I wish you cared as much about protecting the great masses of people who have been harmed or killed by this administration as you do about a few pampered reporters, most of whom are as worthless as you are.

Will they be going after Scooter Libby's superiors as well (did he have any superiors other than the Vice President and President?), since it is now documented that he leaked secret information to reporters that was designed to make the administration look good, or are they only going after those leaks that embarrassed them?

jayarbee: wishing for a shield law, which would help us learn more about this president's misdeeds, brings forth this venom? Why did you respond to his post if Kevin is worthless?

I got my First Amendment award, fuck you.

Now this is your sheild law (or whistle blower protection law) test case. Eggan and Risen could even get it named after them. Let's see if the media is a little bit more organized and honest this time around.

Besides the justice department is basically doing a discovery for future cases testing the NSA program's legality and constitutionality. Who knew what. When did they learn it. Who was known to disagree with the NSA program. Why. What action did they take. There is no way this information would even get collected if the administration wasn't pushing this witch hunt.

could be they'll be cooling their heels, and it could be that whistle-blower protections will come into play. patrick fitzgerald concluded, and judges agreed, that outing valerie plame and dissing joe wilson didn't constitute whistle-blowing.

this case is a little different, although i'm no judge....

jayarbee, if you really think that kevin is one of the bad guys, you need help....

Question: If Democratic Senators who were briefed on this had pushed back against the Administration's program then couldn't the reform of this program have been handled in closed hearings without the press becoming involved.

I, admittedly, haven't been following this too closely, but my current perspective is that this leak was necessary to remedy inaction against a program that may be illegal.

This, to my mind, is entirely different from the partisan Plame leak.

OTOH though, my position is that such leaks shouldn't have to happen even with shield laws in place because they harm the national interest and therefore the leaks need to be plugged.

What needs to happen is for Democrats to become an effective institutional check instead of being asleep at the switch and letting the press do their job for them.

OK, so where am I wrong in my understanding of the facts, analysis or conclusion.

So here's my question: If a showdown comes, will the leakers (or the reporters) be able to interpose the unconstitutionality of the NSR program as a defense to charges of unlawful disclosure of classified information or failure to squeal on the leakers?

I see your point Kevin, but at this point, I think journalism is in a terrible crisis, but just doesn't understand that yet.

While we the public need a shield law for journalists. We need journalists first.

I see no reason for a law at this time that applies to some form of institutional reporter that doesn't apply to bloggers or joe public.

These boys and girls of the press need to realize they're not playing with a White House that has any respect for the Constitution. This isn't the Nixon Era. These are bad people and they don't give a shit if every reporter in the United States is locked up until they agree to print only the proper party line. These wiretaps and this semi-phony war on terrorism has more ulterior motives than any of us can discuss in this limited space. No reporter would dare investigate the full extent of the illegality because of fear of reprisal beyond anything Nixon ever dreamed of. I enjoy reading these comments and goofing around but this is deadly serious and these are very evil men running the White House and making policy.

HOWARD: jayarbee, if you really think that kevin is one of the bad guys, you need help....

Nobody's going to do serious time over this, because the underlying "program" is illegal. To secure a conviction, the government would have to assert that they were, in fact, doing bad things, and got caught by the people whom the government was trying to jail. Not gonna happen.

BALDERDASH!

There were countless avenues by which these NSA-CIA federal employees could have pursued their grievances, both within the bureaucracy via established procedures or through the House or Senate Intelligence commitee or by sealed petition to the FISA court. This was politically motivated and traitrous; it was only derivatively whistleblowing.

These traitors in the intelligence community should expect death for illegally betraying our soldiers in the field whatever their motives; but I suppose there is room for some mercy, i.e., 15-20 years!

TOH

This is getting closer and closer to a Fascist Police state. Rove, Cheney, Libby can surrender state secrets as political vendetta after their lies were exposed concerning the start of the Iraq war - thats fine, dandy and Okay.

But the whistleblower chain of contacts, done to protect our constitutional rights that they were violating, they go to jail over national security violations? Thats nothing more than the arbitrary use of political power for political reasons.

What are they going to call the Pen that they place these journalist in? 'New Dachau?'

And when are American's going to recognize these men for what they are, fascists. Unrepentent ones at that.

TOH: How about death for betraying the Constitution and the American people and thus the soldiers in the field by sending them into an unnecessary war?

Kevin,

It's moving fast because the Repubs will use it to win the 2006 elections.

Wasting energy intellectualizing about stupid shield laws only plays into their hands.

You Democrats act like really dense losers sometimes.

ILLEGAL? SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE ARRESTED JIMMY CARTER AFTER THE C.S. KING FUNERAL:

This may have been pre-FISA, but it was still in violation of other state and federal laws, hence "illegal" according to Carter and you ethical deliquents.

Via Powerline:

One of the important federal court decisions recognizing the president's inherent authority to order warrantless foreign intelligenc surveillance is the Truong case, discussed in John's analysis of the legality of the NSA surveillance program. John noted that the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong in 1980 and that the case involved a criminal prosecution arising out of the defendant’s spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch’s inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:

The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong’s phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a “foreign intelligence” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.

The court agreed with the government’s position:

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the “object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators,” and the search is conducted “primarily” for foreign intelligence reasons.

In his performance at Mrs. King's funeral this week, the execrable Jimmy Carter obviously chided President Bush by reference to the "secret government wiretapping" of Martin Luther King. In today's Washington Times, Charles Hurt recalls that it was of course Jimmy Carter himself (and Attorney General Bell) who authorized the warrantless surveillance involved in the Truong case.

BUSH'S SURVEILLANCE WAS IN EXACT KEEPING WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER EXERCISED BY EVERY PRESIDENT FROM WASHINGTON TO BUSH HIMSELF; NO CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE CAN TAKE AWAY A PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. THESE NSA-CIA TRAITORS MUST PAY DEARLY FOR BETRAYING OUR TROOPS BEING BLOODIED IN THE FIELD OF BATTLE AND THESE REPORTERS WILL EITHER REVEAL THEIR SOURCES OR GO GRAY AND DIE IN JAIL. BEYOND THE ENORMITY OF THESE TRAITORS NATIONAL SECURITY COMPROMSING REVELATIONS IS THE FACT THAT THEY HAD INTER-AGENCY REMEDIES AND SECRETIVE JUDICIAL REMEDIES THEY DID NOT PURSUE!

TOH

Wouldn't the government have to show that some harm to intelligence gathering came from the leak? No names were leaked, nobody at the CIA or NSA has been 'outed'. It's hard to imagine any would-be terrorists thought the FISA court would be any protection to them; they assumed their phones might be tapped and their e-mail intercepted if they had any sense.

I can't imagine what the line above about "illegally betraying our soldiers in the field" could possibly apply to.

Please explain how the leak of the very existence of the NSA survellance program damaged national security?

Normally I don't recognize trolls. And maybe its been said before, but I just can't resist.

The objective historian is neither.

TOH: Big difference between domestic spying which Bush is doing and spying on a foreign power or are the American citizens a foreign power to you, comrade?

The test for the decision to go to war is not necessity; if you think it is you are living in a fantasy world. The test is whether, at the time, it was cost beneficial. You think it was cost-beneficial to continue to appease Hussein as our inspections where prevented and the sanctions were overwhelmingly disregarded and circumvented. Bush II brilliantly thought it was not cost-beneficial. The necessity standard means that one must surrender to an invader rather than fight; after all, one need not engage in war, one can obey the invader.

TOH

how exciting: we are once again graced with the deranged writings of the objective historian. i swear, it shouldn't be possible for him/her to keep getting stupider, but he/she does. as usual, it's not worth the energy to pick apart every piece of stupidity, but my favorite does remain that he/she and the powerline doofuses continue to push a line that even gonzalez didn't try.

imagine that: an argument so low and moronic that gonzalez didn't bring it out.

TangoMan, here are the problems: a.) the briefings, such as they were, were classified; b.) there is no avenue in the republican-controlled congress for a democratic "pushback."

jayarbee, i don't really want to march down this pathway since it's not really germane, but in the words of the song by one of my favorite hardcore bands, DOA, "you got to know who the enemy is." Kevin is not the enemy.

you know, i have a new opinion: the objective historian is actually a performance artist.

no one could possibly, with a straight face, conclude that invading Iraq makes sense from a "cost-benefit" standpoint. it's just not conceivable that someone would write that in an atempt to be taken seriously.

so i take it all back: the objective historian is actually a brilliant mind, so clever and sophisticated that he/she can imitate the most mindless of right-wing zealots while actually offering up a leftist critique of same.

fabulous!

Murmeister; please. It's risible. Carter, Clinton, etc. (most Presidents) have done the same thing when it was exclusively a U.S. citizen involved. Here we are spying on a foreigner suspected of posing a threat to the U.S.A. by communicating with a U.S. citizen. It's 100% legitmate, 100% Constitutional, 100% precedented, 100% given the imprimatur by five Federal Court of Appeals decision (comp. 0 against), 100% LEGAL. U.S. Citizens are not free from search by the federal government; they are free from unreasonable searches. Read the 4th Amendment and the relevant case law and read that Carter post I made earlier. Are you ready to impugn Carter to the same degree Bush? And, anticipating the distraction from the issue, FISA/Congress cannot take away a President's constitutional power, and Carter's spying in the Truong case was illegal based on several statutes that applied absent FISA.

TOH

TOH: It was not costing America a thing except Hussein was thumbing his nose at the US. Bush II decided to wag the dog. The rest of the world outside of his British lackies recognized that there was no need for war and Bush knew he could never gain the support of the UN as he had for Afghanistan which was clearly in violation of International Law. Bush lied to the public for his own benefit and the benefit of select henchmen and sent thousands of American Youth to die needlessly in a foreign country to gain nothing but riches for the companies owned by his henchman. The authors of the original war? ....all still at liberty including Bush. The victims?....The American and Iraqii peoples.
TOH: Leave your parents wine alone and go to bed....you're bothering the adults.

Good. I hope they go to jail and sit there for a long time. If they won't tell prosecutors who is was that broke the law, they deserve it.

comrade objective historian proves my "performance art" point with his/her 11:04 posting.

since no rational human being could possibly make those arguments with a straight face, requiring, as they do, complete ignorance of the very case law that he/she claims to be representing, as well as complete ignorance of what "inherent authority" constitutes, as well as completely misrepresenting the cases that he/she calls the 5 precedents, it must be performance art.

TOH: It was not costing America a thing except Hussein was thumbing his nose at the US. Bush II decided to wag the dog. The rest of the world outside of his British lackies recognized that there was no need for war and Bush knew he could never gain the support of the UN as he had for Afghanistan which was clearly in violation of International Law. Bush lied to the public for his own benefit and the benefit of select henchmen and sent thousands of American Youth to die needlessly in a foreign country to gain nothing but riches for the companies owned by his henchman. The authors of the original war? ....all still at liberty including Bush. The victims?....The American and Iraqii peoples.
TOH: Leave your parents wine alone and go to bed....you're bothering the adults.

The invasion of Iraq made sense from a cost-benefit perspective.

If you Regressive-Democrats were in charge, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, his people and not him would still be suffering misery and DEATH under the sanctions, he would for 3 years now be doing whatever he please in terms of weapons development unbeknownst to us exacerbating the threat he posed (whatever the WMD status), our credibility in upholding treaties (post-Gulf War I) for which U.S. soldiers died to allow us to negotiate would be non-existent, and he would still be concocting plots to assasinate George H.W. Bush whom whatever your politics is a great American and a leader who deserves that we have his back. All this is the best case scenario; worst case, Saddam conspires in and finances the sneaking WMD into Penn Station that kills 1000s.

The cost is the present situation; the benefits are multiple and without end.

TOH

comrade objective historian: brilliant! just brilliant! the "endless" benefits is a particular gem, so typical of the empty-minded right-wing nutcase and yet so devastatingly criticall of the fact that there are no specific benefits that America got from this invasion.

i continue to be in awe of your performance art....

The USA does not work for the UN.

Also another balderdash meme; the war was not illegal. It was not authorized by the UN, but nor was it prohibited. Nor does the UN have jurisdiction to prohibit war. Gulf II was authorized by the U.S. Congress, hence it was legal or as legal as any rational American should require given the history of UN cupidity, incompetence, and hatred of the USA.

TOH

Benefit #1 (their are endless benefits): The war objective was accomplished; Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.A., i.e., we were reasonable threatened by him whatever his actual capabilities, and now he no longer poses a threat to the U.S.A. "Mission accomplished." Ref. the NIE 2002.

TOH

Still waiting for the Objectively Historical explanation as to how this war has been cost beneficial...

Yes. Let's hear the cost-benefit analysis.

Howard;

What about the Truong decision I posted above? The target in Bush II surveillance was a foreign threat. Note, FISA or no-FISA, the court decided the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance if the target is a foreign person or power. Again, Howard, Congress cannot take that away.

TOH

comrade objective historian, you're on fire tonight, destroying every right-wing argument while appearing to support them. here at the central committee, we salute you.

Howard,

TangoMan, here are the problems: a.) the briefings, such as they were, were classified; b.) there is no avenue in the republican-controlled congress for a democratic "pushback."

Are there really no mechanisms available to a minority party? Anyone familiar with Congressional procedures? Obviously power is reduced, but are all minorities reduced to sitting on their hands and doing nothing?

"Benefit #1 (their are endless benefits): The war objective was accomplished..."

This is excellent to hear. My newspaper neglected to mention this. The troops should be home... when?

comrade oh: have you actually read the decision? for three days running that i can think of, you seem to think that "inherent authority" has no limits on it. you're wrong, completely wrong.

except, of course, i forgot my own analysis: you know you're wrong, you're merely satirizing the idiots who believe the way you pretend to.

fabulous!

...and we're still waiting for that scintillating cost-benefit analysis.

Cost-benefit is at posting 11:06 along with this: I'd rather these problem today than the reasonably perceived THREAT both undefined and unimaginably destructive in capacity to cause us harm that existed in 2003 and the on-going worldwide threat posed by US on-going appeasement of a dictator with Hussein's past. To continue to appease Husseing would embolden other enemies by causing them to expect us to retreat from vigilance.

TOH

wow-we should just leave TOH & jayarbee in a dark room together.

Judy miller's case made it hard (for me) to see arguing for a shield law as a priority, but, here i do think it would be valuable, and it's probalby right and importanti in principle. in some ways, I wonder if the circling of the wagons around a trojan horse there (I know, bad and silly mix of metaphors) might help make this the test case that does produce a shield law, as Raanaurora suggested earlier. I don't know the law well enough to know how possible this is tho and would like to hear form someone who does.

"The target in Bush II surveillance was a foreign threat. Note, FISA or no-FISA, the court decided the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance if the target is a foreign person or power."

Whew... I'm getting all kinds of useful information tonight. As it happens, I was in the bathroom when they passed the list of targets around in the meeting. I'm glad TOH was there to take notes.

Hate to surprise Porter Goss, but I've already seen 'one' of the leakers, an official from the NSA, on Hardball a couple weeks ago. He came forward on his own. The NSA has fired him, of course, as well as given him a battery of psychological tests and diagnosed him as 'paranoid schizophrenic.' Just like the old Soviet treatment of dissidents. He seemed quite sane to me.

Howard:

I never said their were no limits; the limits are in the federal court decisions and Bush II is unequivocably well within those limits. You are a weak-minded polemicist to claim that I ever implied or stated that the power was unlimited. It is limited by the federal case law (5 v. 0) and by the Constitutional standard of "reasonableness" as written and adjudicated generally by the Supreme Court.

Bottom line; Bush II was within the limits of Truong et al. (incl. Clinton's pre-FISA-applicable search of Ames) since the target was a foriegn threat (as per the case law, this is legal DESPITE there being a U.S. person surveilled/searched). Hence, LEGAL.

TOH

"To continue to appease Husseing would embolden other enemies by causing them to expect us to retreat from vigilance."

Yes. Clearly, this has had chilling effect on Iran.

tangoman, here's the problem about being a minority in the current era: historically, we did not see in the united states what you might call a parliamentary system, where the executive and the legislative branches were completely in synch with one another. it certainly wasn't the expectation of the founders that we'd see behavior like this.

until quite recently, each party represented a fairly broad swath of political opinion - the republicans had their moderates, the dems their conservatives.

but the moderates have been shut down in the republcian party and the conservatives left the democratic party as part of the overall outcome of the civil rights and voting rights acts.

so the systems that exist in congress were based on the expectation that a certain degree of institutional pressure for bipartisan behavior would arise from that kind of overlapping of ideological positions.

but formally, the majority party has all the power, and now that the parties are essentially ideologically separate with no overlap at all (although, to tell ya the truth, i suspect we will start to see a separation between congressional republicans and the white house as this year goes by, and we will certainly see more of it in 2007-2008), the majority republicans have zero interest in any kind of bipartisanship.

indeed, it is a long-standing belief of karl rove that to win a congressional vote big is a waste of time: it means you gave too much away.

so, no, the dems can't call hearings, they have limited staff, they can't issue subpoenas, etc.

now, every now and then they can pull a clever parliamentary manuever (like reid forcing a re-committment of the senate intel committee to do what roberts promised and actually investigate political pressure on the intel community prior to the iraq war), but that's all it is.

in a true parliamentary system, on the other hand, there are vehicles to assure that the minority party isn't shut out (such as "question time" in the mother of all parliaments). it may be that the congress needs to revisit some of its rules, although that isn't going to happen with the cult of personality supporting bush we currently have.

so, sorry to be long-winded, but there is no such thing as a dem "pushback" under the current circumstances. indeed, the only reason that we got hearings with gonzalez (and may have other witnesses) is that enough republicans (specter, graham, brownback, dewine) believe that the powerline doofuses objective historian pretends to swear by are full of crap, just like the bush administration itself. were there not republicans thinking this way, we wouldn't even have seen gonzalez testify.

Actually, he was fired before he leaked!

TOH

Just want to add my thanks for all the objective history being offered tonight. It reads just like the labels on Dr. Bronner's Soap.

comrade oh: keep it up! you're destroying every right-wing argument through your ever so artful representation of right-wing idiocy. i continue to salute you.

because again, no one can possibly argue that bush's behavior is within the established precedents with a straight face: it's simply not conceivable.

your exciting new definition of cost-benefit analysis is another sterling example of making the right-wing look bad while pretending to support it. outstanding!

Endless benefits for Al Qaeda -- a new chaotic place to set up shop under the radar, recruiting and training opportunities, plus tons of unsecured high explosive "liberated" but not controlled by the US forces.

Or did I misunderstand something?

Dumb-ass Republicans. It's amazing that they can still believe their own bullshit.

No darlin', I can't see anything from you at 11:06. If you mean the swill that you posted at 11:10, then truly you must be a pimply faced adolescent copying and pasting the daily meme from powerline. The reason I know that the drivel you posted upthread is no a cost-benefit analysis is because that is what I do for a living. And a nice one at that.

Don't make claims you can't back up.

And everyone else, this 'repartee' is what happens when you take troll bait. What is copied and pasted is the same shit as on every other thread this mush-for-brains posts on. Word for word. Copy and paste. It gets boring.

Did you guys see the latest poll on Hardball. Wow. Encouraging for all you "geniuses".

Clinton 35% to

McCain and Guliani the well separated frontrunners for the GOP nomination.

McCain beating Clinton, 53% to 38%.
Guiliani beating Clinton, 51% to 38%.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls (and has been tolling since November 1980) for the Libertine-Regressive-Marxist-Anti-Reform-Democrats.

TOH

Of course, TOH can't & won't answer the fundamental question: who, other than the surveillors, knows exactly who was surveilled?

And if this was, as you claim, legal, then what's up with your weak-kneed Republican leadership? Even Orrin Hatch has questions about the legality.

Howard,

Thanks for the reply. I really wish I knew more about: "every now and then they can pull a clever parliamentary manuever" the actual practices and traditions within Congress and how a smart minority leader could use them to keep the majority accountable.

The bipartisan members of the House and Senate know/knew or are/were permitted to know the scope and procedural aspects of the program as per a reasonable concern for national security; a concern betrayed by the traitors and their accomplices at the NSA and the New York Times and the Washington Post.

TOH

Maybe you guys should get up to speed informationally so I can meaningfully instruct you. Right now it's like teaching Relativity to infants.

howard, you're killing me. Keep it up.

TOH is Alice reincarnated, yes? Though possibly Alice sans medication...what a scary thought.

[cue Star Wars music].

I'm not a Republican; I am . . .

THE OBJECTIVE HISTORIAN

TOH

Craigie,

Funny you should say that....where ever Alice/Patton/TOH shows up, the subject of medication invariably comes up as well.

Hmmmmmm.

craigie, funny you should say that objective historian is alice sans medication - i've actually had the same thought!

and praise from the master of the deft shiv via humor is high praise indeed!

"we are once again graced with the deranged writings of the objective historian"

Not to worry. It's just Al on crack.

Ha!! Howard!!!

Great minds think alike! Too funny.

"The bipartisan members of the House and Senate know/knew or are/were permitted to know the scope and procedural aspects of the program as per a reasonable concern for national security; a concern betrayed by the traitors and their accomplices at the NSA and the New York Times and the Washington Post."

Ummm... no, they weren't. Rockefeller was allowed to put one hand on the elephant, and he drew the conclusion that others have, subsequently: this is TIA all over again. He had to guess at the scope, and neither he nor anyone else knows the procedural aspects. There's absolutely no congressional or judicial oversight here. This is why Rockefeller indicated, in writing, that he could not go along with this; however, he & every other Congressperson was sworn to secrecy.

Try again.

i believe my theory as to objective historian as a performance artist is confirmed by comrade oh's 11:42.

jcricket: i'm happy to slipstream in your wake....

Another one here who tawt she taw an Alice-cat.

I continue to await an answer to my straightforward question of criminal/constitutional law: would it be a defense to a leaking prosecution that the information leaked concerned unlawful activity by the government's national security apparatus (It seems to me considerably more likely than not that the Supreme Court would ultimately hold that the President cannot engage in surveillance activity that has been expressly forbidden by Congress -- but that question need not be resolved to answer my question, which is whether ASSUMING the program's illegal, the leakers (and journalists) may defend on that basis?

tangoman, the best such weapon is the filibuster.

sadly, you need 40 sure votes to sustain one, and there aren't 40 sure votes on the democratic side thanks to the likes of lieberman, nelson, and sundry others.

not much reid can do about that, i'm afraid....

"BALDERDASH!"

Nice of College Republicans to warn us of the drivel that is about to follow by preceding it with some Edwardian euphemism for "bullshit".
Even though it makes them sounds like Major Hoople.

Tangoman: "I, admittedly, haven't been following this too closely, but my current perspective is that this leak was necessary to remedy inaction against a program that may be illegal."

Sen. McCain has publicly agreed with you. He announced several weeks ago that, if Sen. Rockefeller really thought the NSA program was illegal, it was his "obvious duty" to violate the classification laws and expose its existence to the entire Congress for debate as to its legality. (Of course, by the time Cheney is through, McCain may be in a cell in Guantanamo.)

I don't expect that this will go too far; leaks are apparently this administration's SOP, and would further embarrass them (if they have any dignity left, that is!). Anyway, no one said political commentators had a safe job. I just hope Google doesn't help Bush-driven facists as much as it does the Chinese.

Bruce Moomaw,

What's got me uncomfortable about this is the possibility that a civic minded NSA employee (leaker) and some reporter may face jail/prison time because Democratic Senators who thought this program was illegal stayed silent instead of doing their jobs.

Again, I don't know all the ins-and-outs so my opinions are subject to revision.

Silly desperate wishful thinking, USA-DESTRUCTIVE REGRESSIVE-DEMOCRATS.

All Rockefeller had to do was file a sealed petition with either the FISA court or the Supreme Court; that being done, whatever it's finding, the FISA ruling could have been appealed to SCOTUS.

Rockefeller et al. knew the substance of the program if not the particulars; but it's not their job to micro-manage intelligence gathering any more than it is their job to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. That is why this is part of the President's constitutional authority; he is our elected leader in combat against foriegn enemies, surveillance for foreign policy reasons being part of combat and utterly constitutional.

In passing regarding "balderdash", the lack of civility and manners (other than jocular banter, as displayed most recently at the C.S. King funeral, finds overwhelming correlation with Regressive-Democrat political ignorance; when I wonder will they understand that even when they try to "clean up" for others, it's that underlying incivility that manifests itself and causes them to be statistically poor, envious, narcotic and alcohol addicted, misguidedly narcissistic in blaming government for their problems, miserable, execrable, unelectable, shunned, and dismissed.

TOH

The illegality of the program is no defense!

Get ready for a Superman I moment:

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

No phantom zone; 20 years at Leavanworth. It's too good for traitors to our fighting soldiers of this infamy; but I think the more just sentence of hanging them will not be taken in today's permissive environment.

TOH

Supression and total disregard for the Constitution is not a new thing, especially for the Republican Party. Do I really have to say, take a look at Abe Lincoln, and then keep on going.

I certainly admire TOH's modesty and erudition, but wonder if he or anyone else can cite me to authority for the proposition that the illegality of the program is no defense, for the point seems significant in predicting how this will unfold (getting the program before a court with jurisdiction is a tricky matter). One suspects that if an Administration were carrying out, say, a program to assasinate its critics, and designated the program as a top secret national security matter, that some courts would have sympathy for an argument that those who released information about the program were not punishable as traitors or spies.

Maybe the FBI would oblige with input on the cost/benefit analysis of hysterical response to "leads" from surveillance : c'mon....ANY charges sucessfully prosecuted based on follow up to intercepts. ANY cases aided rather than dismissed as poisoned testinony ?
We know terror suspects have been let go because their cases could no longer be prosecuted. Where's the upside ?
Leaked ? The administration should be grateful full page advertising of their malfeasance wasn't taken out.
Any contention that secrecy was in the national interest should be hooted with long and loud derision. Practical investigation and prosecution has been hampered.

The illegality is no defense, inter alia, because the NSA-CIA traitors did not avail themselves of intra-agency procedures AND national security-protecting judicial remedies for filing grievenences against the program. Moreover, what they did, i.e., divulging covert operations to the public, was against the law on it's face and a violation of their oath as civil servants. They do not determine what is and is not legal and thus what can and cannot be disclosed. They are not judges, but civil servants. If it were otherwise, every civil servant with cover information would be a self-appointed judge of the legality of each particular cover operation; that is a national security nightmare and so is this situation.

They are going down! 20 years to life. But let them wear their belts into the cell; maybe they'll do us all a favor and do the honorable thing.

TOH

TOH:

So I suppose your answer to the presidential assasination hypothetical would be the same -- the leakers of the program would be subject to prosecution if they did not exhaust available administrative remedies by appealing to their superiors within the administration about the program?

TOH,
Your argument would be much more convincing in
German. The idea of total abdication of personal responsibility somehow isn't very convincing in English.

Everything we've been hearing from various reporters and even the testimony before Congress by administration figures suggests that Bush deliberately went against Congress by reconstituting TIA (Total Information Awareness) in a different guise. On several levels, the president has broken the law and we know about it because of the reporters. We are in strange waters here. Even Republicans have to be concerned.

I am going to ask again, with great seriousness. Please explain just how disclosure of the existence of the domestic spying program (not specific activites, just the program) is so god awful harmful to the US. It isn't as though Osama wouldn't guess that the US taps phones. If I were him I sure would anticipate that the US taps the entire spectrum, and adjust my methods according.

Unless somebody can explain otherwise about the only people disclosure might harm are the folks in the administration who might have to explain why they decided to ignore FISA.

Chill out Kevin. It's an obvious whistleblower case, and the Plame case never would have got as far as it did without NOT being a whistleblower case.

OK, let's get down to basics here.

What were the actual methods revealed in leak in the NY Times article?

Well, actually just about nothing. At most, only that NSA may be monitoring every call in the US. Thing is, al Qaeda is ALREADY expecting that their phone calls in the US and elsewhere are being tapped; they have absolutely NO reason to believe otherwise, before or after the leak, and would have taken the same precautions before and after the leak.

Let's remember how literally laughable was Gonzalez's reply on this very point in his testimony:

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.

(LAUGHTER)

Remember: THIS is all the "damage" these leaks led to -- risible zilch.

Think about all the time Rove and his merry band of idiots have had to come up with some excuse -- ANY excuse -- for the claim that this leak posed some grave danger to the Republic. Yet THIS is the very best they could produce? That maybe al Qaeda will forget, and the newspapers will remind them??? That's it? Nothing better?

For this reason, the federal government is turning up heaven and earth trying to get their hands on the nefarious leakers? And that troll idiot Objective Historian thinks they should be tried for treason, I mean, for TREASON?

It is to laugh.

So all these reporters tell the investigators that the leaker(s) were Porter Goss, Geo Bush & Dick Cheney

and maybe some others "to be named later..."

and then it really gets "interesting"

"...Let's go with wit. Wit wins over rage." - theora jones

man, I was just going to post the same thing as everyone else. Every single reporter should say that Cheney and Rove "declassified" the information to them privatly.

aimai

If the press gets a shield law, we all get a shield law, because the press is the people. The press is not a certain class of journalists. Under the Constitution, anyone who writes something down and distributes it is "the press".

Adam Herman >"...anyone who writes something down and distributes it is "the press"."

Hello Ben Franklin !!!

"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

Maybe they're going to accuse somebody of leaking information that never got published.

I don't see what they have otherwise.

I hate where all this going. Why can't we get the truth?

笔记本电脑维修
sony笔记本维修
ibm笔记本维修
dell笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修 南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修-笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本回收|南京二手笔记本
南京笔记本电脑维修
东芝TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京租房
东海水晶网
东海水晶
联想笔记本维修
康柏笔记本维修
三星笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修－南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修|南京万力泰科技
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
IMB笔记本维修｜南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|
东芝笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修中心
南京笔记本维修｜专业维修笔记本电脑
SONY笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修配件｜东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修｜TOSHIBA笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修｜TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修｜南京万力泰
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
　南京笔记本维修欢迎你
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修｜TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修｜IBM笔记本维修｜DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修｜IBM笔记本维修｜DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修｜东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修中心
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京租房
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
www.52blog.net/user3/89286/archives/2006/536614.shtml
http://blog.sino-manager.com/more.asp?name=chinawlt&id=2727
bbs.gameres.com/showthread. asp?page=end&threadid=44113

A FEW WEEKS AGO, ONE COULD LOOK AT THIS SITUATION AS A FREE PRESS ISSUE.

BUT, TODAY, WITH THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE DANISH CARTOONS - ONE CAN'T POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT CNN, THE NYT, ETC. AREN'T TAKING THEIR MARCHING ORDERS FROM THE RADICAL ISLAMISTS.

Depends on the judge. The information value to the public from the release was high, while the quantifiable damage from the leak is probably not demonstrable.

Patton:

How brilliant of you to deduce that! We liberals never believed the hotline from al-Jazeera, whereby we get instructions on everything from when to shit to what color, would ever be found out. You are truly a modern day Sherlock Holmes. Now we must run off to plot more mischief against the infallible George W. Bush as we get direction from our leader, Sheik bin Laden.

[Sheesh - with mongoloids like this, is it any wonder that our country and the free press, is in such jeopardy? The U.S. is doomed...]

sorry to be off topic. Just watching a show on KQED called "bottom line health." The guest is some telethon-ish superstar. But he's not haking vacuums or real estate. he is honestly saying that if you follow his recommended treatments, he'll double your chances of beting prostate or breast cancer. Actually now he's talking about setting your "weight thermostat" to lose weight quick. Now I've got no problem with crazy diet marketing, but stage iv breast cancer or (now he's on colon cancer" seems a bit crazy.

Anybody know anything about this show?

or this guy?

I 'm as suspicious of Pharma as the next guy, but this guy really seems to be spewing crazy talk. anybody??

I hope they put the reporters in normal lock-up.
I'm hoping one of the more liberal ones get abused by his cellmate.

Don't blame his cellmate, he/she was born that way and had no choice.

Smart politics,

The same battle between liberals and consevatives has also been going on between Republicans and the MSM for almost as long. In terms of tactical politics this is a no brainer. Just as the NYTs spent a small fortune unsuccessfully defending Judy Miller they will do so again. It won't be even a little help to be seen as having given up intelligence secrets to the benefit of Al Qaeda. The GOP can't lose here no matter what the result. All of these reporters and their papers will be under significant financial and professional pressure. Moreover they've already given the GOP another example of why the Democrats are weak on security.

Best of all if rumors of Senator Jay Rockerfellor being the source of the leaks are true he's toast. As we know WV is turning decisively red with even Robert Byrd running cared. It may be just the rumor will be enough. It's certain if he is the leaker he'll never be re-elected.

Karl Rove gets to use the Govts money to beat up reporters and their papers, spend a ton of their money, see them toasted as pro-al-Qaeda civil rights AND possibly bag a Senate seat.

Not that I'm all that anxious to lose Jay as a target. He may be the dumbest of the Senators. He's just one of the senate clowns accusing GWB of claiming iraq was an emminent threat to Russert only to have Russert immediately pull the video of Jay claiming Iran 'was an emminent threat' and pointing out GWB NEVER made that claim.

What is this nattering about a federal shield law? The GOP's principled concern for freedom of the press ended the day Judith Miller walked out of jail. Get real.

Ah, TOH: Alice takes on more than a hint of Norman.

franklyo: risible zilch

Someone should name a band this!

Is it 'smart politics' to use the entire apparatus of the federal government to come down hard on leaks that don't do substantive harm to government, as expressed by rdw here?

Sure, if you think that 'politics' in the normal sense includes using the entire apparatus of government to make politically motivated personal attacks. The old Soviets used to do this quite well; it's interesting that movement conservatives have found this approach so delicious to their sensibilities.

One consistent theme I detect from the majority of posters on this thread is that modern day America (and this administration) is WORSE for the free press, not BETTER.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that the press was granted so much freedom of dissenting opinion in the 60's? 50's? 40's?

Could you imagine the press compromising the war effort in WWII? Do you think they would've been allowed to do so?

Moreover, do you think the WWII war result would have been as successful with today's press?

I am very interested to hear.

While we the public need a shield law for journalists. We need journalists first.

Amen to that. In the local paper today there was a headline that said something like "Abramhoff Reid Contacts Corroborated". The story actually said something very different, that a lobbyist whom Abramhoff used sometimes would talk to Reid staffers once in awhile and that the contact was casual and that Abramhoff's records of the contact were in error. No Reid-Abramhoff contact. Our local paper is a bit lazy in that regard. And by "lazy" I mean something a bit different.

Sure, if you think that 'politics' in the normal sense includes using the entire apparatus of government to make politically motivated personal attacks.

It is politics in the normal sense. The NYTs was aware of Jimmy Carter doing warrantless wiretaps and said nothing. They knew of Slick Willie doing the same and said nothing. They knew of the NSA wiretaps for a full year and said nothing. Everything on their side was based on political considerations.

On Rove's side it's a slam dunk because the politics are secondary. Someone leaked classified info that may have been very damaging. There's every reason to do an investigation for security reasons. The politics are merely a bonus.

It's been a bad week for the MSM especially in the USA. These lightweights totally wimped out on the cartoon controversy which plays into Rove's hands even better. The NYTs wouldn't think twice printing anti-christian garbage and as we've seen with things like Piss-Christ do everything to publicize these slights. Yet they respect Islam. They're cowards, the worst kind.

This case will help bleed them financially. They're been bleeding intellectually for decades. The GOP will absolute use liberal hyprocracy in observing Islamic sensibilities while regularly trashing Chritian sensibilities.

nAndrews3:

As a devoted user of Dr. Bronner's soap, I want to thank you for the heartiest laugh I've had in weeks! I didn't stop until the truth of your comment hit me in the eyes. I wonder if Tom Coburn or Pat Robertson have considered retiring from the public eye and going into the organic product business?

Oh, wait, strike that. I really just do not want to know what kind of products they'd make.