 |
 |
 January 17, 2006
NSA vs. FBI....For what it's worth, I wouldn't get too excited about today's New York Times story suggesting that the NSA's domestic spying program accomplished nothing except sending FBI agents on hundreds of wild goose chases. Aside from the fact that the whole thing smells pretty strongly of a bureaucratic turf war, the effectiveness of the program just isn't a big issue. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. Not every program pans out. What's important is that the intercepts were done without a warrant even though the law expressly requires a warrant. That's the issue. —Kevin Drum 1:58 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (220)Comments
If they were effective though, it would play into the administration's argument that these measures were necessary, regardless of the murkiness of the legality. That's why this is important. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINKYou are right it's not important for our argument that they were illegal, and warrants should have been obtained, if even after the fact, but this is devastating in some ways to Bush's own defense and argument, if these assertions of ineffectiveness are true. And we can both push our own arguments, and undermine Bush Administration arguments, and we should. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINKSo what? Even the liberal Kevin Drum doesn't think the President's lawbreaking merits impeachment. Posted by: anonymous on January 17, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINKAside from the fact that the whole thing smells pretty strongly of a bureaucratic turf war, the effectiveness of the program just isn't a big issue. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't. Not every program pans out. REALLY? Al, how many Al Qaeda attacks have their ever been in the U.S.? On whose watch? Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINKis whorowitz's still alive??? haven't heard from him for awhile ... since he embarrassed himself over his bullshit allegations in pennsylvania. Posted by: Nads on January 17, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINKAl, how many Al Qaeda attacks have their ever been in the U.S.? And I do mean Al Qaeda attacks. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINKhttp://gayorbit.net/?p=3208 And it rapes Canadian citizens! And it hangs women for adultery! You are the company you keep. Posted by: McAristotle on January 17, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINKMcAristotle, isn't the death penalty for adultery prominent in the Old Testament, and the command of God's inspired Word? Or should we interpret that metaphorically? As for your weak argument, yawn. Being opposed to bombing Iran back to the Stone Age for wanting nuclear energy (like so many others) does not equal "supporting Iran". It's actually just being opposed to economic apartheid. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINKthe liberal movement is now actively supporting Iran I don't support George W. Bush, but that doesn't mean I want to kill him. Can you "not support" the political structure of Iran, and at the same time realize that going to war with them is not a good idea? Probably too many things for a right-winger to think of at once. Posted by: Repack Rider on January 17, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINKClearly, Iran is not a liberal democracy, and has an awful human rights record, and if we applied sanctions in this regard consistently and without prejudice (of our own self-interests) then we would be on stronger ground. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINKYeah, what self-respecting tough guy would get all skirty about the "effectiveness" of a program invading the privacy of thousands of Americans. Heck, if the FISA court'll give 'em a warrant, I say they should tap whoever the fuck they wanna tap. Meanwhile, there are reams of recordings waiting to be translated, turf warfare and bureaucratic incompetence are making a mockery the domestic end of the alleged terror war, homeland security money is distributed politically, not pragmatically, and humint is a distant memory. But it's this -- oversight-free tapping of American phones -- that is "essential" to the war on terror. Yes, In the immediate case, the president breaking the law is salient issue. But a strategy of paranoia and secrecy, even within the bounds of the law, won't ultimately be effective. It's perfectly legitimate to discuss that fact. Posted by: realish on January 17, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINKIf Bush is willing to back off his claims to monarchical power, then impeachment will not be necessary or appropriate. However, if he is not, if he wants to force the issue, then there is no alternative. Thanks for putting the thread back on track realish, and good stuff. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINKRule of Law? The wingnuts only believe in that on alternate Wednesdays, just like strict constructionism, and states' rights. Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINKIt's probably too late for Bush to backdown now, in terms of his criminal behavior, though if he doesn't later if Congress actually gets serious about this, than his impeachment will be assured, and not just plausible. Personally, I'd rather not see Bush impeached, since that would put crazy man in charge. Further, Dick may just retire if it looks like Bush may get impeached, so that Bush can nominate the next vice-president, who will be confirmed by the GOP-controlled Congress, and will then be the front-runner for president in 2008 as sitting vice-president, if not become president when Bush is impeached or resigns. Think of it as the Gerald Ford scenario, only this time Ford might actually have the chutzpah to run for "reelection". Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINKMcAristotle, isn't the death penalty for adultery prominent in the Old Testament, and the command of God's inspired Word? Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK But that's the question. How is a liberal movement so opposed to the mention of God in schools and domestically in the US, sit so happily I guess the jew-killing bit, is a deeper bond than your stand against judgemental religion. Posted by: Mcaristotle on January 17, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINKI'd rather see the Democrats batter Bush on this to a 2006 victory, to put some balance back in government, and also to get the GOP to do a little soul-searching and reinvent themselves from the oligarchic crooks they have become. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINKIt's an interesting thought experiment to wonder if in a few years the NSA develops advanced, mosquito-sized surveillance drones the Bushco Koolaid-drinkers will see nothing wrong with Bush collecting surveillance video inside their houses... you know, just so they can feel safe from terrorists. Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINKOT: since there are too many replies to the earlier thread about immigration: Despite KD's first comment, very few conservatives want to stop "immigration". And, those who are "friendly" towards it are that way for a $ecret rea$on that I've coded into this $entence. They are in effect paid by those companies that profit off illegal immigration. As for citizenship, "liberals" and corrupt conservatives are trying to water down what it means. There is definite disagreement between pro-American forces (right and left) and anti-American forces (right and left) on that point. An example of that can be found in the DREAM Act. If you're only capable of thinking about this superficially, it sounds like Sally Struthers' dream come true: giving discounted college educations to illegal alien children who were brought here by their parents. However, those who think about it in a bit more depth realize just how anti-American and anti-citizenship it is: there are only so many discounted college educations available, so every discount given to an illegal alien represents one less that goes to a citizen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) are the sponsors, and it's supported by every leftwing and racial group out there. And, those groups have a great deal of influence on the Democratic Party. I believe even John Kerry supported it during his failed campaign. So, there's one example of how most of the left don't agree with the likely position of most conservatives. Then, there's the whole matter of illegal immigration. I've been following these matters on my blog very closely for three years, and I can't recall a single Democratic leader who's effectively opposed to illegal immigration. "Effectively" is the key word there. For instance, Bill Richardson famously declared a state of emergency. However, he also supports benefits for illegal aliens, and some years ago he issued a call for racial solidarity. (According to "liberals", such calls are A-OK since he was doing so from his Quarter of Color). And, last week there was a meeting of far-left Chicano activists more or less advocating for building Aztlan, a Chicanos-only homeland in the Southwest. The guest speaker was Rep. Joe Baca Sr. (D-CA). And, as I pointed out in a comment to that thread, many politicians are former members of the racial separatist MEChA organization, and they're all Democrats. So, yes, there are quite a few differences. -- Illegal immigration news I wonder if some day science will discover a cure for bedwetting fear of Islamofascism? Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINKEdited out by that Messiah figure, who liberals don't believe in with "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone". Actually, I very much do believe "cast the first stone", and it is the foundation along with habeas corpus and the limited state for my opposition to the death penalty. Are you on record Al that we should interpret the Old Testament metaphorically, and also that Jesus has overridden it? What is your position on the death penalty McAristotle? Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINKWhy do pro-aggressive-war, pro-death-penalty fake Christians always ignore the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jeebus? Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINKHmmmn, state that makes China look liberal with head of state who says nearby state should not exist wants nuclear weapons. Liberal movement busy impeaching their own President for fun of it to care. ------------- Being opposed to bombing Iran back to the Stone Age for wanting nuclear energy (like so many others) does not equal "supporting Iran". It's actually just being opposed to economic apartheid. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK You mean nuclear apartheid. For mathematical prettiness, perhaps every state on Earth should have its per capita share of Nukes....It would sound equal but it would get lots of people killed and prop repressives regimes around the world. Sometimes you have to think, about consequences. I know being a liberal is about whining and knee-jerk reactions but for some issues it really is necessary.
What's your stance on the death penalty melior? How do you justify it with "turn the other cheek", "cast the first stone", the primacy of habeas corpus as the foundation of our government, and the limited state? Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINKI'm not a liberal McAristotle, unless you mean classical liberal, and I'm not a Democrat. And this is economic apartheid, as regards energy production, and who is "deemed worthy" to feed their families with nuclear energy. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINKMy personal position is that we should ban nuclear energy altogether, as not only a pragmatic position but a just one, in view of the "bigger picture". Still, this thread is not about Iran, or illegal immigration, but the ineffectiveness of Bush's criminal programs, so I'll stop now. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINKWhat is your position on the death penalty McAristotle? Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK Reasonable where the 1) Method is not unnecessarily painful, 2) Where the intention is to save lives/prevent horrific acts through deterrance and 3) Where the punishment is carried out by a legitimate nation-state of some kind. Death penalty for political dissent is bad. Death penalty for violent rape, murder is less so. ------------- ignore the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jeebus? Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK You got to learn the Bible properly, the phrase certainly wasn't used to justify moral nihilism. ----------------- science will discover a cure for bedwetting fear of Islamofascism? Posted by: melior on January 17, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK Funny how liberals can ignore human rights violations when it fits their political agenda. There is never a threat to a liberal. Just future opportunities to blame someone else, and whine... Posted by: McAristotle on January 17, 2006 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINKwho is "deemed worthy" to feed their families with nuclear energy. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK At last check, they were offered nuclear energy as long as enrichment stayed in Russia and China. melior, my apologies. McAristotle, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, and that moral framework is completely contradictory to both Jesus and the Old Testament. Posted by: Jimm on January 17, 2006 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINKAgreed. However, I'm getting a little annoyed with the lack of details concerning the nature of the NSA wire tapping. The administration keeps framing it as acts that would easily be approved by the FISA court. I still think that makes little sense. Why break the law for no reason. The more details the better for our understanding of the entire story. Posted by: B on January 17, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINKThere is never a threat to a liberal. Just future opportunities to blame someone else, and whine... mca absolutely HAS to be white ... either aussie or brit or some sort of foreign cracker. no one, and I mean NO ONE, has these bullshit persecution compelxes like insecure white men. ... usually with small penises. Posted by: Nads on January 17, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINKThe administration keeps framing it as acts that would easily be approved by the FISA court. I still think that makes little sense. Why break the law for no reason. I posted the reasons they didn't go for warrants in these comments about 2 weeks ago. The NYT story begins to back me up. The NSA was doing indiscrininate, wide-scale monitoring. Kind of a brute force approach which is exactly what the NSA is good at - but is totally illegal under the Constitution. Any tips they came up with in this illegal manner could not be used to justify a wiretap warrant. IOW: They didn't go for warrants because they couldn't have gotten the warrants. Posted by: Libby Sosume on January 17, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINKThe reason we talk about bedwetters, is that our civilization is so widespread and so robust that clans of cave-dwelling terrorists are an insignificant threat compared to our own unimpeded appetites: more oil, more coal, until the mines and the wells run dry; more flesh, more fowl, more fish, until the fields, forests and oceans are empty. The bedwetters tell us that the first thing we need to worry about are these other angry people who worship the same god our believers worship, although the angriest on either side insist each worships a different god (scarcely credible, given the mutual agreement of the shortage of gods known as monotheism). We really need to worry most about the burgeoning population of East Plains African Apes and our rapid depletion of this planet's patrimony. Posted by: bad Jim on January 17, 2006 at 3:50 AM | PERMALINKJust a gentle reminder: McMao is not an American citizen, does not wish to be an American, and is comfortable with leeching off of the Australian government. His life is so utterly pitiful that he must come here to draw any attention to himself at all. Please ignore the troll. Any tips they came up with in this illegal manner could not be used to justify a wiretap warrant. And according the FBI, boy howdy did they get a lot of tips. Posted by: Dustbin Of History on January 17, 2006 at 3:55 AM | PERMALINKEr, expanding on my last point, which I really meant to do: I still wouldn't put it past the Administration to resurrect the spectre of Tricky Dick and his Enemies' List, but it seems at least from this vantage point that FISA was skipped for expediency. Which is still not a good idea - if FISA was getting in the way, why wasn't expanded powers included in the PATRIOT Act? My imperial presidency has a first name, it's N-I-X-O-N... Posted by: Dustbin Of History on January 17, 2006 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINKTurf war for sure. 重庆机票，重庆机票查询，重庆机票打折，重庆特价机票，重庆机票价格 天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票天津机票 北京国际机票价格,北京国际机票查询,北京国际机票查询,北京国际机票预定 北京打折机票，北京国内机票，北京到海口，杭州，合肥，呼和浩特，济南，昆明，兰州，湛江，珠海等地机票 北京国际机票,北京到东京,大阪,名古屋,新加坡,汉城等地机票 深圳国内机票，深圳特价机票，深圳机票，深圳到济南，大连，哈尔滨，沈阳，北京，上海，南昌，武汉，西安等 深圳机票，深圳特价机票，深圳国内机票，深圳到上海，成都，重庆，海口，西安，杭州，常德，张家界，三亚地 广州机票 广州飞机票 广州特价机票 广州打折机票 广州机票查询 广州航班查询 广州机票预订 广州订机 广州等价机票,广州到北京,上海,成都,重庆,南京,杭州,济南,武汉,兰州,桂林等地机票 上海国内机票，上海到烟台，深圳，天津，郑州，厦门，重庆等地特价机票 上海国内机票，上海到烟台，深圳，天津，郑州，厦门，重庆等地特价机票 上海最新机票，上海机票，上海国内机票，上海到重庆，深圳，成都，南昌，加拿大机票 | |