW Phil writes, Gee Steve, I guess you're not from the Christian wing of the Republican party.

Christians have never had a problem with carrying a sword with which to defend themselves.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

If that's the meme the GOP intends to use in 2006, then it's obvious the GOP knows the program is an abuse of power, and illegal.

Because "The Democrats don't even want the government to listen in to what al-Qaeda is plotting to do to kill Americans" is NOT the issue, and that's been made clear, over and over again.

Let's have those investigations. Let's find out who the Bush Admin was really spying on.

Let's find out why the NSA people who were carrying out Bush Admin's orders were so upset by those orders that they leaked the story.

Deputy Attorney General Comey refused to recertify the surveillance program. Gonzales and Card went to Ashcroft, in the hospital, while he was recovering from surgery, to pressure him to recertify - and even Ashcroft was reluctant to do so.

We don't actually know whether the WH pressured Ashcroft to recertify - or what kind of pressure they put on him while he was woozy from medication - or whether, indeed, the WH dispensed with getting the Attorney General's approval at all.

Posted by: CaseyL on January 1, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

So Steve,

If 5% of muslims are our enemy, why are Quaker Meetings also being monitored? Our government seems to also think that there are militant Quakers out there.

Many Quakers hold this peculiar tenet that mankind needs to go beyond the need for warfare.

How is that a threat to our national security?

Living peaceFULLy is realizing that peace is more than the absence of war.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Caribou has questions for me, and I try to answer:

Given that the president's program is secret, illegal AND unnecessary for national security, why should we then believe that only phone numbers from al-Qaida are being tapped?


Your assumptions are invalid: the program is necessary for national security, and it is, as best as I can tell, legal. It may well be at the very edge of legal, and it may be legal but something that we shouldn't do. Those are questions worth considering. You may believe the program to be illegal, but I do not, and I note that the program is, in the description of every sober observer, one that went through multiple levels of oversight and review.

Wouldn't you like someone to ask the president if any reporter's or political opponent's phones are being tapped, just so he can answer that question directly to the American people?

Why don't you get a reporter to ask that question? From his public statements, Bush has said that the program was used to tap communications of people contacted by known or suspected terrorists. That doesn't include reporters or political opponents.

Shouldn't you have maybe just a teaspoon of scepticism about this president's actions by now?

I have skepticism about every politican's actions. Including (especially) Democrats.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Nicholson asserts: If 5% of muslims are our enemy, why are Quaker Meetings also being monitored?

I'd appreciate it if you could post a link demonstrating that Quaker meetings have been monitored by the NSA program. I'd appreciate a MSM link. Thanks in advance,

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

What if Al Jarreau is on the line?

Posted by: Kenji on January 1, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

CaseyL writes, Deputy Attorney General Comey refused to recertify the surveillance program. Gonzales and Card went to Ashcroft, in the hospital, while he was recovering from surgery, to pressure him to recertify - and even Ashcroft was reluctant to do so.

I'm not surprised that Mr. Comey would be reluctant to recertify the program. 1) He may not have been completely in the loop. 2) It's a big decision and he is, after all, the deputy. 3) He may well have had a different opinion of the program.

As to Mr. Ashcroft, he was recovering from surgery. There's no evidence that he was too ill to recertify the program after careful thought.

We don't actually know whether the WH pressured Ashcroft to recertify - or what kind of pressure they put on him while he was woozy from medication - or whether, indeed, the WH dispensed with getting the Attorney General's approval at all.

I think that's a silly speculation.

Posted by: Steve White on January 1, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,

Our president sure knows the enemy.

Take Iraq and an effort by the AFSC to ship a small water-purification plant to Iraq (2003).

The US military denied the shipment based on the assumption that the chlorine gas (used to purify the water!) could be used by bad guys in Iraq.

So, a group known for generations to be an advocate of peace (the American Friends Service Committee), was denied the right to export a crucial water-purification plant into Iraq.

How can we even "win" friends when kind folks are denied honest efforts at improving the lives of war victims?

Yes, the AFSC is probably a threat to George and Co., for the simple reason that it's an organization that tries to help humans live peaceFULLy.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316

Steve,
This is for you

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

You know when Ashcroft didn't think it was legal, something has to be dreadfully wrong. I mean Ashcroft is nobody's idea of a civil libertarian.

Posted by: molly bloom on January 1, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

"There's other reasons. First, the amount of data coming through is enormous. There's no intent to use any of it for criminal prosecution purposes -- it's for military intel (find the terrorists and whack them, and roll up their networks). To take each tap to the FISA court is 1) onerous 2) counter-productive (again, no criminal prosecution intended) and 3) may tip one's hat."

That is so total BS.

You got 72 hours to send a warrant request on every single tap. A computer could do it in seconds. Four requests were turned down.

If you get useable info, you don't need a warrant. Get it?

Bush&Co just wants us to sacrifice our liberties in the name of expediency. and so he can tap political enemies.......

"Also, we know now that a couple of the FISA judges (Clinton appointees, wotta surprise) were balky about issuing warrants."

Proof? Name names, please or coward you are.

"I hope you are not blind to the fact that militant Muslims (Islamists, Islamofascists, take your pick of names) have sworn to kill us and bring down our country."

I have never read that they wish to bring our country down. Please, reference a speech or written statement. Show me.

I read they wish us to change _some_ of the ways we deal with others, which I am completely on board with.

Posted by: Sky-Ho on January 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

At least there appears to be no malpractice being committed today by the Drs. MikeyK and SteveyW.

How is invading Iraq being "defensive" by a Christian?

The new code seems to have come from "Waterhole Number Three" - "Do unto others before they can do it unto you, that is the Code of the West."

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 1, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Steve: Rationality doesn't have a lot to do with this discussion, but at least you're making a valiant effort.

I'm not sure if the NYT could blow any more smoke on this issue than it is.

Leaving aside the usual horde of anonymous, unaccountable sources:

A deputy didn't want to sign off on something while Ashcroft was incapacitated. This is a sign of criminal activity?

Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.

Accounts differed? "But some officials said..."

What did the other ones say? Who knows? They didn't make the cut.

Then there are several paragraphs telling how the program was halted to revamp the program, and examined for abuses. None were found.

This outpouring of information from anonymous sources is the equivalent of accepting unsigned notes slipped under the door as witness evidence in a trial. We are betting a lot on the integrity of the New York Times, and frankly, their record isn't all that good.

I support a complete investigation, including names and motivations of these "sources."

I remember that finding out the names and motivations of the Iraq and other sources on Iraq's WMD programs ended up telling us a lot about the reliability of such sources.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 1, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the Repubs have something here with this warrantless spying on American citizens. Just think of all the domestic crimes, both white collar and others, that might possibly be solved. The gov't could even listen in on big businesses like the Haliburton's and Enron's. They could keep track of every person that buys a gun and calls up their buddy to brag about it. I'm sure no one would have problems with listening in on bookmaking operations. We could have a whole new department of domestic spying that would turn the USA into a ....Utopia?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 1, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,

You say you have scepticism but you're not showing it. What I meant by "unnecessary" is that the NSA could have done all this, exactly the same, but WITH warrants, even retroactive ones. FISA allows for this.

Doesn't the fact that they chose not to, indicate something? Isn't it now up to this administration to prove to the American people that the NSA wasn't acting nefariously?

And beyond that, shouldn't Mr. Bush expain why he thinks he's above the law. Why should we trust him? All he's given us so far are a bunch of vaguely defined security alerts and prisons full of untried and unconvicted suspects.

His prosecution, so far, of the alleged GWOT, frankly stinks. You must know this yourself. Your decent 95% of Muslims certainly know this. Where do they see the greatest danger? How can you expect their cooperation now?

Posted by: caribou on January 1, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

The following GWB quote from the article is quite revealing about GWB's state of mind:

"Asked how he responds to Americans worried about violations of their privacy, he responded, "If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why.... I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking.""

It is already perfectly legal for the NSA to tap WITHOUT A WARRANT calls originating from outside of the country and terminating inside the country. A warrant must only be obtained for calls originating from within the country.

That GWB discusses calls originating from outside of the country as if they require a warrant under FISA, thereby requiring that he sidestep FISA, tells me either 1) that he is so terribly ignorant of the basic issues surrounding FISA that he has no business authorizing going around FISA, or 2) that he is well aware the he has broken the law, and is merely engaging in the typical GOP tactic of muddying the debate with lies. (9/11... Saddam... 9/11... Saddam...)

In any case, this man needs to be impeached ASAP.

For all our sakes.

Posted by: Disputo on January 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's important to keep in mind the crux of this whole warrantless spying nonsense. Not only is Bush doing something illegal but he is in violation of the US Constitution, a document he has sworn to uphold. More important, Bush has also demonstrated a complete inability to be straight with the American people. We have no reason to believe what he says given the lies he has told in the last five years.

Congress has a clear Constitutional obligation to find out what the truth is. They make the law, not Bush. So far, we are lacking answers but the Republican noise machine is in full operational mode as if there is something to hide. If there was nothing to hide, the explanations from the White House would be straight-forward. We've seen no such thing.

Posted by: Craig on January 1, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Christians have never had a problem with carrying a sword with which to defend themselves.

I know one Christian who had a problem with it:

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Matt 26:52

But then the Republican Christ makes Moloch look like Gandhi.

Posted by: Jinzang on January 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

I say..Quit Making this a debate. A debate ..interesting bullshit to make room for legally breaking the law. The law here is explicit. Here's the only question any American needs to ask. "Is the President above the law"? Ask the president that question directly because he broke it. If the answer is no then resign. If your answer is yes, then tell the people your above the law, but you've got a good reason for it, then debate. Good luck.

Posted by: DA on January 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

We are betting a lot on the integrity of the New York Times, and frankly, their record isn't all that good.

And you and Steve are betting a lot on the integrity of the Bush White House, and frankly...

Posted by: caribou on January 1, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

This is just more evidence that the Dems, especially the left wing here, does not consider the GWOT a serious matter.

Actually, we think it such a serious matter that many of us were opposed to the invasion of Iraq as a costly, and ultimately damaging, distraction from it.

What does legal surveillance not accomplish that illegal surveillance does, and how does a preference for the former demonstrate that one does not consider the GWOT a serious matter?

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on January 1, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K wrote:

"This is just more evidence that the Dems, especially the left wing here, does not consider the GWOT a serious matter."

Posted by: Mike K on January 1, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK


I consider the Global War on Terrorism to be a completely manufactured piece of rhetorical garbage made up by Karl Rove and George W. Bush, meant to enable them to fight a war anywhere and any way they want. It's a usurpation of powers they were never meant to have under the Constitution.

They should just find, capture and kill all of those who attacked us on 9/11/01 -- presumably Al Qaeda.

Dems consider the war against those who attacked us to be so important we want to get rid of Bush, so we can get on with the real war and win it.

Bush is an admitted felon (on the NSA spying), so there's no reason anyone should care what he says from now on. The only thing he could say which might interest me is, "I admit my guilt and resign the presidency."

Posted by: MarkH on January 1, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

This is a great chance to crumble away yet another part of the rock this lame duck imbecile Bush is being flambed on. Simply by just keep playing back the libertarian lunar right's many and manifest objections to this should do it.
Also you might quietly make the point that data mining with stripped headers could be worth investigating. That is using encrytion to protect privacy but still going through this pile of data for clues. You know what with all the encrypted traffic these days the NSA is going deaf anyway. Data mining and traffic analysis should become more important. Just cos yr paranoid doesn't mean NO-ONE out there wants to kill more Amerikkkans...I know I do.

Now also you don't have to run to hard on this issue and sound all shrill because people don't actively protect their privacy much on the web. They seem happy enough with ' Brinworld'. It's just one more nail in Shrubs cedar coffin though and thats surely good news for modern humanoids.

Finally this Bush half-wit guy is obviously a crook OR dangerously criminally negligent so lets finish him off this year - lets stake him to an ants nest. Thank you for yr time.

Posted by: professor-rat on January 1, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

"Then there are several paragraphs telling how the program was halted to revamp the program, and examined for abuses. None were found."

The secretive Administration program was reviewed by themselves and they didn't find any abuses. What a suprising development! Insiders selected by the Adiminstration don't see anything wrong in what fellow Administration insiders are doing!!! Man, I wouldn't have predicted that in a thousand years!

Posted by: Butch on January 1, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

YES, You are still missing the point.

Jimminy Carter, Bill Clinton, GWB, all agreed the President has the power to conduct surveilance as part of his National security and War Powers...WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT...FOOOOOL.

If, under the Presidents power to Organize, equip and train the military, a military unit is training at 29 Palms and comes across a rape in progress and they stop it ANDD THEN THE GUY GETS PROSECUTED FROM THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE SOLDIERS DOING THE TRAINING...guess what, it is perfectly LEGAL. This would be people conducting perfectly legal war related activites coming across criminal activity.

IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WISH IT DID. The military, conducting surveillance or the enemy comes across Americans engaging in crimes does not required they had a warrant.
Imagine a arms embargo of Iraq, and an America boat attempting to run the embargo, getting stpped and search by the military, they then find 500 pounds of Cocaine on the boat.
GUESS WHAT, YOU CAN'T CLAIM IT WAS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND GO FREE...THE CRIME WAS FOUND WHILE THE MILITARY WAS CONDUCTING PERFECTLY LEGAL ACTIVITIES.

GET OVER IT AND QUIT CALLING AL QUEDA AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

MarkH said:

"The only thing he could say which might interest me is, "I admit my guilt and resign the presidency.""

Actually, I'd prefer if he first says, "I am not a crook," just for the sake of historical symmetry.

Posted by: Disputo on January 1, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection an election in Iraq at this point in history?" George W. Bush, at the white House, Washington, D.C., Jan. 10, 2005

Yup. This guy has my trust.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Tom, was Condi Rice around when Bush said that?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 1, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

SINCE WHEN DID WE NEED WARRANTS TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS??

FISA is for CRIMINAL investigations, not WARS.

In time of war, the cops, courts and lawyers need to get the hell out of the way.

If Al Queda highjacked a C-130 and flew 150 heavily armed terrorists to San Francisco, would the liberals be screaming that we can only use the police to stop them? That we can't use deadly force, unless they try to kill us first, that we have to give them a chance to surrender, that we have to read them all their rights, give them all lawyers, and prosecute them for what?

LIBERALS WON'T EVEN LET US PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR BEING ILLEGAL ALIENS, I CAN ONLY ASSUME THE LEFT WOULD TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS AND GIVE THEM A SUMMONS TO APPEAR IN COURT AND RELEASE THEM ON THEIR PROMISE TO RETURN FOR THEIR COURT DATE.

I REMEMBER WHEN FDR SIMPLY TRIED THEM BY THE MILITARY AND HUNG THEIR ASSES FOR BEING TERRORISTS. AND THE SUPREME COURT CHEERED HIM ON!

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Patton, you are quite insane.

Posted by: Disputo on January 1, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Just what we need; The Year of the Dog with a dyslexic President.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 1, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I hope the NSA is monitoring people like Patton. That person is definitely a danger to the USA.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 1, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

WHOSAYS.....I HAVE AN ABOVE TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE AND HAVE WORKED IN iNTELLIGENCE FOR OVER 23 YEARS.....SO WHAT IS YOUR CLEARANCE??

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

But then the Republican Christ makes Moloch look like Gandhi.

Oh man that was sweet. Best comment so far.

Posted by: trex on January 1, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

You guys don't even have a concept of how the NSA works, let alone how the data in collected nor processed, nor how its possible to pick out one conversation from a Million going on at one time.

You also have no clue about the differences between law enforcement and war fighting. You keeop claiming Clinton and the rest of you want to fight a war on terror, yet you always go back to gighting it using law enforcement and not the military.

Except when it comes to religious wackos in Texas, then you send in the tanks because those people were far more dangerous then Al Queda.

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, we now know one thing for sure. Patton does not have a security clearance.

Posted by: Butch on January 1, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

HOW WE USE TO TREAT TERRORISTS IN AMERICA:

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.

The purpose of the invasions was to strike a major blow for Germany by bringing the violence of war to our home ground through destruction of America's ability to manufacture vital equipment and supplies and transport them to the battlegrounds of Europe; to strike fear into the American civilian population, and diminish the resolve of the United States to overcome our enemies.

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

CARRIED OUT IN A FEW DAYS AFTER A MILITARY TRIBUNAL....THAT'S JUST THE WAY TO DO IT...OF COURSE THE LEFT MUST NOW BELIEVE FDR A FASCIST FOR ALLOWING SUCH BARBARISM IN AMERICA.

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

IMAGINE, THESE GUYS HADN'T CARRIED OUT A SINGLE ACT, HADN'T KILLED ANYONE YET FDR SLAUGHTERED THEM LIKE SHEEP.

It would be my guess that he was sending a message to any future terrorist, step foot on our soil and you will be hung before your first letter reaches home.

I can imagine many liberals just fainted at the idea of FDR actually doing such a act.

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone asked what would happen if a USA citizen is caught through one of the warrentless searches? Doesn't the Bush administration realize that they are giving the person a ticket out? Or does the administration think it will just put those people into some type of indefinite detention without trial?

Posted by: Martin L. Martens on January 1, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Martin, you are an idiot.

If the US government is engaging in Constitutional activty and discovers you committed a crime...IT DIDN'T NEED A WARRANT! PERIOD! END OF STORY!!

Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Apologies to everyone, but I couldn't pass this up.

Patton/Alice on January 1, 2006 at 5:24 PM:

I HAVE...WORKED IN iNTELLIGENCE FOR OVER 23 YEARS...

Twenty-three years' exposure to Intelligence, and none of it rubbed off, eh?

Posted by: grape_crush on January 1, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

I want some feedback on the following question: Does intercepting communications going across our borders have different legal status than just what would be done internally? This point was discussed on Sully's site and gave him pause. It can't just be dismissed, can it? What did FISA say about cross-border intercepts in particular? What do you all think?

Posted by: Neil' on January 1, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Can't pass this up.

Patton says he's ...for 23 years.

Well, although I come across as a .....nik I have a security background. I have also worked for the State of Washington and the federal government.

I have a social security number.

Go for it, you NSA snoops.

Mine my financial records. Dig into my voting record. Look at my war-tax resistance years ago.

Yup, I'm a real threat to the ol' USA.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 1, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Twenty-three years' exposure to Intelligence, and none of it rubbed off, eh?

And you had just included it in your New Year's greetings. For shame. Are you having greens with the black-eyed peas?

Posted by: LW Phil on January 1, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Patton has 23 yrs 'exposure' to intelligence. I say all the more reason the NSA should be keeping tabs on her. She seems like she might be a real security risk.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 1, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

I want some feedback on the following question: Does intercepting communications going across our borders have different legal status than just what would be done internally? This point was discussed on Sully's site and gave him pause. It can't just be dismissed, can it? What did FISA say about cross-border intercepts in particular? What do you all think?

Here is what FISA has to say about Electronic Surveillance.

Basically, I think the answer is "yes". I suppose that's why the law is called the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act". But I think the restriction only applies if a U.S. person is involved. It would seem that "foreign agents" (as defined in the Act) are fair game wherever they are. If one foreign agent communicates with another foreign agent (again, as defined in the Act) within the U.S., I believe that no warrant would be needed unless one of them is a U.S. person.

Posted by: Frankly, my dear, ... on January 1, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Neocon (assuming you're not simply trolling, hard to tell these days:),
The man said that he is tapping the phones of only those receiving calls from terrorists. So even if it is God almighty getting a call from the caves of Western Pakistan, it's the President's God given right to know what Al Queda is thinking.
This administration's statements often need to be parsed very carefully (they're oh so cleverly Clintonesque much of the time), and this is one of those cases. There have been a slew of statements of the form It's seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al-Qaida or an al-Qaida affiliate and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why...
"associated with", "clear links", etc are not clear statements of what is being done. They appear (to some of us at least) to be statements designed to deliberately mislead the American public while still being arguably true.


Posted by: Bill Arnold on January 1, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kareem called me a couple of times from overseas before the Lakers hired him. I bet those calls were recorded. If you have spoken with any of the following you are being monitored.
Anyone working for Al Jazeera
Ed O'Neil
El DeBarge
Japanese girls named Kaeda
A. L. Gaeta
anyone at the Casper Area Economic Development Alliance - Dick Cheney monitors these personally
The Spanish speaking libertarians at El Cato
The UVA football program
Anyone involved in the Spanish Inquisition
Residents of Alameda
guests at the Le Meridien Al Aqua Beach resort in Dubai
members of collegiate vocal harmony groups

Posted by: Mitch on January 1, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

LW Phil on January 1, 2006 at 6:20 PM:

Are you having greens with the black-eyed peas?

Nah; little_grape's with me, and she's not much for greens. Maybe in a couple of years. My blackeyes were yummy, BTW...shortstop had some greens simmering earlier; maybe she'll invite us over for leftovers...

As for Patton; I was hoping that for just one day, perhaps motivated by the holiday spirit, Patton/Alice could drop the wild-eyed lunatic act and talk with us...So much for the olive branch.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 1, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Since Patton brought it up I think I should ask for a clarification.

Just who *is* the enemy in your mind?

Can we identify them by uniform, name, some other way?

Is America part of the battlefield?

Are Americans part of the enemy group?

Does the preznit have plenary powers in time of war to do anything?

How long have you been a loon?

Posted by: MarkH on January 1, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

.I HAVE AN ABOVE TOP SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE AND HAVE WORKED IN iNTELLIGENCE FOR OVER 23 YEARS.....SO WHAT IS YOUR CLEARANCE??
Posted by: Patton on January 1, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

read that as: I have been institutionalized for 23 years......

Posted by: rainyday on January 2, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

So, if Abdul AQ calls me, they'll listen; if I call AQQ they won't listen. And if Abdul sends me a carrier pigion with a message: I won't call you, you should call me, that's OK. How insane is this?

Posted by: Brian Boru on January 2, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Patton, you ignorant slut...You are a liar and a poser and a phoney. You never served a fucking day and I will never believe that you could make it through basic. I recall it taking you days to come up with "your" AFSC (Air Force Specialty Code)when asked for it.

Liar!Liar!Liar!LIAR

Posted by: Global Citizen on January 2, 2006 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Notice how Steve White signs off, then Patton signs on? The trend is unmistakable. I wonder if Kevin could check their IP addresses . . . their transparent falsehoods look too manufactured to me.

Posted by: Onomasticator on January 2, 2006 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK

"...those people were far more dangerous then Al Queda."

Damn, these Ay-rabs just keep coming up with more terror groups to confuse us. Oh, Patton, be careful the next time you order an Al-Quesadilla. You might show up on a government list -- and they are never, ever wrong, which must be why they need your sweaty fingers feverishly typing all those capitals.

Posted by: Kenji on January 2, 2006 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

I see Global Citizen is still upset of not having what it takes to make it in the military, afte being washed out for a boo boo on the knee.

I guess seeeing REAL soldiers actually re-enlisting with prostetic arms and legs and not just a bum knee must really hurt your womenhood.

You could serve with a bum knee but real soldiers are serving with no knees and no arms. Its not about the knee GC, its about your inability to persevere.

I am very proud of my military service, your still running from yours trying to tear everyone else down.

Posted by: Patton on January 2, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Courts have upheld president's power to wiretap

President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under all prior presidents.


In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision that the president does have authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that ''All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority.''

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an ''agent of a foreign power,'' which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, ''FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power.''


"""""We take for granted that the president does have that authority. """"""""""

WHAT PART OF THAT DOES THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY NOT UNDERSTAND????


Posted by: Patton on January 2, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

The ignorance and naviete of those supporting this president, his administration, and his policies is frightening! They are true members of the MUSHROOM SOCIETY...keep them in the dark and feed them shit! They just love it...Oh, and, "it's all Clinton's fault!"...

Posted by: Dancer on January 2, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

It leads, of course, to the one question the president doesn't want to hear and can't answer: why not spy on the bad guys without circumventing the rule of law?

Steve Benen 3:20 PM

You are the one missing the point! From what we have been told these calls are made from foriegn countries by terrorists and are intercepted in progress. That leaves no time to get a warrent.

Even if we tapped the foreigners phone which requires no warrent. There is no way to know who he is going to call in the US. Again no time for a warrent.

Since FISA does not give a blank warrent to the NSA and tell them them to fill in the blanks. They are pretty much out of the picture on survielence that requires immediate attention. That is why the President has the constitutional power and precedent, established by court approval of previous adminstrations actions, to authorize wiretaps without a warrent. This was bolstered by the congress' authorization to fight the war.

So the only thing that has happened is that the illegal disclosure of this classified information has aided our enemies. Which is something you lefty fools seem to take great pride in doing. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on January 2, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

"So the only thing that has happened is that the illegal disclosure of this classified information has aided our enemies. Which is something you lefty fools seem to take great pride in doing. I love it!"

He loves it. Treason by any other name...

Posted by: Kenji on January 2, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

WHAT PART OF THAT DOES THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY NOT UNDERSTAND????

Posted by: Patton

They understand it. It is there hatred of Bush that drives them to damage the security of this country just to attack Bush.

It is like their 'we support the troops mantra but they are doing bad things' and we should cut and run because we already lost. They don't don't care if it beefs up the morale of the enemy or demoralizes our troops.

If they can attack Bush with it the lefties will stand in line to do it. No matter how it impacts our troops or the security of our country. I love it!

Posted by: Fat White Guy on January 2, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

He loves it.

Posted by: Kenji on January 2, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Do you guys want to be protected or bombed again? Do you want to have faith in your government or bitch? I can see the obvious answer but what I can't understand is why liberalitsts in America can so easily find something to complain about but can never find anything to have a praise for even when you live in the greatest country in the world, and if you don't think it's the greatest country in the world get out, by all means please get out. We don't need you negative unsupportive attitudes. Thanks for sharing but the complaints aren't appreciated and I say this from the viewpoint of a conservative republican viewpoint yes but I have also read every comment and can find very little to agree with. How do you think someone in the military would feel to come back from defending people like you and all they see is the negativity you all portray? Think about it. They are protecting your right to say all this crap that's tearing apart our country. If you can't defend your government think about you military!

Posted by: Leah on January 2, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

This is just more evidence that the Dems, especially the left wing here, does not consider the GWOT a serious matter.

Mike K, you've been debunked pretty thoroughly upthread, but just as a reminder, GWB insists on paying for the so-called GWOT with a taxcut -- proof positive that it's he who does not consider the GWOT a serious matter.

Posted by: Gregory on January 2, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Patton, out of curiousity, have you read the quicky analyses by Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy on the subject of legality of this operation? The op-ed by John Schmidt that you block quoted is interesting, but it's quite the partisan analysis. I am not a lawyer, but I have been unable to read the FISA law to allow for surveillance of US persons without a warrant. (The definitions and usages of "foreign power" and "agent of a foreign power" in the act are confusing.)

And Keith seems at a quick skim to be an invitation to Congress to enact law to cover surveillance, e.g. FISA.

Posted by: Bill Arnold on January 2, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

I've just stopped by a couple of times to see what the FISA enthusiasts are up to:

This is interesting:
"If this wire-tapping is only about AlKiduh folks trying to call each other then why are mosques being screened for radiation?"

Do you really have to ask ?

"By my reasoning, all muslims are suspect in the eyes of George's folks."

No, just the 60% of Muslims in Britain who want Shari'a law to rule Britain and their American cousins.


"Anyone checked how much faith-based US dollars have gone to mosques recently?"

I'm sure you must know since you bring it up. Whay not enlighten the rest of us ?

"George "knows" our enemy. He is above the law so *&%$ off all you liberal ninnys."

Not a bad idea.

"Last time I checked the history books show a president impeached for illegal wire-tapping of his "sworn" enemies."

You mean like the Islamic terrorists ? If Bush was tapping the DNC (a useless exercise right now anyway since a nonosecond is defined by the interval between a thought in Dean's mind and his next press release) it will be leaked eventually.

"Posted by: Tom Nicholson" who really should read this.

Posted by: Mike K on January 2, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

PROGRESSIVES ARE CLOWNS:

CLINTON'S AND CARTER'S NSA DIRECTIVES WERE ALSO WARRANTLESS SEARCHES ON A WIDE SCALE . . . AND THEY WERE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO USE MILITARY FORCE, I.E., EMPOWERED TO WAGE WAR, AT THE TIME.

EVEN THIS HAPLESS NY TIMES ACLU QUOTE IS TAKEN ABSURDLY AND INFAMOUSLY OUT OF CONTEXT. THIS LINK OF THE SPEECH IN BUFFALO SHOWS THAT BUSH WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE ROVING WIRETAPS AUTHORIZED BY THE PATRIOT ACT AT THE TIME. SO, THE ACCUSATION THAT HE LIED IN THIS INSTANCE IS AT THE VERY LEAST TANTAMOUNT TO A LIE AND MAYBE EVEN COULD BE CALLED A LIE!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

AND THE MEDIA GENERALLY IS SO EAGER TO AVOID ANY MENTION OF CLEARLY VIABLE EXCULPATING FACTS OR CONCEPTS THAT THEY HAVE EMBARASSED THEMSELVES AGAIN, TOO. YOU KNOW, DOES IT OCCUR TO "PROGRESSIVE"-DEMOCRATS THAT WHEN THEY CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS WITH 75-85% OF THE MEDIA HELPING THEM THAT MAYBE, UM, MAYBE IT'S THEIR IDEAS AND APPROACH TO GOVERNANCE THAT ARE, WELL, HOW TO PUT IT DELICATELY . . . LACKING IN WISDOM?

I AM OBJECTIVE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE; BUT THIS IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO WHAT SHOULD BE A VITAL OPPOSITION IN THIS NATION.

PLEASE PEOPLE, CLEAN UP YOUR ACT; WE NEED YOU TO BE DEPENDABLE CRITICS; NOT DECEITFUL, SELF-BEFORE-COUNTRY, UNPERSUASIVE AND STUMBLING FOOLS.

THE OBJECTIVE HISTORIAN

Posted by: The Objective Historian on January 2, 2006 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Steve White wrote:the program is necessary for national security, and it is, as best as I can tell, legal. It may well be at the very edge of legal, and it may be legal but something that we shouldn't do. Those are questions worth considering. You may believe the program to be illegal, but I do not, and I note that the program is, in the description of every sober observer, one that went through multiple levels of oversight and review.

After reading the diverse laws and court decisions in chronological order, beginning with the Constitution, I think that Steve White is correct: what was done was just barely legal and debatable as to its wisdom and effectiveness, but legal.

Posted by: contentious on January 2, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Objective Historian,
for what it's worth I don't hold the POTUS to what he said in that speech (i'm inclined to believe he simply mispoke at that time), but ... it's impossible for me to read it the way you do.

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

That "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap" is pretty clear.

Most of the google hits on the Clinton NSA surveilance are for a Newmax partisan attack piece. This piece from 1999/200 (also published by the notoriously moonbatty (:-)Free Congress Foundation) does allege a pile of continuing abuses by the Echelon program, though many are related to obtaining commmercial advantage for US companies, and it's hard (for civilians like me) to judge the veracity of the allegations.

If the Jimmy Carter order is EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE, it's an order to follow the FISA act ("''Any monitoring which constitutes electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''."), not to override it.

So, basically, I'm not finding the information that you are trying to mock us for ignoring. Citations are much much better than mockery...

Posted by: Bill Arnold on January 2, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly