Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

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

March 29, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

FISA SPEAKS....So what do FISA judges themselves think of the NSA's domestic spying program? On Tuesday several of them testified in front of Congress:

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

Bound by the law like anyone else?!? That's treason talk. Why does Judge Baker care more about the rights of Osama bin Laden than he does about the security of the American people?

Kevin Drum 1:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (205)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Touche, Mr. Drum.......touche.

Posted by: walt on March 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Judge Baker care more about the rights of Osama bin Laden than he does about the security of the American people?

Obviously, he is a treasonous traitor who votes Democratic, lives with his husband, and doesn't believe in God. What else could explain it?

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Cue the wingnut responses:

FISA isn't really Constitutional

It is, but the President has the inherent power to override any law for any reason.

Those judges just want to protect their turf!

Nice country we live in, eh?

Posted by: Derelict on March 29, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order.

University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein has already refuted the fallacious view Bush's Terrorist Survelliance program is illegal.

Link

"Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said"

Posted by: Al on March 29, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

The Scalito Court will surely back up Mr. Bush if he gets into any trouble.

Posted by: coldhotel on March 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

The last sentence would be funny except that across America there are a million wingnuts saying the same thing.

They have stolen the fun from snark.

Posted by: Tim on March 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Sunstein argues that Bush's decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress's vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. "If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said"

And using this logic, the President ordered the murder of every citizen of the state of Illinois, because some of them might be, or be thinking about becoming, or might have had some contact with, terrorists.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

The astounding ignorance of the Constitution betrayed by Judge Baker's statement makes one wonder if he is a Clinton appointee.

I suppose that by some twisted logical reasoning it may be deemed to be appropriate for bloggers and commentators on the lefty blogs to cheer the terrorists, but this monumental lapse in judgment by a sitting judge is unforgivable.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 29, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

I notice the Democrats failed in persistent attempts to worm the word "illegal" out of any of the judges, which is a bit odd, considering how blatantly obvious the lawbreaking is supposed to be.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 29, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

And using this logic, the President ordered the murder of every citizen of the state of Illinois, because some of them might be, or be thinking about becoming, or might have had some contact with, terrorists.

Hey!

Fake tbrosz: Now with even MORE broszy flavor.

Posted by: shortstop, who was just sitting here minding her own business on March 29, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

"If you can kill them, why can't you spy on them?" Sunstein said"

So, since the Bush regime claims the right to spy on Americans without a warrant I'm sure it will next claim the right to kill them without one either....

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Why does Judge Baker care more about the rights of Osama bin Laden than he does about the security of the American people?"

good question.

Posted by: Brian on March 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Bound by the law like anyone else?!? That's treason talk.

No, it's more like comlaining that the Fonz get music without putting a dime in the Jukebox.

Posted by: Boronx on March 29, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but it's not easy to choose a state to wipe out. Most of them don't have enough people! But IL is big enough, and mid-western enough.

Nothing personal!

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I notice the Democrats failed in persistent attempts to worm the word "illegal" out of any of the judges, which is a bit odd, considering how blatantly obvious the lawbreaking is supposed to be.

Maybe they, unlike Scalia, want to reserve their opinions for their courts.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

...and mid-western enough.

There you guys go again...

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

That judge is going to face a stern talking to from your grrlfriend Ann Althouse. He is making partisan non-arguments and frankly I find that weird!

Posted by: jerry on March 29, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Great link, Al. I guess Sunstein never differentiated between killing foreign terrorists abroad (legal) and spying on presumed US citizens in the Homeland without a warrant (illegal).

His fallacies are as egregious as your worship of all things Bush.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 29, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

...and mid-western enough.

There you guys go again... Posted by: shortstop

Hey, you don't live in the Midwest. You live in Chicago, which is like people from Austin being different from the rest of Texas.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 29, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz failed to point out that the judge did not endorse the censure of the President which the lefty blogosphere is so enthusistically supporting.

Posted by: lib on March 29, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"I notice the Democrats failed in persistent attempts to worm the word "illegal" out of any of the judges, which is a bit odd, considering how blatantly obvious the lawbreaking is supposed to be."

And here I thought that stupid, snide fucks like tbrosz wanted judges to rule on the facts before them. Since the judges don't know exactly what the program entails, and "illegal" is a legal conclusion, maybe they are waiting until the full facts have been presented to them before issuing an opinion.

Posted by: brewmn on March 29, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

I love the Times' squeamishly euphemistic phrasing: "voiced skepticism."

They're judges. The shoulda dropped a f*cking anvil -- or ACME safe -- on this Bush's overt & unjustified treason.

Posted by: SombreroFallout on March 29, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, a registration system for comments is long overdue, so that the same unique person is behind each handle. The fake tbroszes are getting old.

Posted by: Joe Buck on March 29, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

I guess we see now why these were "former" FISA court judges.

Posted by: dp on March 29, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Grumpy, Kevin? Being sick makes me grumpy too.

Anybody catch The Note this morning? Was all that "shake up" a put on? Firing Rumsfield, etc. Must be, cause none of the links worked.

Posted by: the fake Fake Al on March 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bound by the law like anyone else?!? That's treason talk. Why does Judge Baker care more about the rights of Osama bin Laden than he does about the security of the American people?

Careful Kevin. You're taking all the trolls' thunder.

Posted by: ckelly on March 29, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

OK, OK, all the outlets are reporting Abramoff got 6 years prison.

So when is Drum's whiney Abramoff post????

Posted by: FrequencyKenneth on March 29, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

The sarcasm! Perhaps Kevin you are growing...shrill??

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on March 29, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

And I rarely respond to Al, because I'm fairly convinced, as some have suggested, that he is really a computer program that spits out Republican talking points based on an alrogithm that deduces the substance of one of Kevin's posts probably is. However, when he cites Sunstein, he dishonestly omits the last phrase in the paragraph, which is: "...Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view."

Having read the oft-cited (by conservatives) opinion essay by Sunstein, I can also say that he made a huge qualification when supporting the program: namely, he assumed that Bush was acting in good faith and was, in fact, only targeting suspected terrorists. Anyone who knows this administration knows that this is most likely bullshit, and knows that Bush is most likely using the program to ILLEGALLY SPY ON INNOCENT AMERICANS.

Posted by: brewmn on March 29, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

The law requires the government to be blindfolded? The law prohibits taking notice of a threat until some judge says it is O.K.? Firemen should not enter a burning building without a warrant? Domestic means one end of a transaction is in this country, so as soon as you buy an imported product it becomes domestic?

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on March 29, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Walter Wallis hasn't been paying attention (probably willfully). As has been pointed out many times (but I guess we'll have to repeat it until the dunderheads understand), FISA allows you to listen first and apply for a warrant retroactively within 72 hours. You can "enter the burning building" and take care of the paperwork later. Until someone explains why that's an impediment to security, just don't take them seriously.

Posted by: Karl on March 29, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK


TBROSZ: I notice the Democrats failed in persistent attempts to worm the word "illegal" out of any of the judges

Regarding FISA law, I defy you or anyone to distinguish a meaningful difference between "illegal" and Judge Baker's statement that "the president ignores it at the president's peril."


Posted by: jayarbee on March 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

You've got 72 hours to get a warrant, Walter. Seventy-two hours. Want to explain to us why you can't do that?

We're listening.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

I see Karl and I are thinking along the same lines.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

....

They are Bush Republicans

and that name is going to stick
as the biggest swear word in washington.

....

Posted by: wellstoner on March 29, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

OT CONTEST! WRITE THE BEST NEXT LINE, WIN THE APPROBATION OF THE PA COMMUNITY!

In court, Abramoff said the case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.

"In the past few years I have begun the process of becoming a new man," he said.

Have at it, funny people.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop asks:

You've got 72 hours to get a warrant, Walter. Seventy-two hours. Want to explain to us why you can't do that?

The answer is obvious -- the GWB admin is too incompetent and corrupt to get anything done on time.

Posted by: Disputo on March 29, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

In court, Abramoff said the case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.

"In the past few years I have begun the process of becoming a new man," he said.

And that takes a lot of money, and that's why I stole from my clients.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

....

They are Bush Republicans

and that name is going to stick
as the biggest swear word in washington.

....

Posted by: wellstoner on March 29, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

The law requires the government to be blindfolded?

"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure." -Thurgood Marshall

"The concept that the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very dangerous doctrine and if allowed to flourish would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government."-Justice Brennan

I guess some people just have more faith in the constitution than you do.


Posted by: Stephen on March 29, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

In court, Abramoff said the case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.

"In the past few years I have begun the process of becoming a new man," he said.

The final operation will be next month.

Posted by: Disputo on March 29, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

In court, Abramoff said the case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.

"In the past few years I have begun the process of becoming a new man," he said.

"So far, I have DeLay's wig, Rush's ass, and Ann's adam's apple. As soon as I get W's brain, I will be all set. Then I'm going to open up a little shop in Detroit. We'll sell umbrellas, sandwhiches, and time travel. I'm very excited."

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Check out PowerlineBlog, folks.

They give a much different picture of what the FISA judges actually said.

When you read Drum's post, and compare it to Powerline, you get an idea why PowerlineBlog got TIME's 2004 Blog of the Year award.

Posted by: MountainDan on March 29, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK
I have begun the process of becoming a new man,
That sounds like a testimonial for the result of responding to male enhancement spam. Posted by: Mike on March 29, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

"When you read Drum's post, and compare it to Powerline, you get an idea why PowerlineBlog got TIME's 2004 Blog of the Year award."

Wasn't that the same year that Chimpy and Coulter got on the cover?

Posted by: HeavyJ on March 29, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

UPDATE: PowerlineBlog will be posting the judges' testimony.

Check PowerlineBlog for updates.

But if all you want is snarky comments, stick with Kevin Drum!

Posted by: MountainDan on March 29, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bound by the law like anyone else?!? That's treason talk. Why does Judge Baker care more about the rights of Osama bin Laden than he does about the security of the American people?

Shut up Scalia!

Posted by: ET on March 29, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

But if all you want is snarky comments, stick with Kevin Drum!

Deal.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

"So, since the Bush regime claims the right to spy on Americans without a warrant I'm sure it will next claim the right to kill them without one either...."
Posted by: Stefan

*Sigh*shaking head*
You have posts left for you on the "The Market Speaks" thread Stefan.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly I am tired of being called unamerican.
The Law was broken.
Hold BUSH to the same standard as anyone else.
When are these people going to grow some Ba**s
and defend America.
America is defined by its Laws and Rights.
It has allowed us to become a great nation.
Anyone who overlooks the Laws for any reason
Or defends a man in power as haveing a right to break a law.
IS THE ONE WHO IS UNAMERICAN.

Posted by: Honey P on March 29, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

As you all know, I hate any government intrusion into my life, and this is something I'd expect to see in Soviet Russia--but George W. Bush says it's okay and only used to spy on terrorists, so I'm okay with it.
In this case, I'm willing to blindly trust the government.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

In this case, I'm willing to blindly trust the government.

Have you ever heard the phrase "slippery slope" ?

Posted by: Stephen on March 29, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

All that FISA means is that the information is not admissable in court and that the information cannot be used for non-terrorism investigations, the parts that are constitutional anyway. (And, of course, the information must be properly secured).

Posted by: aaron on March 29, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Have you ever heard the phrase "slippery slope"?

Yes, but Bush would never lead me astray. He might be a socialist, but he's one of the good kind.

You see, in order to protect the our freedoms and the Constitution, we have to take away our freedoms and violate the Constitution.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 29, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

"As you all know, I hate any government intrusion into my life, and this is something I'd expect to see in Soviet Russia--but George W. Bush says it's okay and only used to spy on terrorists, so I'm okay with it.
In this case, I'm willing to blindly trust the government."
Posted by: conspiracy nut

Here, here!! This was supposed to be a "Covert" action against our enemies. I have no problem with watchdog groups looking out for our civil liberties but where it becomes "Un-american" is when the NY Times tells our enemy what we're doing to defeat them. What part of "Covert" don't they understand. During a war if you feel our liberties are being stepped on investigate but do it quietly. Enemies are listening. Shhhhhhhhh.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

One thing completely missing from this argument is Michael Cook's post regarding Democratic Senator Jim McDermott and his illegal interception of a domestic call involving two republicans, Boehner and Gingrich. His defense was that he "knew" they would be discussing something illegal which was laughably supported by the MSM. (now that's hypocrisy).

This happened in 1996, during the Messiah administration and has been barely mentioned which is very strange considering the techniques used were parallel to those of the NSA and was actually "domestic".

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Stephen, do you realize that you are responding to one of you loser liberal friends re: slippery slope

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

You have posts left for you on the "The Market Speaks" thread Stefan.

I saw that, thank you. Just responded to you there.

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: You've got 72 hours to get a warrant, Walter. Seventy-two hours. Want to explain to us why you can't do that?

Party of Nixon.
They know how to wiretap.
No warrants needed.

In court, Abramoff said the case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.

"In the past few years I have begun the process of becoming a new man," he said.

"I'll disappear in the Witness Protection Program after DeLay's trial."

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Here, here!! This was supposed to be a "Covert" action against our enemies.

Well no, it wasn't. Everyone has always known that the government has the ability and the inclination to spy on communications. It's not as if the terrorists were speaking in clear, open language over the telephone about their plans before the New York Times revealed that Bush was breaking the FISA law. In fact, the FISA court has been around and well-known since the 1970s. The only thing that was "covert" was the fact that Bush was breaking the law by not seeking warrants.

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK
All that FISA means is that the information is not admissable in court and that the information cannot be used for non-terrorism investigations

Wrong. FISA makes any surveillance carried out in violations of its terms a felony. What it means, therefore, is not merely that the evidence is inadmissible, but those who conducted the surveillance (and those who conspired with, solicited, aided, abetted, etc., them) are criminals, and can and should be imprisoned.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 29, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Really, Lurker, they did investigate and considered their options for more than a year. Is there any point beyond which the Federal Government no longer gets the benefit of the doubt with you?

Posted by: Boronx on March 29, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

During a war if you feel our liberties are being stepped on investigate but do it quietly. Enemies are listening. Shhhhhhhhh.


Ohhhh, we're at waaaarrrr. Sorry, I had no idea. I mean, what with the complete non-deviation in tax and fiscal policy. Who are we fighting, again? And how will we know when we win? I find this so, so hard to understand. Me, and the other 2/3 of the American public.

Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn:

Since the judges don't know exactly what the program entails, and "illegal" is a legal conclusion, maybe they are waiting until the full facts have been presented to them before issuing an opinion.

Odd. That hasn't stopped anyone else around here or in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 29, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz, is quite right. It's passing odd that the program's dubious legal status has not caused the adminsitration to put a halt to it.

Posted by: Boronx on March 29, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah FISA has been around but when and how the spying is taking place. That's like saying that the CIA has been around forever so there are no covert activities from them either.
It WAS covert. Now whether it was legal or not...
But as I said before that part should be investigated just as covertly during a time of war. Kinda late now though.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't my first obligation to do what I think is right for my country?"
Posted by: Stefan

Aaaaaabsolutely. Where we differ is just WHAT is right for our country and when.

Gotta go, Night all.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

One of many obnoxious trolls: When you read Drum's post, and compare it to Powerline, you get an idea why PowerlineBlog got TIME's 2004 Blog of the Year award.

Yes. Also a good idea why Hitler got Time's 1938 Man of the Year award, followed by Stalin in 1939. In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini got his. George W. Bush has received it twice.

I do not think Time's "...of the Year" means what you think it means.

Posted by: S Ra on March 29, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Lurker, what part of the covert program has been revealed beyond the part that makes it illegal?

Posted by: Boronx on March 29, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Why isn't there any call for McDermotts resignation? Or at the very least censure?

Should McDermott go to prison?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Now all you bright winger's try all these arguments you have and try to do them without your beloved strawman.Because a vast majority of Americans are against you.Some would say your traitors.Most Anericans do not want to be spied on.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"The vast majority of Americans are against you" - Right Minded

Really.

Is that why GW won by more margin in '04 than he did in '00?

Is that why over 60% of Americans believe in staying in Iraq until the job is completed?

Is that why 64% believe that the "Terrorist surveillance program" should continue?

Now when worded to include "without a warrant", 56% opposed, meaning 44% still approved.

Is that what you mean by VAST majority.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

The administration is violating the Constitution, but let's not get all noisy about it. The terrorists never would have guessed that they were being wiretapped otherwise.

Posted by: Lurker42 on March 29, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

saladmaker: One thing completely missing from this argument is Michael Cook's post regarding Democratic Senator Jim McDermott and his illegal interception of a domestic call involving two republicans, Boehner and Gingrich. His defense was that he "knew" they would be discussing something illegal which was laughably supported by the MSM. (now that's hypocrisy).

Oh, so you think Bush is breaking the law. Because the judge didn't buy McDermott's defense and "Hogan ruled that McDermott violated federal wiretapping law and ordered him to pay $60,000 in damages to Boehner and to cover his legal costs." Cite

Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Most Americans do not want to be spied on" - Right Minded.

You're right and that would include Gingrich and Boehner being spied on by Democratic Senator McDermott.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Now when worded to include "without a warrant", 56% opposed, meaning 44% still approved.

Is that what you mean by VAST majority.

Yes, in your dimwitted little mind, it's a bigger majority than your boyfriend Bush ever won, so it is a VAST majority. Dimbulb.

Real Americans tend to get a bit ruffled when the president blatantly admits to violating the Constitution. We obviously don't include you or your fellow morons in that group.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I am saying that IF he is breaking the law, it should be treated accordingly. So far no one can establish that fact. Not even the brilliant minds of the left. So if there is NO evidence of any violation of law, than the continuance of this story is for purely partisan reasons.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Why isn't there any call for McDermotts resignation? Or at the very least censure?

Should McDermott go to prison? Posted by: saladmaker

Censure at the very least. Ditto for Bush, Gonzales, etc., etc.

He'll probably lose his seat over this in 2006. A shame as he's otherwise been a great liberal voice in a party that no longer has any liberals.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 29, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I am saying that IF he is breaking the law, it should be treated accordingly. So far no one can establish that fact.

Well, except for the fact that Bush proudly admitted to it.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

"several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism"

SEVERAL? Don't you mean ALL? I thought this has long been settled?? I mean isn't it common knowledge that Bush is a war criminal, and he ought to be in prison along with the rest of the Christian, hetero, white male Republicans?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 29, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

You're right and that would include Gingrich and Boehner being spied on by Democratic Senator McDermott. Posted by: saladmaker

By the way, sneeze shield, McDermott's a congressman, not a senator.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 29, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I am saying that IF he is breaking the law, it should be treated accordingly.

Good. So call your congressional reps and demand a special prosecutor investigate since Senate Repubs like Pat Roberts of Kansas have blocked an eavesdropping probe. Cite

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

I mean isn't it common knowledge that Bush is a war criminal, and he ought to be in prison along with the rest of the Christian, hetero, white male Republicans?

Whatever you say, Mr. Strawman. Good luck finding a brain.

Posted by: LOL on March 29, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

How do real Americans feel when a sitting president blatantly lies to a grand jury?

How did real Americans feel when Dan Rather used blatantly forged documents on a National newscast to try and undermine a sitting president?

How did real Americans feel when Harry Reid announced he "killed the Patriot Act"?

How did real Americans feel when the left wnated to outfit Gitmo detainees with lawyers?

BTW, GW won by more than 3.5 million popular votes and you still think he "stole" the election. So considering your definition of "vast", I could say that GW was elected by a vast majority of Americans.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Called your congresscritters yet, saladmaker? You wouldn't want us to think you're a conservative hypocrite, eh?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

There exists a 7 member Senate review committee charged with the duty of overseeing the operation of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. That committee is comprised of four republicans and three democrats and all have said that they are comfortable with the implementation of the program. Is this not good enough?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

How do real Americans feel when a sitting president blatantly lies to a grand jury?

Clinton left office with an approval rating higher than Bush's is right now. So you figure it out.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

If your democratic colleagues on the Senate review committee have not found anything illegal, what makes you think your little wooden head could Apollo. Just asking. And btw, if you do have something tangibly illegal re: the NSA program, then I trust you will immediately bring it forward. We wouldn't want you to be a liberal hypocrite would we?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

If you actually did check out Powerline, the Washington Times story on this hearing seems to differ a bit from the New York Times version.

I'm waiting for a transcript. Nothing at the Senate committee site yet.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 29, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Is this not good enough?

Nope.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Polls, polls, polls! Do you guys shit when the polls tell you to?

Polls are so unscientific, they are for the most part laughable. A poll told me to say that.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

My Democratic colleagues want a full investigation and so do I. Can't you read, little Bushtard?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

I am surprised Apollo is still going after the NSA. There is NOTHING there MORON. Why do you think your hero's, Clinton, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid and Kennedy have dropped it?

Maybe we should do a poll and find out why Apollo still has his head up his ass.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

When you ask how do real Americans "feel", you got some better way to answer that question other than a poll? Do you have a Vulcan mind-melding machine under your tinfoil hat? LOL! Oh, but polls only work if they support your wingut POV, eh, little hypocrite?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but it's not easy to choose a state to wipe out. Most of them don't have enough people! But IL is big enough, and mid-western enough. Nothing personal! Posted by: craigie on March 29, 2006 at 1:31 PM

Cragie, I live in Illinois and if you have me killed I'm never speaking to you again!

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 29, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, shortstop!

You left out the best part on the Abramoff sentencing:

In addition to their prison terms, Huck ordered Abramoff and Kidan to pay restitution of $21.7 million. He agreed to give them at least 90 days before they must surrender for incarceration, so they can continue cooperating in the separate corruption and murder investigations.

Another 90 days of Abramoff cooperation into other corruption investigations! Woo hoo! Three more months of Repub scandals up to the big kickoff for the mid-term election. Ralph Reed, in on the Indian tribe casino scam, is running down s'here in Georgia.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

I polled that very question Apollo and here's the results:

54% of Americans think you have your head up your ass. That constitutes a vast majority of Americans that think you have your head firmly planted.

I don't believe in polls. They are too biased considering those questioned, those asking the questions, and the wording of the question themselves. That being said, I am one of the 44% who believe you don't have your head up your ass. I just think your stupid.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff II wrote: "He'll probably lose his seat over this in 2006. A shame as he's otherwise been a great liberal voice in a party that no longer has any liberals."

Pretty unlikely, actually. I live in his district and it's about as reliable a progressive district as it is possible to get in Washington State. As far as I can tell, most of his constituents don't regard this as particularly troubling, particularly in light of what the recorded phone conversation revealed.

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

When you say real Americans, are we left to assume that "real Americans" are only those who agree with you?

Posted by: tired on March 29, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

54% of Americans think you have your head up your ass.

My, my. Linkie, please! I've got to see that questionnaire!

ROTFLMAO at you!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

I love how a real moron accuses someone (who is patently not) of being a fellow moron, right before it misuses the word "hero's". Also, gotta love how an unemployed wingnut claims top secret knowledge of the inner workings of the NSA- because powerline beamed the information directly into its tiny brain, one supposes. Sheesh. Dazzle us with some more brillance, would you?

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

"I just think your stupid" what?

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

solar: Also, gotta love how an unemployed wingnut claims top secret knowledge of the inner workings of the NSA- because powerline beamed the information directly into its tiny brain, one supposes.

So true! LOL! Say maybe, if you of a mind, we could come up with some haikus. Yours on Jay the other day were brilliant.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well well well now polls don't matter,Hmmm I wonder why G.W. is out and about trying to shore up his bad very bad poll ratings,Dumb bastard some righty should tell him to stop.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

And 80% of Americans want G.w. gone.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jay cried when Michael
closed Neverland. Pedophiles
whither art thou now?

Saladmaker fails
to say that the salad he
tosses is Dubya's

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: You've got 72 hours to get a warrant, Walter. Seventy-two hours. Want to explain to us why you can't do that?

Well it's quite simple. During the 72 hours you have to reveal who you are spying on and why. You don't get the warrant to spy on the Kerry campaign or to spy on environmentalists or to spy on Dan Rather. The issue here is not spying on terrorists, everyone agrees that is a good idea. The issue is spying without any oversite so abuses do not take place.

Posted by: wingnutj on March 29, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Most of his constituents don't find this particularly troubling" - PaulB

So then illegal interception of domestic phone calls is not particularly troubling to liberals?
Good to know.

ROTFLOL

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, GW won by more than 3.5 million popular votes and you still think he "stole" the election.

And Al Gore won by half a million popular votes, yet you consider Bush a legitimate president. I'm glad most of us aren't as stupid as you are.

Posted by: Real American on March 29, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

So then illegal interception of domestic phone calls is not particularly troubling to liberals?

It didn't bother you and your fellow Republican morons when Linda Tripp did it. Thanks for playing, dimbulb.

Posted by: Real American on March 29, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

"I just think you're stupid, what?" - solar flare

Maybe had I put it in the form of a haiku, you could have understood it. Polls and Haikus, OMG and you think the right has lost it?

Maybe haikus should be in the '08 democratic platform, afterall nothing else is.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

What Tripp did was perfectly legal Real American, I am sorry you don't know the difference.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for pointing that out Real. GW won by more margin in '04 than he did in '08. And you guys think you're gaining ground? Dust off that '04 platform and give it another run.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

'08, wishful thinking. I meant '00.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

I am sure Mr. Drum will give some other people that are part of FISA with different opinons equal time:

"A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."


Posted by: Mike on March 29, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Let me try to answer these.

How do real Americans feel when a sitting president blatantly lies to a grand jury?

Obviously much better than they feel about a president lying us into an unnecessary war.

How did real Americans feel when Dan Rather used blatantly forged documents on a National newscast to try and undermine a sitting president?

Check your facts. The documents were questioned but not proven to be forged. As far as the story, that proves to be true regardless of the documents.

How did real Americans feel when Harry Reid announced he "killed the Patriot Act"?

If he did we would be better off. The patriot act is certainly not patriotic and it is a tool for an incompetent administration that can't do the job otherwise.

How did real Americans feel when the left wnated to outfit Gitmo detainees with lawyers?

If your mother was down in gitmo unjustly then you would be wanting the same. Getting them a lawyer is not setting them free you f-tard.

BTW, GW won by more than 3.5 million popular votes and you still think he "stole" the election. So considering your definition of "vast", I could say that GW was elected by a vast majority of Americans.

Unfortunately no one really knows the results of the elections since many of the tabulations had no means of verification. And remarkably enough, the areas that did not have verifiable results all veered away from the exit polls in the direction of GWB where as the areas that had verifiable results pretty much matched the exit polls. What a strange Kawinkidink!

Posted by: wingnutj on March 29, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Poor little saladtosser. Thanks for admitting that Bush lost in '00, as well as your "wishful thinking" that Bush could be a dictator and further violate the Constitution by staying in power.
Oh, and taping someone's phone conversation without the other person's consent is illegal. But thanks for letting us all know that some nonconsentual phonetapping is okay with you. So you're a hypocrite as well as a moron. Next.

Posted by: Real American on March 29, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK


Saladmaker: "What Tripp did was perfectly legal Real American, I am sorry you don't know the difference."

Actually Tripp broke Maryland law when she taped her conversation with Madam Blowjob.

Posted by: wingnutj on March 29, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I hope you enjoy your little fucked up reality wingnutj.

GW did not lie us into war.

The story is true and the documents not forged? Is that why Rather resigned in disgrace and Mapes was fired? That's the most assinine you've said.

The patriot act has prevented terrorist acts on our soil. Specifically the recent arrests of the Toledo three.

Enemy combatants do not deserve tax payer funded lawyers fucktwit. Nor do they receive the protections American citizens do. But hey thanks for playing.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Tosser proves, once more,
an uncanny ignorance
of words your and you're

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

No she didn't. She was unaware of the law at the time, which makes her immune from the law. Fortunately she was stupid.

But hey, liberals are not all that concerned about interecepting or recording phone calls. Just ask PaulB.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

So what McDermott did was illegal. Thanks for pointing that out Real.

Bush lost in '00? By now I thought you would have heard of the electoral college. We'll just keep it a republican secret though.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

No she didn't. She was unaware of the law at the time, which makes her immune from the law. Fortunately she was stupid

Try that defense with the IRS

Posted by: Neo the commissar on March 29, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I wish I could Neo

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

"She was unaware of the law at the time, which makes her immune from the law. Fortunately she was stupid."

Tosser prepares his
public drunkenness defense
for the next weekend

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

"Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him."

"Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law is no excuse") is a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law."

See, no matter what they've been telling you, there really aren't any bonuses for being a fuckwit.

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

You might want to forward that to the Maryland authrorities.

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, couldn't you put that into a haiku?

Posted by: saladmaker on March 29, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Tripp was charged and tried for the wiretapping, but was never convicted due to those pesky legal technicalities and due process issues so beloved of the right wing. Here from Wikipedia:

"Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and after 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted she was charged by state authorities with violating Maryland's wiretap law. [6] Prior to trial, the state court ruled that, due to the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. At a pre-trial hearing the prosecution called Lewinsky as a witness to try to establish that her testimony against Tripp was untainted by the Indpendent Counsel investigation. However, the Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was "bathed in impermissible taint." As a result, all charges against Tripp were dismissed on May 26, 2000 when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case."

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Its really funny to hear the chickenhawks talk about no one being above the law as it pretains to Clinton's PRIVATE matters and they supported impeachment and now ... Bush can be a dictator and these fools think its ok ! The wingnuts are all sheep, Hitler would have loved to have had it this easy. We will no longer be a democracy with these blind sheep BUSH SUPPORTERS.

Posted by: RUBIN on March 29, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

That is so true! the mindless sheep were all for impeaching Clinton, and now? they will support a fascist dictator and hand over our democracy thinking they will be getting something in return. What a laugh.
banana repuglicans, hypocrites and chickenhawks

Posted by: ROBERT on March 29, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

There exists a 7 member Senate review committee charged with the duty of overseeing the operation of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. That committee is comprised of four republicans and three democrats and all have said that they are comfortable with the implementation of the program. Is this not good enough?

No, because, among other things, it's a lie. In a July 17, 2003, letter to Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator Rockefeller, who was on the oversight committe, wrote that the briefing he received left him "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the wiretapping program given "the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own," and that "[w]ithout more information and the ability to draw on independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received" on the FISA-avoidance program.

More from Media Matters:

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a December 21, 2005, statement that she was "deeply concerned by reports that this [wiretapping] program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed." Also, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has said there were "omissions of consequence" in the briefings he received in 2002 and 2004. And former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Bush first authorized the program, has claimed that he was never informed "that the program would involve eavesdropping on American citizens." Further, a December 23, 2005, New York Times article noted that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) -- along with Harman and Graham -- "have all suggested in recent days that they were not provided with a complete accounting of the program, and that they might have raised objections if they had understood its scope."

Moreover, Graham and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- along with aides to Rockefeller and Reid -- have all said that the briefings did not constitute written reports about the program, which are required of the White House under the National Security Act of 1947 (as amended in 2001).

A January 18 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concluded that the Bush administration's limited notification of Congress about the domestic surveillance program "appear[s] to be inconsistent with the

Posted by: Stefan on March 29, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

solar on March 29, 2006 at 4:54 PM
solar on March 29, 2006 at 5:26 PM
solar on March 29, 2006 at 5:38 PM

Bravo! solar, bravo!

Good job! You get the trophy.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Conservative Repub former Congressman Bob Barr on the illegal NSA spying on Americans:

...What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. [Lots, lots more...Barr has a lot to say.]

Bush appointees revolted against domestic spying on Americans [with emphasis]:

These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men. [More...]
Comey, as acting AG while Ashcroft was in the hospital, refused to reauthorize the "secret eavesdropping program." So Repubs along with Dems also don't think that Bush is above the law.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why he won by a larger percetage? AHHH Diebold,Thanks now I understand.

Posted by: Right minded on March 29, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Specter Proposes NSA Surveillance Rules
Measure Would Make Administration Seek FISA Court's Permission to Eavesdrop

The federal government would have to obtain permission from a secret court to continue a controversial form of surveillance, which the National Security Agency now conducts without warrants, under a bill being proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
Specter's proposal would bring the four-year-old NSA program under the authority of the court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The act created a mechanism for obtaining warrants to wiretap domestic suspects. But President Bush, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on communications without such warrants. The program was revealed in news reports two months ago.
Specter's plan could put him at odds with the administration, which has praised a rival proposal that would exempt the NSA program from the surveillance law. Specter's proposal would also require the administration to give a handful of lawmakers more information about the program than they now receive, such as the number of communications intercepted and a summary of the results.
Specter doesn't think a seven-member Senate review committee charged with the duty of overseeing the operation of the NSA terrorist surveillance program is adequate. Neither do the FISA judges. Neither do I. Not in America.

Ah, but scaredy-cat wingnut trolls would help the terrorists who hate our freedom -- as Bush likes to tell us -- by eroding American freedom and making George a "king" without judicial oversight.

Bushwackos!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding FISA law, I defy you or anyone to distinguish a meaningful difference between "illegal" and Judge Baker's statement that "the president ignores it at the president's peril."

The Wash Times has a more extensive quote about "peril". Yes, I know it is the Moony Times, but maybe the reporter can be trusted to get a quote right:

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.

Folks who find that too tedious can simply notice the word "IF" in the Times version:

If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional...

And if a court upholds Bush's interpretation, than it is not illegal, it it?

One might conclude that, just as the Times told us, these judges really did not say it was illegal. Here is the AP:

The judges stressed that they were not offering their views on the NSA operation, which they said they knew nothing about.

Posted by: Tom Maguire on March 29, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

I always distrust people that lie to me. The main stream media and the Democrats have lied about the nature of the communications spied upon. They are not domestic communications they are international communications. Why don't they accurately describe them? I just hope the american people aren't as stupid as they think we are.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 29, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

A standing ovation for solar!

The main stream media and the Democrats have lied about the nature of the communications spied upon. They are not domestic communications they are international communications. Why don't they accurately describe them?

Damn straight. I mean, Bush and his guys are very busy and very important people, too busy to waste time following the silly letter of the law. It's just not patriotic to imply they might have been spying on people who are, like, political enemies, journalists and so forth. Not patriotic at all!

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

More from Repub Arlen Specter on the illegality of the NSA wiretapping program...

STEPHANOPOULOS:...listening closely to you I certainly seem to take away that you believe the president does not have the right, does not have the inherent power under the Constitution to circumvent a constitutional law, and as far as you are concerned, the FISA law is constitutional, isnt it?
SPECTER: Well, I started off by saying that he didnt have the authority under the resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.
[...]
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, whats the remedy?
SPECTER: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president and Im not suggesting remotely that theres any basis, but youre asking, really, theory, whats the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price. [Cite]

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

I always distrust people that lie to me.

How's your trust of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, the GOP holding up?

Posted by: ckelly on March 29, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

If you insist:

Tosser's real stupid
and hopes that the law excuses
his deep ignorance


Wait, there's a trophy?

Posted by: solar on March 29, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Bush lost in '00?

He lost the popular vote by half a million, which I only brought up because you were crowing like a retarded chicken about Bush's big popular vote win in '04.
I guess you have to switch back and forth b/w popular and electoral votes in your failed attempts to make Bush look popular.
It's not working, he's got a 36% approval rating and he's going to drag Republicons down with him in the next elections. Too bad for you, good for the rest of the country.

Posted by: Real American on March 29, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Here ya go, solar:

--------------------------------------
.........WAMO'S BEST HAIKU POET AWARD.........
(..............................................................)
(..........................................................)
(......................................................)
(............................................)
(...................)
(.................)
(..............)
(..............)
(..............)
(..................)
(...............................................)
(.................................................)

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, the trophy is so crude, solar.

But it's handmade and manufactured in the U.S.A.! : )

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

I'm disappointed. I thought it would have a little bowler or figure skater on top. Or possibly the U.S. Capitol. Yeah, that's it.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

I always distrust people that lie to me.

Then Bush must have made you distrust him when he said on April 20, 2004:

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

It must really burn you to realize that Bush said this after he "signed a secret order in 2002, which authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on US citizens and foreign nationals by monitoring e-mail, telephone calls, and other communications." Cite

And he admitted authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens on TV on Dec. 17, 2005, when he said, "I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," after he said that a wiretap requires a court order and that nothing had changed in 2004.

Boogles the mind, eh?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: Or possibly the U.S. Capitol. Yeah, that's it.

LOL! I'll see what I can do about that.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

I really think you should read this before getting too far out on a limb, Kevin. The NY Times made that quote up by snipping segments of testimony. The FISA judges affirmed the legality of the NSA program. If you guys run on that issue in November, I think you'll get smacked.

Posted by: Mike K on March 29, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

What good is a law regulating behavior like FISA if it doesn't have an enforcement mechanism? Is the violation of a FISA provision a criminal act? If not, what is it? Why pass a law that you cannot enforce?

Posted by: DavidLA on March 29, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

"I always distrust people that lie to me.

How's your trust of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, the GOP holding up?"

I trust them more than I trust Democrats and the media. Here's the problem. Democrats and the media are calling the survellance "domestic spying" it isn't. It's survellance of international communications. I feel that at this time it is necessary and I don't like The purely political spin by the Democrats and liberal media. Just my feelings but in the next election I won't vote for a single Democrat.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on March 29, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Its really funny hearing the chickenhawks talk about no one being above the law as it pretains to Clinton's PRIVATE matters and cried for his impeachment and now, ... bush lies tortures and decides he can refuse to obey any law he chooses and its all ok! wingnuts are fools. they will be ruled by a dictator before they wake up. The wingnuts are all sheep, Hitler would have loved to have these american stooges they can't think for themselves. Blind sheep BUSH SUPPORTERS are useful idiots for the republican elite. They are their work force wanabes, brown-nosers, and fools not to mention hypocrites.

Posted by: RUBIN on March 29, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Is that why GW won by more margin in '04 than he did in '00?

LOL! Oh, but you failed to mention that Bush won re-election in 2004 by the thinnest majority -- 51.2% of the two-party vote -- for a sitting president since 1888 when Cleveland barely beat Harrison only to lose the Electoral College. Bush almost lost the electoral vote with only 16 above the minimum 270 required for re-election -- the slimmest of margins at 53.1 % of the total -- since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Bush's 2004 electoral vote hinged on Ohio, a state where the vote was considered fishy even by a staunch conservative like Christopher Hitchens. Some mandate. Not.

And you also failed to notice that Bush won the 2000 SCOTUS election decision by a margin of 5-4, little wingnut. I guess you don't know the difference between an apple and an orange. That salad you're making, wouldn't be fruit, would it?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Its really funny hearing the chickenhawks talk about no one being above the law as it pretains to Clinton's PRIVATE matters and cried for his impeachment and now, ... bush lies tortures and decides he can refuse to obey any law he chooses and its all ok! wingnuts are fools. they will be ruled by a dictator before they wake up. The wingnuts are all sheep, Hitler would have loved to have these american stooges they can't think for themselves. Blind sheep BUSH SUPPORTERS are useful idiots for the republican elite. They are their work force wanabes, brown-nosers, and fools not to mention hypocrites."

wow! well said, the truth hurts.

Posted by: defeat fascists republican drones on March 29, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

For those who are interested, Powerlineblog.com has a link to the transcript of the hearing. Powerline summarizes it as follows: "Having reviewed the transcript, I conclude that the Washington Times' characterization was fair, but arguably overstated. The New York Times, however, badly misled its readers." But don't trust me or Powerline: read it for yourselves. I think you'll find that all of the judges agreed that the Congress could not constitutionally invade the president's inherent authority, and they did not opine on what the limits of that authority are.

Posted by: DBL on March 29, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

John Dean, republican, former legal council for nixon will be testifying before congress friday.
He said bush is WORSE than watergate.
these wingnuts are inches away from the dictator government they voted for.

Posted by: BOBBY on March 29, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

go to www.buzzflash.com and get the facts

Posted by: James on March 29, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Its really funny hearing the chickenhawks talk about no one being above the law as it pretains to Clinton's PRIVATE matters and cried for his impeachment and now, ... bush lies tortures and decides he can refuse to obey any law he chooses and its all ok! wingnuts are fools. they will be ruled by a dictator before they wake up. The wingnuts are all sheep, Hitler would have loved to have these american stooges they can't think for themselves. Blind sheep BUSH SUPPORTERS are useful idiots for the republican elite. They are their work force wanabes, brown-nosers, and fools not to mention hypocrites."

wow! well said, the truth hurts.

Posted by: repug fascists on March 29, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I've noticed that not one of the regular commenters accusing Bush of breaking the law have replied back to several messages stating that the New York Times reporter got the story completely wrong. Not surprising, but still disappointing. When contrasted with the story published by the Washington Times, I can only imagine the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to not see the political bias of the NYT reporter. As DBL said, don't take our word for it, go look it up yourselves. All appropriate links can be found here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013584.php

Have some fun and practice some introspection.

Oh, and one last thing: as I've mentioned many times before, personal attacks take away from your argument (I'm looking at everyone making comments about Saladmaker's sexual orientation).

Posted by: Sixth Sense on March 29, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

I trust them more than I trust Democrats and the media. Here's the problem.

The problem is your denial.

Democrats and the media are calling the survellance "domestic spying" it isn't.

That's not completely accurate on your part since the program involves American citizens in the homeland (domestic) and overseas call (international).

Just my feelings but in the next election I won't vote for a single Democrat.

I doubt you voted for a single Dem last time if ever.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

The President is bound by law and cannot - even during war time - illegally listen in to private conversations between US citizens on US soil (which is at least part of what Bush's NSA has been doing, according to AG Gonzales' testimony regarding the NSA surveillance). This is against the law, period.

This is basically what took Nixon down during the Watergate crisis, along with the authorization of clandestine "burgularies" (ie, unauthorised physical "searches" without a warrant, something that the AG has again suggested that the Bush admin has or is doing). In fact the similarities between the reasoning and the legal justifications of Nixon / Cambodia / Watergate & Bush / Iraq / NSA-gate are strikingly similar; ie., the false claims of "inherrent authorisation under the the "Use of Force" declaration given to Bush by Congress in 2003 or that this effort is consistent with Presidential powers under the Commander-in-Chief clause of the constitution; etc. Right up until he had to resign under threat of impeachment Nixon believed "If the President does it, then it isn't illegal". Bullshit.

The only difference is that back then there were Republicans in Congress and the Senate willing to stand up to a Republican President who was evidently power drunk. These days there are too many pompous, know-nothing, stuffed shirt gas-bags, interested in lining their pockets on both sodes of the aisles to do the difficult business of governing. What a shame...

Posted by: Bakeman on March 29, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

I've noticed that not one of the regular commenters accusing Bush of breaking the law have replied back to several messages stating that the New York Times reporter got the story completely wrong.

Remains to be seen. Haven't read the full transcript yet. Powerline isn't all that impartial. I'll do my own factchecking.

Not surprising, but still disappointing.

You disappointed? LOL! Yeah, right.

When contrasted with the story published by the Washington Times...

LOL! The.. Washington... Times?! LOL! We'll see.

As DBL said, don't take our word for it, go look it up yourselves. All appropriate links can be found here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013584.php

Like I said, I'll read the full transcript for myself.

Have some fun and practice some introspection.

Take your own advice.

Oh, and one last thing: as I've mentioned many times before, personal attacks take away from your argument (I'm looking at everyone making comments about Saladmaker's sexual orientation).

No one did that I've noticed. BTW, did you notice all the personal attacks saladmaker made? Funny that you said nothing about that.

Buh-bye.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

I've noticed that not one of the regular commenters accusing Bush of breaking the law have replied back to several messages stating that the New York Times reporter got the story completely wrong.

BTW, the reporter getting the story right or wrong still doesn't exonerate Bush of any wrong-doing. Rubber-Stamp Repubs have stonewalled an investigation.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 29, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Have some fun and practice some introspection.

I see where you're going with the whole sanctimonious admonishment thing but, mmmmm...not so much for you. Particularly when your whole high and mighty shtick is based on the mere fact that a reporter stressed some facts that you'd care to ignore.

The big story here, whether you think it's important or not, is that a FISA judge expressed the opinion that the president is bound by the law like everyone else with regard to the warrantless wiretapping. That's a huge story, because by implication he is saying that a sitting president broke the law, though he's saying it in a very tactful and politically correct way.

The president ignores the law at his "peril," was the phrase he used.

His "peril."

"Peril's" not big? Pointing out "peril" is somehow "mental gymnastics?"

I don't think so.

Perhaps you should apologize to judge Baker for diminishing the gravity and importance of his thoughtful comments. And to Apollo 13 for conveniently ignoring all the attacks he took from the troll. And maybe you should think about your comments here the next time you're tempted to listen to the gossip from the seedy kids over at Powerline, and have some fun while you're at it.

As for Saladtosser (who is strangely reminiscent of Cheney/Charlie, btw) who spent his time calling people morons and telling them they had their heads up their asses -- we're just helping him confront and accept his sexual issues whatever they may be so that repressing them doesn't cause him to act out and attack others like he did here.

Posted by: trex on March 30, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

From Kevin's post via WaPo article, Feb. 6, 2006:

Q: How many serious suspects has the program identified? A: Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls.
Q: How many Americans has the NSA listened in on to identify those suspects? A: Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.
Q: How many calls does the NSA vacuum up in order to identify those thousands of targets? A: The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.
Q: Is the program legal? A: The minimum legal definition of probable cause, said a government official who has studied the program closely, is that evidence used to support eavesdropping ought to turn out to be "right for one out of every two guys at least."....Michael J. Woods, who was chief of the FBI's national security law unit until 2002, said in an e-mail interview that even using the lesser standard of a "reasonable basis" requires evidence "that would lead a prudent, appropriately experienced person" to believe the American is a terrorist agent. If a factor returned "a large number of false positives, I would have to conclude that the factor is not a sufficiently reliable indicator and thus would carry less (or no) weight."

Let's see. Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens have aroused suspicion out of 5,000 Americans (but the program has touched more than that) who have been eavesdropped on to identify those suspects...a minimum legal definition of probable cause would have evidence to be "right for one out of every two guys at least." Wow! Not even close.

Didn't the FBI say the NSA program had generated a bunch of worthless leads that was a waste of time? Oh, yeah:

In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.
But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.
Sheesh. But this is really interesting for all you pizza lovers:
Over time, as the tips failed to pan out over and over again, the NSA program seriously undermined the agency's authority as a terrorism-fighting group with people at the F.B.I.:
in bureau field offices, the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more "calls to Pizza Hut," one official, who supervised field agents, said.
More "calls to Pizza Hut." That about says it all.
LOL! That's our Bushie Administration in action. Doh-dee-doh-doh-doh.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 30, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the backup, trex.

BTW, when I said to saladmaker, That salad you're making, wouldn't be fruit, would it? I meant "fruit" as in wacko, a fruit loop, fruity-loony, nutso. I didn't mean gay. Besides, I like gay folks. Nothing wrong with being gay, IMO.

Just saying.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 30, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution, proposed when Americas first Congress under our Constitution met in 1789, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.... it is clear ... a duly authorized magistrate ... could constitutionally have authorized, with appropriate safeguards, the very limited search and seizure that the Government asserts in fact took place.

from the Supreme Courts 1967 decision in Katz v. United States which, for the first time, ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of telephone conversations from warrantless intercepts.

Posted by: James Finkelstein on March 30, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Forget the transcript! You can watch the hearing video at C-SPAN.

Look for "Senate Hearing to Examine NSA's Surveillance Authority" -- Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) presides over a Judiciary Cmte. hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the NSAs [Natl Security Agency] Surveillance Authority.
3/28/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 20 min.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 30, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmmm, I wonder if the "Al" who posted near the top has the last name of "Qaeda"?

I can hear it now as Al's being paged over an airport PA system: "Mr. Al Qaeda, please report to the baggage claim department. Mr. Al Qaeda."

If we went back seven decades and the internet had been in existence, the wingnuts posting here would have been defending Hitler (if a German reich-wing wingnut) or Stalin (if a Soviet wingnut). Tragic but true.

Bush and Cheney are outlaws. They have decided that they are outside "the law" because "the law" does not apply to them. Since they are outside "the law of the land," then they are no longer American citizens. In my view, anyone that supports these imperialist neo-con outlaws, therefore, is an outlaw too and also is no longer an American citizen. Since these outlaws just give lip-service to "the law of the land" while they attack our Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections, then they are now "enemy combatants" in my mind. And, due to the precedent established by the Bush outlaw regarding "enemy combatants," we know exactly how to treat the Bush administration outlaws, and the members of their outlaw gang, who have done more damage to our democracy than the al Qaeda or Communists could have ever dreamt of doing. Right, Mr. Al Qaeda?

Posted by: The Oracle on March 30, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe solar will like this trophy, shortstop. It's better, not perfect, but better.


...........................!..........................
..........................{}.........................
..........................!!!........................
......................(.........)....................
...................(...............).................
.................(...................)...............
.................(...................)...............
....WAMO'S BEST HAIKU POET.
........................................................


Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 30, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Nice to see that Kissenger's one time NSC aide - Martin Halperin - who had his phone tapped by Nixon in the early 70's after being suspected of leaking information about the (illegal) invasion of Cambodia, basically states the same arguements I did regarding the NSA intercepts.

Posted by: bakeman on March 30, 2006 at 3:33 AM | PERMALINK

The president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, period end of story.

Please try to engage your brain before opening you mouth!!!

Posted by: Constitutional Lawyer on March 30, 2006 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

The president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, period end of story.

Please try to engage your brain before opening you mouth!!!

Posted by: Constitutional Lawyer on March 30, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

But don't trust me or Powerline

I'll take that advice.

Posted by: Gregory on March 30, 2006 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

APOLLO! As I'm always saying, you are a GENIUS! Thanks for that!

Posted by: shortstop on March 30, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

So, now that more people have access to the transcript, how's that NYT article looking as far as accuracy goes?

Posted by: tbrosz on March 30, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

"So, now that more people have access to the transcript, how's that NYT article looking as far as accuracy goes?
Posted by: tbrosz"

tbrosz,
it's looking pretty damn disingenuous;

http://media.nationalreview.com/093732.asp

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/30/00303.shtml?s=ic

i wonder if kevin is going to reconsider his his snarky and inaccurate post?

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see.

Brian cites to three news organizations known for outright factual lying on many occasions on behalf of conservatives and conservative causes for support that the NYTimes story is an incorrect interpretation of the hearing . . .

Guffaw.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Brian, you're a lying piece of shit and a partisan asshat. you wouldn't know genuine if it bit you in the ass. your links are gop propaganda mouthpieces. go read the original transcript, not the clips that the propaganda shills want you to read. fucking whoring gop bitch!

Posted by: GOP defector on March 30, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Quick, look over there! It's the NYTimes allegedly spinning a story about FISA judges! We know because the NRO and the WaTimes told us and we believe them even though like Bush they are lying sacks of sh*t!

That is what the Right is reduced to when the numbers are all going in the wrong direction . . .

Bush down.

DOW down.

Number of participating coalition partners down.

Number of Middle East democracies not rising as predicted and promised.

Iraq body count up.

Deficit up.

Interest rates up.

Cost of Iraq war up.

Number of GOP operatives convicted of or indicted for criminal activity up.

Price of oil up.

----------------

Bush: 40% approval

13 points below Clinton's worst second-term polling.

Damn, but Bush is the best president and the most competent politician of all time!

The numbers just don't lie!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

you kids sure are getting excited. this is fun. as for "outright factual lying," afg, how about some evidence, big boy? and which of those four outfits had to fire jayson blair for outright factual lying? hmmm?

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: . . . and which of those four outfits had to fire jayson blair for outright factual lying?

That's right!

The NYTimes fired an employee who lied!

Imagine that! Firing an employee that does wrong!

The NRO and the WaTimes don't fire their liars!

Neither does Bush!

Wow! You got me, not!

No one said that media outlets don't ever hire liars.

The difference is in what you do with them once they are discovered.

Bush promotes his.

The NRO and WaTimes retain theirs.

The NYTimes fires theirs.

Guess that makes you look like an ass, eh?

As for an example, the WaTimes reported that Harry Reid issued a memo directing Democrats to appear with soldiers at political events in contravention of military rules.

Outright lie!

There you go, little girl!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Brian, you fricking moron. those four outfits HIRE liars like jayson blair. how about some evidence from you, pipsqueak? hmmm? instead of propaganda whores. idiot.

Posted by: GOP defector on March 30, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Since you might not understand anything but small words, Brian, here's another go . . .

All news organizations or other entities will hire bad people from time to time. Given.

The NYTimes is not full of liars because they get rid of such liars when they are discovered.

And they apologize for that person's lies.

The WaTimes, NRO, and Bush administration are full of liars because they don't get rid of such liars when they are discovered.

And they never apologize for the lies, but blame it all on the "MSM" and liberals!

See how easy that is?!

Now get your head out of Bush's ass so you can actually look around and see the world as it really is outside what I am sure is for you a very comfortable and reassuring resting place.

Maybe your logic will also improve once your head is free.

Till then, get some treatment for your BIS (Bush Infatuation Syndrome).

It truly is deadly to the intellect.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

"As for an example, the WaTimes reported that Harry Reid issued a memo directing Democrats to appear with soldiers at political events in contravention of military rules.

Outright lie!"

except that he did, afg. show some evidence, please.


gdef, you're the one claiming that the news organizations that don't report the news the way want to hear it are liars. the burden of proof is on you. now get to work, kiddo.

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: . . . and which of those four outfits had to fire jayson blair for outright factual lying?

BTW, are you saying it was a bad thing that the NYTimes fired Blair for lying?

Do you think they should have kept him, like the WaTimes and the NRO and Bush do with their liars?

Do you have some evidence that the NYTimes, as an organization, knew of his lying and looked the other way?

Do you have some evidence that the NYTimes, as an organization, knew he was a liar before they hired him and hired him anyway?

If so, why did you focus on the fact that they did a good thing and fired him?

Are you really that silly and intellectually deficient?

On the other hand, Powell outright lied to the United Nations. Everybody knows it. Powell has admitted it. Of course, he claims he just repeated info he was given, but even if that were true and he wasn't responsible for ensuring the information's accuracy, somebody lied - it wasn't a mistake. Somebody cooked the info.

Did Bush fire Powell?

Did Powell fire the staffer that prepared the info?

Did Bush demand that someone in the administration be fired for the lie?

No. No. No.

Bush kept his Jason Blair.

The NYT did not.

Once again, you are an ass running around without a head.

Better find it before you bump into something dangerous . . . like the truth!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: except that he did, afg

Nope.

But obviously it is impossible for me to prove the non-existence of something and easy for you to prove the existence of that same thing.

Thus, the burden of proof is on you!

Go to it, kiddie!

You are welcome to prove that Reid issued such a memo by quoting any passage from that memo, and providing the link to your source (since we know you choose sources that put out false and falsified information all the time) - just so we can verify that you aren't passing about the usual lies that conservatives do, where Reid tells Democrats to pose with soldiers or appear with soldiers at partisan political events.

We won't hold our breath!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

afg, you'd be better off if stopped being intentionally obtuse. i have made no claim regarding the administration. the nyt published lies that jayson blair wrote. i make no claim that they did so willingly. do any of the three news orgs that i mentioned have their own version of jayson blair?

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

okay, afg, how's this?
http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060317-110209-4097r
(snicker, snicker)

i suppose rowan scarborough just made up all those quotes for fun. maybe he's channeling jayson blair.

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: afg, you'd be better off if stopped being intentionally obtuse. i have made no claim regarding the administration. the nyt published lies that jayson blair wrote. i make no claim that they did so willingly. do any of the three news orgs that i mentioned have their own version of jayson blair?

Caught in a web of illogic, the typical conservative defense: deny, deny, deny, then try to shift the focus.

. . . the nyt published lies that jayson blair wrote . . .

Gee. I guess that's why they issued retractions and fired him.

I guess the NYTimes is the first paper to ever have to issue a retraction too!

Sorry, but I can't point to a version of "Jason Blair" at the NRO and WaTimes because they haven't fired anyone for lying - they keep them and let them lie some more, mostly never even bothering with retractions!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Caught in a web of illogic, the typical conservative defense: deny, deny, deny, then try to shift the focus."
-afg

now this just makes no sense. if anyone around here is shifting focus, it's you. i mention media outlets and you bring up the administration.


"Sorry, but I can't point to a version of "Jason Blair" at the NRO and WaTimes because they haven't fired anyone for lying - they keep them and let them lie some more, mostly never even bothering with retractions!"
-afg

got any evidence of that claim?

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: . . . i suppose rowan scarborough just made up all those quotes for fun . . .

None of the quotes mention appearing with soldiers (or any synomym for "soldier"), so you merely prove my point.

Thanks.

But since you're being deliberately obtuse, so to speak, let's break it down:

WaTimes:

". . . [Reid has called on Democrats to] stage press events with active duty military personnel . . ."

Reid (alleged directives):

"staged town hall events at military bases, weapons factories, National Guard units, fire stations and veterans posts."

Military base?

Clue: a military base is a physical facility, not a human being or "soldier" and not covered by the rule pertaining to "active military personnel".

"National Guard units" wouldn't be covered if not on active duty and being used only for state-related activities. Does Reid state that active-duty units subject to the military code shoud be used? Nope.

Fire stations?

Not covered by the military rules.

Ouch. You lose again!

Veterans?

You lose again.

The rules only apply to active military personnel.

Damn! A beautiful Brian theory utterly destroyed by ugly facts.

The WaTimes lied.

Not a single quote or alleged quote from the memo refers to "active duty military personnel" or any synonym thereof.

The WaTimes lied.

Blantantly.

Indisputably.

Oops.

now this just makes no sense. if anyone around here is shifting focus, it's you. i mention media outlets and you bring up the administration.

Shifting focus would be stopping talking about media outlets and starting talking about the administration - I merely added them, but didn't drop them.

So, again you are either obtuse or like to engage in that typical conservative ploy of deliberate misrepresentation of the opposition's statements.

No matter.

I'm still waiting for evidence of Harry Reid telling Democrats to appear with "active duty military personnel" as the WaTimes claimed.

(And even assming that any of the words in the memo can be stretched and exaggerated to include anyone in the set of "active duty military personnel" the WaTimes must be held to the same standard it used when arguing Bush never said that the threat from Saddam was "imminent": Bush didn't use that exact word to describe the threat from Saddam, so Bush never claimed that the threat was imminent - similarly, using the WaTimes logic, even under the most favorable reading of Reid's memo from the WaTime's standpoint, he never said "active duty military personnel" so the WaTimes, again using their own standard, lied.)

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

afg, that last paragraph gives you away. you must not like this quote from the watimes article: "Hold a town hall meeting with troops at a local military installation...." that sure sounds like it could very reasonably and naturally work as active duty military personnel. parse all you want, you're wrong.

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hold a town hall meeting with troops at a local military installation . . .

So you are saying Senators or Representatives "meeting" with troops is forbidden?

Hint: look up "meeting with" versus "appearing with" in the dictionary.

Parse all you want, you and the WaTimes are reading into Reid's statement things that aren't there because it serves your partisan purposes.

You and the WaTimes not simply wrong, you are lying.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

"Hold a town hall meeting with troops at a local military installation . . .

So you are saying Senators or Representatives "meeting" with troops is forbidden?

Hint: look up "meeting with" versus "appearing with" in the dictionary."
-afg

you're really getting desperate, now. meetings are not somehow forbidden. what makes you ask? do you seriously suppose that a town hall meeting by a senator with troops would not be covered in the local media?

since you didn't whine about "active duty military personel, may i infer that you realize scarborough was merely reporting truthfully on the memo?

"Parse all you want, you and the WaTimes are reading into Reid's statement things that aren't there because it serves your partisan purposes."

this from the guy who said that the president's not saying imminent meant that he meant imminent.

admit it, bud, you're just wrong on this one. the evidence against you would convict o.j. simpson.

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Brian: since you didn't whine about "active duty military personel, may i infer that you realize scarborough was merely reporting truthfully on the memo?

No, he wasn't, because he was claiming that Reid counseled Democrats to "appear with" troops not that he counseled them to "meet with" them.

Again, get a dictionary and not the New Dictionary of Conservative Convenient Definitions that allow conservatives to make up new definitions for words so they can claim they are telling the truth.

the evidence against you would convict o.j. simpson

And here I thought conservatives said the evidence against OJ was just fine, that it was the jury that got it wrong, and that evidence didn't convict OJ.

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop . . .

do you seriously suppose that a town hall meeting by a senator with troops would not be covered in the local media?

And this is the Dem's fault?

BTW, I see that the lie, started it appears by Frist, is going out across the web through conservatives that it is illegal to hold political events at military installations.

But I guess that just depends on your definition of "is" and "illegal", eh?

this from the guy who said that the president's not saying imminent meant that he meant imminent

Since that's not what I said, I guess we have yet another fine example of deliberate misrepresentation of my words!

How unsurprising.

Admit it, but, you just got caught in a lie and you can't help but twist the words around till they mean what you want them to mean instead of what they actually mean . . .

And by the by, why is it that neither Drudge nor the WaTimes can provide an actual copy of that memo, despite Drudge providing an alleged link to it?

Could it be they are even lying about the actual words in the memo?

Would they go that far in their mendacity, to make up quotes out of whole cloth, like conservatives did about Gore?

Enquiring minds want to know . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 30, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

afg, your mendacity is amazing.

the quote from the story is not "meet with" it is "Hold a town hall meeting with troops at a local military installation...." "appear with" is absolutely a fair representation. if you're going to counsel others to check a dictionary, you should at least be honest enough not to give false quotes. i know that you are finding it difficult to defend your fraudulent position, but try to be at least somewhat honest.

this from the guy who said that the president's not saying imminent meant that he meant imminent

"Since that's not what I said, I guess we have yet another fine example of deliberate misrepresentation of my words!"

okay, here are your words:

"(And even assming that any of the words in the memo can be stretched and exaggerated to include anyone in the set of "active duty military personnel" the WaTimes must be held to the same standard it used when arguing Bush never said that the threat from Saddam was "imminent": Bush didn't use that exact word to describe the threat from Saddam, so Bush never claimed that the threat was imminent - similarly, using the WaTimes logic, even under the most favorable reading of Reid's memo from the WaTime's standpoint, he never said "active duty military personnel" so the WaTimes, again using their own standard, lied.)"

you would not have written the above paragraph if you were not attempting to make exactly the argument i described.

Posted by: Brian on March 30, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really surprised that this stupid NYT article generates the debate it does here.

One of the ways I know that the NSA issue will eventually be dropped with the President not exonerated but the issue ignored is by looking at what partisan people like Lichtblau write.

His line of "...voiced skepticism.." essentially amounts to praising with faint damnation.

Posted by: John Hansen on March 30, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

You missed the weasal point. If it's constitutional... Well, if it tries to limit the constitutional powers of the executive, it isn't constitutional. Therefore, there is no enforceable law to break. :)

Posted by: Tymbrimi on March 30, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's really time to re-examine the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment says (1) the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures and (2) the courts can only issue warrants if the government has probable cause. Somewhere along the line, the courts got confused, reading clause (2) into clause (1), and saying that searches without warrants were generally unreasonable under clause (1). While that reading is not totally implausible, there is a better way to read the 4th Amendment that is truer to its original meaning.

The right way to read the 4th Amendment is as follows. Unreasonable searches are unconstitutional. What is unreasonable should be determined by a jury and if a jury finds the police have acted unreasonably, they should award damages to the complaining party if they also find that the complaining party was in fact injured by the search. Policemen should not have immunity from such suits for damages unless they are acting pursuant to a search warrant that they obtained in good faith. Those warrants should only be issued by magistrates on a showing of probable cause. The judge-made exclusionary rule should be discarded and persons who are injured by unreasonable police searches should be have a civil remedy for damages only.

Now apply this reading of the 4th Amendment to the current situation. Is it unreasonable for the Government to listen to conversations between AQ operatives abroad and people in the US? Do you think any jury would think so?

On the other hand, if the Government is tapping all the phones of all the members of MoveOn.Org, a jury would probably find that unreasonable.

Let's restore to juries of our peers the power to police Government overreaching.

Posted by: DBL on March 30, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

Brian, you paid whore. you got it wrong. afg got it right. menda-city is place where you and the wingnut press go to work and live. hypocrisy is your boss. get your head out of your ass and your nose out of the rectal kool-aid. you're a paid whoring shill. your job is to distort and spread misinformation for your misleader. piss off. asslickers aren't welcome.

Posted by: GOP defector on March 31, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Attorney Glenn Greenwald demonstrates that Powerline and the Moonie press, WashTimes, are wrong.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 31, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Saladmaker.. Exactly what is an enemy combatant? I would assume that if a foreign army invaded the USA that we would all fight them. I guess that would make us enemy combatants to someone. What on earth do you expect people to do when their country is bombed, invaded and occupied? How can they be faulted for fighting back? Put yourself in their place. What would you do?

Posted by: Melissa on March 31, 2006 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

Ap13 - I followed your link to Glenn Greenwald and found his argument as weak as the first arguments by Lichtblau. He certainly did not prove Hinderaker wrong.

For a non-lawyer like me the reaction is- if this is the most damning evidence that can be placed against Bush by clear partisans, then clearly he is innocent of all charges.

Posted by: John Hansen on March 31, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Brian, you paid whore. you got it wrong. afg got it right. menda-city is place where you and the wingnut press go to work and live. hypocrisy is your boss. get your head out of your ass and your nose out of the rectal kool-aid. you're a paid whoring shill. your job is to distort and spread misinformation for your misleader. piss off. asslickers aren't welcome.
Posted by: GOP defector"

wow, gdef, them there's some pretty strong fact-based points. it must suck to as obviously wrong and thickheaded as you are. but, then that's your problem. a question: if i weren't paid, would i just be a floozy shill? see ya 'round, loser.

Posted by: Brian on March 31, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

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

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly