Generals as political hacks. We are in trouble.

remember, though. the wingnuts (suddenly) think FISA is unconstitutional. that's what Georgy Porgy's little signing statement was all about, and that's what all Alito's softball answers were about: the President doesn't have to obey unconstitutional laws.

of course the president can't just declare that laws are unconstitutional, either. but who's gonna call him on it ?

I did find it "amusing" that ABC played the 1998 move "Enemy of the State" Saturday Night.

Of course, in that movie the upstanding Navy General in charge of the NSA was majorly against domestic spying.

Ummm... so when the admin said earlier that they went with the warrantless taps because the FISA courts were "too slow" to approve things, that was yet another bald-faced lie, no?

"t-rex to Nut Central, t-rex to Nut Central:"

"Conspiracy Nut, do you read?"

"NSA was not data mining, was tapping phones without warrants -- I repeat, NSA was tapping phone conversations of American citizens without warrants. Intelligence says this was not just a case of "lefties hyperventilating."

"Do you copy? Over."

Translation:

"I thought she was just playing hard to get, officer. I knew she might say 'no', but she wouldn't really mean it. So I just figured I'd save her the trouble of putting up a fight by slipping some roofies in her drink and having a go at her. We all know she wanted it. Just look at that dress she was wearing."

I could see how they might say that 72 hours is insufficient to document a case of 'probably cause' - but they still should have worked to fix the process, not go around it.

What the General didn't deny is that the program works like Able Danger, monitoring all calls 2-3 degrees of separation away from suspected terrorists. Which always reminds me that Osama -> Saud family -> Bush family.

I'm genuinely confused here. Aren't these statements contradictory, or am I mis-reading something?

The 1978 law allows the agency to seek a warrant up to 72 hours after wiretapping begins when speed is of the essence. But even in an emergency, General Hayden said, the law required that the attorney general approve a wiretap before it could begin.

So can they legally begin 72 hours prior to a request or not? Is Hayden lying, or just incompetent, or have we been mislead re: the 72 hour provision up until this point?

drjimcooper: When talking about wiretaps that go through FISA, the AG has to sign off on it originally -- then he has 72 hours to get FISA to approve it.

And the AG seems to have the strangely (for the Bush administration!) reasonable requirement that if you want a wirtetap under FISA, you have to have enough for him to try to sell it to FISA.

It's the sort of ass-covering that amounts to "checks and balances" these days. Ashcroft didn't want to be sitting in front of a FISA court, with absolutely NOTHING to say about why they should grant a wiretap.

So can they legally begin 72 hours prior to a request or not?

yes, they can.

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

Although this issue is going to kill Democrats politically in the next election (largely because Republicans will misrepresent it as opposing the tapping terrorists' phone calls), it is a battle worth fighting. Warrantless searches are a clear infringement of the fourth amendment. Let's hope we get credit in the long run for fighting the good fight.

Yes, I agree, Morat. I think Ashcroft may have had enough remnants of (dignity? ethics? fear?) to want something reasonably probable-causey for his FISA applications. I sincerely doubt the same holds true for Abu Gonzales. Which basically means the sh*tstorm has only worsened since Ashcroft's "retirement".

So can they legally begin 72 hours prior to a request or not? Is Hayden lying, or just incompetent, or have we been mislead re: the 72 hour provision up until this point?

The AGs approval is not the same as the FISA approval. They can start 72 hours before FISA, but perhaps the AG stills needs to approve.

I didn't think I was that out of touch with other Americans. This stuff scares me to death. Yet gopers keep taunting democrats with polls that say Americans want this, and appreciate what Bush is doing - even if he has to go around the constitution.

This is crazy. Don't people know that this isn't just about brown men with funny names? Once bureaucrats begin pawing through our phone and internet records, listening to our phone conversations - this will become routine - and the applications will become broader.

Governemt workers are not saints - and this kind of snooping will begin to be used by Treasury, Interior, Commerce -- anybody who wants to snoop -- even on personal enemies and ex spouses.

Government workers are the dregs! They are the hard core unemployable... just look at the losers at the airport! Post office?

We want these people snoopin on us?

Americans aren't thinking straight. This needs to stop.

Unless I've missed something along the way, this is important news. Hayden is saying that the NSA program isn't some kind of large-scale data mining operation that the authors of the FISA act never could have foreseen.

This isn't "news", this is what they've been saying from the beginning. The large-scale data-mining excuse has been offered by a lot of talking heads as the explanation, but has never been consistent with anything the Administration said about the program.

Where is tbroz to say, "Fuck the law. (and fuck the stock market and my investments / retirement). Give me my tax break!"

Newsflash: The "domestic spying program" is now the "terrorist surveillance program," as per Our Leader's speech today.

You may now return to your duties, comrades. Mr. Orwell, please pipe down.

Why did the New York Times report that the vast majority of these are dead-ends, if this is all so focused?

I am confused, so the AG is standing in the AG's way of approving wire taps when going to FISA?

The standard laid out by General Hayden — a "reasonable basis to believe" — is lower than "probable cause," the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handle surveillance involving foreign intelligence.

Which is, incidentally, also the Constitutional requirement for any warrant (which is why the statute specifies it; and, in addition, arguably the implicit constitutional requirement for a reasonable search of any kind even where not required to be supported by a warrant.

"(S)ome honest Republicans left in Congress?"

That is the funniest joke I have hear in months.

I don't imagine they could establish probable cause for monitoring 'a friend of a neighbor of a cousin of a suspected terrorist'. And it would explain the dead ends.

Though I wonder why they are going on the offensive on this, when it had almost dropped out of the news. Are they scared??

When Nixon threw down this same gauntlet, Republicans in Congress informed him he'd gone too far, and Nixon resigned rather than face his inevitable impeachment.

Will today's Republican leaders do their patriotic duty and check the power of an overreaching President, or will they give Bush a free pass?

I'm guessin' free pass?

You all realize that the government's progrma would not lead to "actionable intelligence" without the ability to designate an American an "enemy combatant." If they were to catch somebody on the basis of a search authorized on less than probable cause they would not be permitted to use the information it produced in a real courtroom with a real judge. As a result people caught under Bush's program would have to simply disappear as "enemy combatants." Didn't the Argentines have something like this programs a couple of governments ago?

I'm guessin' free pass?

free pass with Happy Ending and lollipops for the kids.

What you, and every other blogger, is missing, is this: it's not just that it's illegal; it's that all we have to assure us that the Bush administration is only spying on terrorists is the word of the Bush administration. Tie Rove's despicable comments to the fact that the administration won't release any information in any fashion to anyone not involved in the program.

What we should be driving home is, given the previous lies of this administration, it's utter ruthlessness in attacking political opponents and stifling dissent, and its pathological need for secrecy, it's more likely than not that they are spying on American citizens with no connection to Al Quaeda or terrorism whatsoever.

And I think we should continue to accuse them of spying on innocent Americans until they prove otherwise.

John Ashcroft won't play ball with King George to approve taps? Bullshit!

I'm still curious about the non-coverage of the briefing about the NSA program the FISA court judges received.

That briefing occured well over a week ago...

cmdicely's right: this stance isn't news. They've maintained it's focused on a few "terrorists" ever since the story broke.

Which, of course, almost makes it a certainty that in fact it's a widespread.

And having worked with a lot of military people you learn a few things quickly:
1) They don't view constraints kindly,
2) They are great at coming up with rationales about why anything they want to do is patriotic, and
3) They spend money like water.

All of the above were known to the founders, which is why they tried to put constraints on military justifications in the Constitution.

I guess Bush discovered "God told me to wiretap Person X" wasn't a high enough legal standard.

Who knew?

This is quite clearly and obviously unconstitutional, to use a lower standard than "reasonable doubt" on American citizens.

In an earlier thread, I challenged anyone to explain to me how the 4th amendment could possibly be limited by Article II, since the 4th amendment was passed after the Constitution and as a condition for approving the Constitution in the first place (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights), does not make a distinction between peacetime and wartime, and since the onus of the framers was to limit the power of the president based upon our previously unpleasant experiences with the British monarchy.

Also, cmdicely made a very interesting observation in that thread, in that the 5th amendment very clearly talks about the distinction between peacetime and wartime, as does the 3rd amendment, which seems to beggar belief that the amendment passed between them made any distinction between peacetime and wartime.

NielS,
Although this issue is going to kill Democrats politically in the next election (largely because Republicans will misrepresent it as opposing the tapping terrorists' phone calls),...
This is a 50 percent issue; the American populace is evenly split on it. I'm surprised Karl Rove took the bait (or challenge). Posed the way the President posed it, as conversations with known AQ suspects, the government could get a warrant in a heartbeat. In other words, they are flat out lying about the democratic/libertarian/real-conservative position, which is that they need to do surveillance legally (i.e. without breaking the law :-).

General Hayden is (I suspect) being fairly bluntly honest here about the scope of the program although there are troubling parsings possible of his statements. The point is that the executive branch has no business being the final judicial arbiter of the legality of its actions, which is the role they've tried to usurp (from the judicial branch).

It will be a "battle of the frames". Rove will not win this one IMO.

Jimm the standard is "probable cause" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." As I recall from high school history only a few years before the constitution the founders had fought and won a revolutionary war. They had suffered greatly at the hands of British troops who would break into houses under any pretext and often with no pretexts at all. They didn't want that to happen anymore. They had wartime in the forefront of their minds when they drafted the fourth amendment.

Of course, maybe my memory of high school history is wrong.

Jimm the standard is "probable cause" not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

My bad. I rushed that one out because I'm at work and should have proofed that.

Thanks for the correction.

Ron, your memory is correct. Property was the primary right for many of the Founders (not all of them), as were experiences of plunder by the king.

The real issue is that the 4th amendment requires "reasonable doubt", does not make a distinction between peacetime and wartime, and was passed after the Constitution and as a condition for ratifying the Articles of the Constitution (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights).

Since the 3rd amendment explicitly makes a distinction between peacetime and wartime, as does the 5th amendment, it's impossible to rationally argue that the 4th amendment meant to make such a distinction (but neglected to do so).

The real issue is that the 4th amendment requires "reasonable doubt", does not make a distinction between peacetime and wartime, and was passed after the Constitution and as a condition for ratifying the Articles of the Constitution (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights).

Of course I mean "probably cause". I am completely brain dead today...thanks to the late night celebration last night after watching Kobe score 81!

"Conspiracy Nut, do you read?"
Just did, as a matter of fact. I see in the article that one set of lawyers has already determined this legal. Naturally I expect the left to shop around until they find lawyers that claim is was not legal. In the end, the fight over whether or not this is legal will fizzle since it will come down to the power of one branch over another. Having a hard determination of powers is not something our branches of gov't have been eager to do. (And also, it looks like Alito will be confirmed in time for this fight. Sorry about that.)

Or, it may come down to this wording in the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

Now if you can just figure out how to do this without looking soft on national defense...

Probable cause.

I quit for today...good day everyone.

How will this issue play electorally?

I'd have to agree that most likely the Democrats will get rolled on this issue. The cacophany of noise has meant the GOP is succeeding in framing the debate as "security vs. a few rights".

It worked in 2002, worked in 2004. In 2002 distracted from Enron, 2004 from Iraq. So who's to say that it won't work again?

But, there does seem to be some major Democrats Gore, Kerry, Dean and Reid who seem to be pushing back on this - signalling that maybe they've learned you have to push back.

Even money, anyone?

So, basically the Bush administration wants to unilaterally amend the Constitution in an extra-constitutional manner.

So, it's not constitutional executive power that Bush is arguing he has, but the devine right of kings (the executive).

Unfortunately, impeaching him would leave us with several substitutes who also believe that this devine right of kings applies to the executive of the United States of America.

Conservatives never really liked the Constitution and now we have the proof - they wanted Washington to be a king and they still want the executive to be a king, answerable to no one, no institution, and no law.

We have met the enemy and they are sitting in the seats of power in Washington, D.C., and their name is "Republican".

What you, and every other blogger, is missing, is this: it's not just that it's illegal; it's that all we have to assure us that the Bush administration is only spying on terrorists is the word of the Bush administration.

Er, I would guess that's an underlying concern *many* folks are aware of where this story is concerned. I've certainly discussed it with people and have seen other posters mention it here.

Even for me, this is outrageous.

I am rendered speechless by this wanton attack on our constitution and all that our country was founded upon.

Everyone is expressing concern for the fourth ammendment, but I am extending my concern to the first ammendment as well.

Think about it - think about the last time you and a significant other had a phone conversation that was a little risque. Now imagine Cheney and his minions pleasuring themselves to your little word-game. Chilling, ain't it?

Why don'y we all go get an I.D. chip implanted and all crimes would stop.The right should be pushing this one hard.I mean where at war, We need to protect people and what better way to keep everyone safe than to have a I.D. chip implanted in your head.

I like the part about "only people receiving international calls" the best. So if you get a call from a telemarketer in India (like who hasn't) you're suspect. These people are monsters.

Anybody seriously proposes that, Scott, there will be a lot of people heading for the hills and the economy in traded pelts will boom!

Bill Arnold - "the government could get a warrant in a heartbeat." Absolutely correct. One of the things that pisses me off about the way the administration pursues Al Qaeda is that they implicitly argue that they are the only ones who care about stopping these B***ards. As though the FISA court is intentionally trying to protect terrorists!!?? Consequently, the executive branch has to break the law in order to protect us from the traiterous behavior of the other branches of government, and of course anyone else who gets in the way.

But I think that you are wrong about who will win the framing war. They will parrot simple statements about protecting the american people from terrorists. We will answer 'yes, but...' Its a slam dunk for them, but unfortunately not in the George Tenant meaning of the phrase

"Wanton?" Ewwww.

Don't suppose posting the surveys on this would make any more impression than it did last time.

As Advocate of God points out, not to burst any bubbles, but here's the current order of Presidential Succession

The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez - ineligible
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao - ineligibile
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

See any names there you really wanna throw a President in front of?

I say vote 'em out in 2008. Sadly, it's what we get for not kickin' 'em out in 04.

Did anyone else see the speech?

But at the end of the day, if you're expecting me to get upset that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, good luck

So much blind faith. So much deaf loyalty.

conspiracy nut: But at the end of the day, if you're expecting me to get upset that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, good luck.

At the end of the day, I expect you to robotically regurgitate brain-dead, scripted, programmed, right-wing bullshit like the stupid, ignorant mental slave you are.

It's all you ever do, you pathetic bootlicker.

I've been arguing in another forum with a wingnut about this issue, and posed the following hypothetical: "What if President Hillary decreed that for national security all guns held in civilian hands be confiscated?"

The wingnut's answer was that no one would obey such an order, because it would be unconstitutional. (Implicitly, the warrantless wiretaps must be OK because the NSA did it.)

Sigh... Tautology, anyone?

re: the first comment on the thread:

Bubba, I have met a lot of Generals and Admirals over the last 40+ years, and every last fucking one of them, to a person, has been a political hack. Unless you are a political hack, your career stops at Major or Lieutenant Colonel. It's only a meritocracy in the enlisted ranks and up throu the mid-level officer ranks. After that, they have to play politics. That's just the nature of the beast. No one ever got a pair of stars just because they were competent. Hell, that isn't even a requirement!

Don't suppose posting the surveys on this would make any more impression than it did last time.

What you mean those poorly worded survey questions that have been thoroughly deconstructed each time you neocons bring 'em to the table? Bor-ring!

But at the end of the day, if you're expecting me to get upset that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, good luck

But at the end of the day, if you're asking me to trust this President with my tender bits in his hands, good luck.

Anyone interested in the thing I found strangest about the speech?

Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker and Howard Baker were nowhere to be found. When the dignitaries were introduced and Bush started to "speak" I made that observation in the Officers Club where those of us who couldn't pass muster to see the master were watching. Everyone got quiet then started repeating me..."Hey! Yeah! Where are Nancy and Howard?"

The Landon Lecture Series at K-State, in case anyone doesn't know, is named after Nancy's father, Alf Landon. To the best of my knowledge, she has never missed a Landon Lecture before this.

Like everyone else this perspective "But at the end of the day, if you're expecting me to get upset that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, good luck" is crucial in guessing what's really going on.

Because if the program were limited - it's almost certain that the would have gotten approval retroactively for all the monitoring they wanted. I agree that the General is making a looser distinction - but in the end this court has approved just about everything.

So back we are again: why didn't they want to get approval?

Because they're hiding something.

So much blind faith.
It's hardly blind faith. Think for a moment about all the phone calls, emails, etc sent in the US in a given day (the mind reels). Now consider the number of personnel required to review all those, even with a computer doing the upfront sorting.

And for what purpose? To catch all the soccer moms talking about how their child's school play performance "bombed"? No. The only thing that makes any sense is looking at a targeted set of calls, and according to the NSA dude that targeted set of calls is

communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda

But I think that you are wrong about who will win the framing war. They will parrot simple statements about protecting the american people from terrorists. We will answer 'yes, but...' Its a slam dunk for them, but unfortunately not in the George Tenant meaning of the phrase

I disagree. This is a big loser issue for the GOP, especially in a cocktail with all of the other failures and lawbreaking we can throw at them. Rove is scared stiff about this, which is why he's bragging openly about it now to scare Democrats off.

Don't let him. This is not a hard issue to understand, and it needs to be pushed to the zenith, if only to protect our rights.

So back we are again: why didn't they want to get approval?
You could read the article, the NSA dude explained that. And if you did read the article, why the hell did you bother since you're obviously not going to believe anything you're told.

Because they're hiding something.

Of course. All the more reason to not let Rove scare the Democrats off the track. Karl has a vacation coming up...

why is monitoring phone calls of al Qaeda members a bad thing?

straw man

no one is arguing that al Qaeda phone calls shouldn't be monitored - this has been explained again and again and again and again - pay attention!!!

the question is whether the President should be able to make these decisions in secret without judicial attention - and, for me, whether ANY administration can be trusted to do this

it's about accountability

Well if they know who the target is then get a warrant If not,like the Whitehouse says, They are data mining and everyone gets monitored. Anyone see saturday night live?

All you folks in such a big flippin hurry to get rid of your pesky civil rights, North Korea is absolutely breathtaking this time of year!

Conspiracy Nut -- monitoring phone calls of al Qaeda members NOT a bad thing. Its a good thing. I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and I support it. However, monitoring phone calls of AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT IS NOT ONLY a bad thing, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. At least that is how I read the fourth amendment.

I suspect the requirement that the Attorney General approve is a regulation, not a requirement of the FISA Act. And therefore it could be changed by the Justice Department without going to Congress, although it's possible that a public comment period would be required.

Either way, is anybody else baffled that John Ashcroft is being painted as the obstacle to the war on terror? I hadn't been accustomed to thinking of him as a liberal wuss..

The question is: "[W]hy is monitoring phone calls of al Qaeda members a bad thing?"

It really should be: "Why does George Bush have to break the law to protect us from what he should have protected us against on 9/11 (or simply to monitor the phone calls of al Qaeda [sic] members)?"

Or, "Why can't Bush change the law to do the 'targeted and focused' survelliance he ostesibly needs to do?"

Why didn't Bush catch bin Laden in Tora Bora?

Why do we have to give up our liberties to protect our freedoms?

Why are the American people putting up with this crap?

I say we just drop it.Think about this when we get a Dem Pres. they will being entering office with war time powers WOW how fun will that be watching these trolls explain how the pres. doesn't have all these powers anymore.So much fun can't wait.

All you folks in such a big flippin hurry to get rid of your pesky civil rights, North Korea is absolutely breathtaking this time of year!

Yeah, monitoring phones in the U.S. that have connections to terrorist communications in other countries is exactly the same as North Korea.

And I get yelled at for strawmen.

conspiracy nut: . . . why is monitoring phone calls of al Qaeda members a bad thing?

Because, you dishonest asshole:

(1) It is "believed" to be Al Queda, not "known" to be Al Queda, and as this administration has shown, it will believe anything it wants and that is convenient for it to believe, just like you, cn; and

(2) This administration lies. Period. Over and over. About everything, both big and small. Therefore, they cannot be trusted to restrict their surveillance to what they say they are restricting it to, even if that in itself was legal or even made sense; and

(3) This administration has proved time and again that it will commit and condone criminal acts, unethical acts, immoral acts, and hypocritical acts in furtherance of its partisan agendas.

Just do like we on the right do.OPEN MOUTH INSERT BUSH'S PENIS SUCK TILL HE SAYS HECK OF A JOB THERE TBONE.

The assumption by the administration that Congress would not accommodate changes in the FISA law is baseless. A judge, or a panel of judges, could be assigned to hands-on supervise whatever datamining processes are being undertaken.

Meanwhile the President relies on the opinion of administration lawyers to justify his conduct. Does anyone see the circular reasoning here? Can I, as a citizen, go out and perpetrate crimes because I get the go-ahead from my attorney?

tbrosz: And I get yelled at for strawmen.

Rightly so. Rightly so.

Keep in mind that this issue of violating the 4th amendment and Constitution is not only a big issue with independents and liberals, but in some ways even more so within the Republican Party, at least a few of their factions.

Rove is trying to scare the Democrats off the scent, because there's no way they want to have to campaign on violating the 4th amendment and Constitution, which is sure to fire up or at least jade a sizable portion of their base, along with independents.

Any gun-toting NRA member is going to have a problem with eroding the Bill of Rights, especially one as iron-clad as the 4th amendment, which is about our property. If the 4th amendment can be eroded, your right to carry a gun is far more at risk.

I'm with Scott. Next time you argue with a conservatives about warrantless searches just say the words 'President Hillary Clinton'.

no one is arguing that al Qaeda phone calls shouldn't be monitored
I know, it's a topic that gets avoided like the plague around here. And it's the reason that the left is going to lose this argument.

You know, after the NYT came out in support of the Echelon program, I'm thinking you guys have a hard uphill pull here. Because it's not like you can even stand on your whether the President should be able to make these decisions in secret without judicial attention. After rolling over and letting Clinton do exactly that.

You can, and will, find a narrow path about how "this is different"; and you can, and will, explain that civilization as we know it will come to an end because of that difference. But I don't think that narrow distinction will be enough to overcome my question of why shouldn't we monitor the phone calls of al Qaeda members.

Bob,

See any names there you really wanna throw a President in front of?

President Norman Mineta sounds a lot better than all the others. Not great, mind you, but certainly better than any of the other ones.

President Ted Stevens is actually the scariest in my mind. Not because he is more evil than Cheney or Rumsfeld (talk about a tall order), but because he is so clearly insane.

You can, and will, find a narrow path about how "this is different"; and you can, and will, explain that civilization as we know it will come to an end because of that difference.

If all else fails, the wingnuts fall back on the "end of civilization" canard, as if the vision of American civilization isn't liberal democracy, rights doctrine, and human dignity, but rather is all the cool toys, technological breakthroughs, and luxury suburban living.

conspiracy nut: After rolling over and letting Clinton do exactly that.

Translation: Clinton did it, so it must be okay, even though I and every other conservative lemming said that Clinton was the most immoral, most criminal, most incompetent president ever.

I am not willing to give up a single dram of civil rights, because the slow erosion would gain speed, and one morning we could wake up in a NorK type environment, and start scratching our heds asking "What the hell happened?"

What I was saying wasn't introducing a straw man, I was just suggesting that if your civil liberties aren't all that important to you, then cut to the chase and go where you wouldn't have to be bothered by them.

Translation: Clinton did it, so it must be okay, even though I and every other conservative lemming said that Clinton was the most immoral, most criminal, most incompetent president ever.

That's the funniest thing...because in liberal and Democratic circles there is plenty of healthy skepticism of party leaders and even the party itself, and much less of a tendency to hero worship and blind fealty to authority, whereas this seems common with the Right, so this recurring argument of theirs really is just comical, since it only applies to them, but they assume it applies to everyone (all sides).

Jimm,

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that ironic and humorous.

Exactly, A for G. conspiracy's tactic is simply to ingore the argument and say "Dems did it, too." He then has the hide to ask the already answered question again. The issue isn't about monitoring Al Qaeda phone calls, which the gov't can and already has been doing. The question is whether ANY administration should be trusted to spy on who it wants to in secret, without judicial review and to make Kingly pronouncements where this issue is concerned. Whether or not you think this particular president can be trusted is ENTIRELY irrelevent conspiracy nut.

I should add that with a lot of libertarians (classical liberals), who I mix with frequently and sympathize with immensely (afterall, classical liberalism is the philosophy of our Framers, for the most part, and the foundation of our government), there is also not this blind tendency to follow authority and hero worship power.

You can always discern the wise from the foolish by their position to (and skepticism towards) power. If they get on their knees and bow their heads to power, they are foolish, at least in believing they care about liberty and human dignity.

Whatever government is not a government of laws, is a despotism, let it be called what it may.

Daniel Webster might have called GWB a despot.

That's the funniest thing...because in liberal and Democratic circles there is plenty of healthy skepticism of party leaders and even the party itself, and much less of a tendency to hero worship and blind fealty to authority, whereas this seems common with the Right, so this recurring argument of theirs really is just comical, since it only applies to them, but they assume it applies to everyone (all sides).

Who are the real relativists, and who the pragmatists (realists)?

President Hilary Clinton with all the war time powers she can muster.Does that scare you cons.

Whether or not you think this particular president can be trusted is ENTIRELY irrelevent conspiracy nut.
I agree. I also see you didn't read my 5:44 too closely, there was a viewpoint there that takes reading the whole thing, and not just AfG's outtakes.

Ditto Jimm.

The short answer is: it's not a matter of "the Dems did it too".

Har har.
They can't convince FISA judges that they've got probable cause to listen to Howard Dean's phone.

President Hilary Clinton with all the war time powers she can muster.Does that scare you cons.

Yes, and isn't that the real relativism? Blind fealty to this power, but blind opposition to that power. Even worse, the philosophical distinction they'll usually make in defending this power over the other is the very principle that the current president is running roughshod over.

This idea that we should discuss the NSA program without knowing what it is is ridiculous.

If we were to debate, say, whether we should nuke Tehran with cruise missles, we all would know, in general terms, how a nuclear warhead works, what it is, and what a cruise missle is. Yes, there's all sorts of technical info that is properly classified and beyond our general technical expertise anyhow. Nevertheless, we would know what would be involved.

It is preposerous that this NSA discussion cannot be equally well grounded.

There is nothing new under the sun.

“The loud little handful will shout for war. The pulpit will warily and cautiously protest at first.... The great mass of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes, and will try to make out why there should be a war, and they will say earnestly and indignantly: "It is unjust and dishonorable and there is no need for war. Then the few will shout even louder.... Before long you will see a curious thing: anti-war speakers will be stoned from the platform, and free speech will be strangled by hordes of furious men who still agree with the speakers but dare not admit it...

Next, the statesmen will invent cheap lies...and each man will be glad of these lies and will study them because they soothe his conscience; and thus he will bye and bye convince himself that the war is just and he will thank God for a better sleep he enjoys by his self-deception.”

– Mark Twain – observing how wars that are at first seen as unnecessary by the mass of the people become converted into "just" wars

No principles. Where's Allan Bloom?

"if you're expecting me to get upset that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, good luck."

No, conspiracy nut, we're not expecting you to get excited that al Qaeda conversations are being monitored, we expect you to get excited that conversations that had nothing to do with al Qaeda were being monitored under guise of the War on Terra. I expect you get excited, too, that the guvmit wants to know everying you Google, too, in the guise of protecting "the children" from pornography. Do your constitutionally protected freedoms mean nothing to you in the face of one (count it, one) terrorist attack on US soil?

Sheesh.

Can you write legislation which says the NSA doesn't need to pay attention to the part of fourth amendment concerning "warrants" and "probable cause"?

Well, I know you could write it, but it doesn't seem like it would get anywhere without a bunch of recess appointment freeper judges.

Does that scare you cons.
Not a bit, Tradesports has Repubs to hold the House and Senate, both running around 70% last I checked; so she'll have more opposition than Bush has faced. And given that renewed Clinton-hate will be fanned into full force long before the general election takes place, I expect every move Hillary! makes will be as well watched as every move Bush makes. And all this protecting of people that leak information the left is doing will serve nicely in that event.

All in all, it'll make an entertaining presidency. I'm actually considering voting for her if she is on the ballot and it looks like Congress will stay Repub. If it weren't for HillaryCare I'd definitely be voting for her.

Can you write legislation which says the NSA doesn't need to pay attention to the part of fourth amendment concerning "warrants" and "probable cause"?

Actually, you cannot and have it stand with a sober and sane court.

This should require an amendment to the Constitution explicitly stating that the president may suspend whatever part of the Constitution he so desires during "wartime". Of course, wartime would have to be strictly defined.

Good luck with that wingnuts.

How does getting a phone call from a known Al Qaeda member not constitute probable cause? WTF? Either the FISA judges suddently magically started being really uncooperative, or the secret DARPA project to endow cow feces with the power of flight has had a dramatic success!

If they will stop invading my privacy, I promise I will call the authorities if al Qaeda happens to give me a jingle.

Unfortunately, impeaching him would leave us with several substitutes who also believe that this devine right of kings applies to the executive of the United States of America.

Impeaching him would, in and of itself, demonstrate that acting in accord with such beliefs has a cost.

I am more concerned with how a President acts than with what a President believes.

Impeachment is not a substitute for winning elections, it is -- like criminal punishments -- a tool for disabling a specific wrongdoer and discouraging other potential wrongdoers through demonstrating a cost to wrongdoing.

Yeah, impeachment would still leave us with a bad President with bad views on the role of government. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be useful.

Besides, CMDicely, it would sure take the wind out of their sails, too, wouldn't it?

How does getting a phone call from a known Al Qaeda member not constitute probable cause?

If the majority of phone calls made by al-Qaeda members are not to other al-Qaeda members, then it doesn't provide probable cause that the US person is a foreign agent.

If the majority of phone calls made by al-Qaeda members do not, in and of themselves, contain evidence of a crime, it doesn't provide probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found by surveilling the call.

And, then, of course, there is the question of how the "known" al-Qaeda member is "known". Being believed to be an al-Qaeda member by the operational staff of the NSA is not the same as being "known" anything.

Do your constitutionally protected freedoms mean nothing to you in the face of one (count it, one) terrorist attack on US soil?
Sure they do. And as soon you guys (that's "guys" in the genderless sense) find any evidence that has happened, I'll pay attention.

Until then, I suspect that NSA has its own way of monitoring conversations, and I can easily believe that method doesn't lend itself to court warrants. Further, I'm no more concerned about this than I was Echelon, because we simply don't have the moxie to monitor for the jollies of it. If there isn't a reason, there won't be any monitoring.

What I'm not jumping on is the "Bush did it so it must be bad" bandwagon.

Until then, I suspect that NSA has its own way of monitoring conversations, and I can easily believe that method doesn't lend itself to court warrants.

Since the mechanism is entirely irrelevant to the warrant process, it is completely impossible for your belief to be accurate.

...think about the last time you and a significant other had a phone conversation that was a little risque.

Ahh, memories. But you do understand that for this to matter to the wingers here they would first have to be blessed with significant others, which even with my own naively high estimation of the capacity of the human race for compassion is doubtful, and then these significant others would want to actually get risque with them (ick!) in a sort of mercy yuck (Ja, sprichst mir, meine kleine Konspiracie Nüsse!).

The sad thing in all this is the thought that some poor NSA operative might happen to listen in on one of our trolls engaged in telephonic pontification, and proceed to bore themselves to death. Another tragic but valiant loss in the War on Terror™.

it is completely impossible for your belief to be accurate.
Ah yes, no sense in letting reality intrude.

a couple of thoughts (anyone who reads these as indicating a final opinion on this matter is jumping the gun):

1. anyone who has an expectation of privacy for their phone calls (especially cellular and international calls) and e-mails is pretty naive (and I'm not talking about the U.S. government here).

2. I think finding "evidence of a crime" is the foremost NSA priority...its pretty clearly prevention that they're aiming for.

3. Some here have an overly grandiose perception of their own importance....the NSA doesn't have the manpower to be interested in Global Citizen's phone calls.

4. This isn't the "administration" conducting the intercepts...this is the NSA...these are career employees, many most going back to the 90's and 80's. I wonder what people would say if they realized that probably the majority of people involved with this program were Kerry voters.

This isn't the "administration" conducting the intercepts...this is the NSA

The NSA are the soldiers (often literally) executing the policy. The Administration is directing the policy. But its funny how the Republicans are the party of personal responsibility -- except when it comes to Republican elected officials.

cmdicely: "Since the mechanism is entirely irrelevant to the warrant process, it is completely impossible for your belief to be accurate."

This is completely absurd (which you're usually not). It is possible that the mechanism is simply not covered by FISA (unlikely but possible -- see the footnote in the brief released on Friday). Alternatively, it is also possible that a technological method is being utilized which yields clearly relevant information but without such identifying characteristics that even a "John Doe" warrant could be obtained.

SAVE ME FROM THE BIG BAD TEWWOWISTS!

I'M SO SCARED I JUST WET MYSELF!!

WAHHHHHH!

Some here have an overly grandiose perception of their own importance....the NSA doesn't have the manpower to be interested in Global Citizen's phone calls.

Sure they do. They may not have the manpower to listen in on those calls and the calls they should be listening in on, but that's one reason why we have accountability provisions like those in FISA (and the Fourth Amendment itself) -- they are tools for ensuring that limited government resources are used in the most appropriate way.

Evading those rules ought to be regarded as prima facie, though not conclusive, evidence of ineffective use of resources, in addition to Constitutional, civil liberties, criminal, or other issues raised.

3. Some here have an overly grandiose perception of their own importance....the NSA doesn't have the manpower to be interested in Global Citizen's phone calls.

This type of reasoning can be used to justify all sorts of government intrusion into privacy of the citizens.

I am sure that even modern day Stalin would not feel the need to monitor each and every citizen, given that the technologies that are available to sift out only the ones that are perceieved as potential threat to the government.

that should read: "I don't think finding "evidence of a crime" is the foremost NSA priority"

Actually, they just might. My husband is a retired Nuke guy, and our son teaches ESL in Japan and the middle east. I have friends in Turkey with whom I exchange emails and phone calls, and I have friends from college in places like Syria and jordan, also with whom I exchange emails and phone calls.

Of course, the FBI and NSA has had a dossier on me since I married my husband. After our wedding his security clearance was suspended until I was cleared. Everyone I had contact with any time in my life was contacted, right down to my junior prom date and the cop who wrote me my first and only speeding ticket.

THE ONLY TERRORISM WE HAVE TO FEAR IS THE FEAR OF TERRORISM ITS SELF ! ! FDR

Keven, you're assuming that Congress would have refused to amend the law to permit this lower standard for surveillance when one end of the call was outside the US. I don't believe they would have after 9/11 and I don't believe they would even today. This action by the administration still looks to me, as does Rumsfeld's refusal to commit more troops to Iraq during and after the invasion, like a willful act aimed at proving a point: viz., that they don't need permission.

Global Citizen:

"Actually, they just might. My husband is a retired Nuke guy, and our son teaches ESL in Japan and the middle east. I have friends in Turkey with whom I exchange emails and phone calls, and I have friends from college in places like Syria and jordan, also with whom I exchange emails and phone calls."

At least a portion of the foregoing applies to literally millions of Americans, including yours truly (and the nuke part applies to many thousands).

"Of course, the FBI and NSA has had a dossier on me since I married my husband. After our wedding his security clearance was suspended until I was cleared. Everyone I had contact with any time in my life was contacted, right down to my junior prom date and the cop who wrote me my first and only speeding ticket."

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. I don't believe they contacted the cop or your junior prom date. In fact, I'm sure of it. I also don't believe that you have an NSA file because of your husband's work...DOD related clearances isn't their field.

But then you already established yourself as somewhat deranged when you claimed that the military is hiding the deaths of thousands of Americans in Iraq.

This is completely absurd (which you're usually not).

I disagree.

It is possible that the mechanism is simply not covered by FISA (unlikely but possible -- see the footnote in the brief released on Friday).

It is, at least, logically possible, sure. But that is irrelevant to the claim that its not amenable to warrant, which was the issue.

Alternatively, it is also possible that a technological method is being utilized which yields clearly relevant information but without such identifying characteristics that even a "John Doe" warrant could be obtained.

No, I don't think that's even theoretically possible when it comes to FISA warrants. It may be that the type of surveillance is so general that it is impossible to meet the requirement of 50 USC 1801(a)(4)(B) for exclusive use by foreign powers for a FISA warrant, but that doesn't make the mechanism less amenable to warrant, it just makes it outside of the scope for which Congress has chosen to allow surveillance even with a warrant. 1801(a)(4)(B) is clearly not a Constitutional requirement for a warrant to be issued, but a policy limitation imposed by Congress.

Especially if the AUMF had the effect of a declaration of war, in which case the President could have engaged in any surveillance for a 15-day period while proposing new measures, there is no excuse for violating the law by doing unauthorized surveillance beyond that point merely because existing statutes didn't have a provision under which the searches could be authorized properly, and certainly the argument that the mechanism is not amendable to warrant is without any merit. There is no even abstractly possible mechanism for which their could be probable cause to expect relevant information to be produced that could fail to be amenable to warrant, though it might take a change in law to allow warrants for a truly novel method.

"There is no even abstractly possible mechanism for which their could be probable cause to expect relevant information to be produced that could fail to be amenable to warrant, though it might take a change in law to allow warrants for a truly novel method."

We may agree...and what you write doesn't contradict my post.

cmdicely
Your response interests me more than Nathan's objections.

Nathan posits that the information is so vague as to not know who the sender/receiver was. And you don't think that's even theoretically possible when it comes to FISA warrants?

We may agree...and what you write doesn't contradict my post.

It certainly contradicts the part of your post where you claimed that that exact point was "completely absurd".

"Hopefully there are some honest Republicans left in Congress who disagree."
Honest republicans! get real kevin, that is as silly as hoping that there is an honest democrat in washington!
with our present system, any honest polititian is defeated long before they have a chance at getting to washington!

Nathan posits that the information is so vague as to not know who the sender/receiver was.

No, he claims that the information is so vague as to not be specific enough to justify a warrant, even the kind of warrant that can be issued without the identity of the target. As the identity of the target doesn't need to be known for a FISA warrant, the level of vagueness you refer to here is inadequate.

So FISA allows warrants for unknown senders/receivers, speaking on issues so vague that no one knows what is going on.

I'm not sure that FISA isn't a bigger problem than the NSA program...

Frankly, Nathan, I couldn't give a fuck less whether or not you believe me. Who the fuck are you, anyway? I certainly won't lose any sleep because the likes of you doubts my veracity.

By the way, I did not say that "American deaths were being concealed" (good memory, that was months ago). What I asked was IF deaths stateside from wounds sustained in the theatre of war were included in the casualty numbers. Big difference, but spin away, Maytag.