This guy is just another in a line of: do what ever the Decider and his criminal gang said needs to be done. Does this knucklehead think Congress is just going to give him a blank check? They sure as hell better not.

"If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to tell us exactly what's wrong with FISA and exactly how he wants to change it."

Well, that would be classified, wouldn't it? Are you some kind of a Jeffersonian fanatic who things the Constitution is a suicide pact? Why do you want to advise the terrorists of our plans? Why are you supporting the terrorists? Why don't you support Big Br.....err, the Preznit?

Cue the trollathon: Dubya has to protect the people by subverting the rule of law, spread freedom by taking it away, and ensure democracy by crushing all opposition, etc, etc.

This guy could shoot puppies on the White House lawn and his arselickers would come up with some hysterical reasons why those dogs were out to destroy our way of life—like he needs any help in that regard!

We have to destroy freedom to preserve it.

We have to gut democracy to sustain it.

And Bush just wiretapped without some much as word to FISA or his GOP control congress -- really makes you wonder who Busies been wiretapping.

Makes you wonder what exactly it is Gonzales is hiding for the Bushie, because anyone taking over the AG job MUST first have congressional approval and Bushie doesn't want any NEW non-partisan AG to know what he's been wiretapping.

Bush has been doing some nasty things with his wiretapping program, and the Dems should try and find out what he's been doing.

oops: And Bush just wiretapped without so much as a word to FISA (and now Bushies got a bunch of pissed of lawyers).

Pelosi not backing down on Iraq funding ImediNews

BTW, why can't Dems just STOP funding the war. Controlling the purse has got to be worth something.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. But the Declaration of Independence is: the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honor".

Marlowe is an example of why I keep coming back. LMAO.

Perhaps because McConnell says so little it takes Kevin as many or more words to explain what is wrong with what he says.

It has become all to clear that nobody now justifies their policy through argument or sophistry, merely by spin. That is, untruthful at worst, dissembling at best.

What is wrong with this society. We are in serious decline.

What McConnell doesn't say is why we should be obliged to change our laws to deal with terrorists today, as opposed to 30 years ago.

Yes, technology has changed. But the major way it has changed has been in a direction to make it possible and perhaps even easy to monitor vastly greater numbers of people. That is, it is now far easier for our intelligence agencies to monitor virtually EVERYONE than it was before.

Is being able to do so a good thing or anything like a necessary thing? Thirty years ago, terrorists might have been able to lay hold of a nuclear weapon, though they never managed to do so; certainly directly after the breakup of the Soviet Union there was a new window of opportunity for terrorists to procure nuclear weapons.

Somehow, we as a nation did not throw out our privacies and freedoms at the mere possibility, however remote, that terrorists might threaten us with a nuke.

After 9/11, do we now have evidence that terrorists might finally succeed, where before they always failed? Certainly not that I can see.

For fearmongers like McConnell and the Republicans, the reality is that Americans simply are NOT as scared as before. Wolf has been cried one too many times.

But, again, it's important for us to remind ourselves that what's really changed in technology is simply the ability of government to be intrusive. If the underlying threat has NOT really changed, why be bamboozled by McConnell and friends into changing the underlying laws protecting our privacies from precisely such unwanted intrusions?

True. In fact, the name of the story has now been officially changed to "The Boy Who Cried Blitzer".

We dont need any changes due to technology. Thats just a red herring. All the wiretapping agency needs to do is describe what is to be searched or listened to.
If they can name it, they can claim it.

Long term memory? I thought I had a problem.

Some may not remember that ex-USSR, Russia today, went through a period of economic depression and extreme corruption; the latter continues to this day, plus press suppression. (Wow! look within the word!)

No one really counted the nuclear weapons or material. They've all been out of control the whole period since 1991. We don't know. They don't know.

But we made the promise to hold and protect that threat. The promise was made to the US populace more than Russia or Europe. But we didn't and haven't.

And that is because politicians can always avoid blame.

If the internet/blogosphere wants to achieve momentum, they should hold politicians to long term commitments.

How novel would that be?

Why could I guess that it was Fred Hiatt who'd opened his buttcheeks, I mean op-ed pages to McConnell?

And the obvious point is this: the White House would like to argue that FISA is an unconstitutional limitation of Bush's god-king Article II powers, and while it outlined some proposed amendments now, their main object is to protect telcos who install snooping black rooms.

Hasn't FISA been amended in the 30 years it's been on the books?

It was amended in the original PATRIOT Act, yes.

(I also remember a veteran of the Congress that drafted FISA saying that staffers and legislators were far more mindful of 'technology' than modern pundits recognized. After all, ARPANET was handed off to the DCA during the late 70s.)

What's most curious about the super-seekrit wiretaps is that they didn't use ECHELON. That kind of sigint has traditionally been outsourced to places like 'RAF' Menwith Hill and Pine Gap, especially when it provides plausible deniability: get a friendly country to do the spying, or lease you the land on dubious terms to host the spy base, and you can get around any prohibition on domestic surveilance.

So, based on the technology providers receiving contracts, they want their snoop boxes in the domestic system, siphoning everything with automated voice recognition triggers that would switch from 'detect' to 'record' instantly, thus mitigating against the tedious process of obtaining individual warrants.

Sorry! The Connection? That would be that laws should apply universally. To everyone, equally.

Terri Schiavo is the best worst case. A law applied to one particular issue, really one person. Bad, illegal law aplied by a house full of lawyers. How sad is that? How can you ever trust them? They ca't even pass a law in a trade that most of them are trained in.

So how fit are they to pass any other law.

Well the answer is that democracy works when emotions aren't hieghtened. But the Repugs have looked to heighten all debates. Why? Because it forces debate and argument into a zone lacking reason. An area that favors their bias.

I think I'm right and that they will deny. And use the same arguments to deny, as they have.

Sorry! Universal law has been attacked unremmittingly by the idiot-king. We live in a really shitty, misguided world.

But, again, it's important for us to remind ourselves that what's really changed in technology is simply the ability of government to be intrusive.

And frankly0 beat me to it: like I said, the technology now exists to allow computerised taps with massively-parallel speech recognition capabilities to initiate the snooping automatically. And that's where FISA chafes BushCo. Ideally, they'd like to declare it unconstitutional, along with the Fourth Amendment.

As Phil Zimmerman said back in 1999 (i.e. the Clinton years):

It's hard to see how the government could even employ enough judges to sign enough wiretap orders to wiretap 1 percent of all our phone calls, much less hire enough federal agents to sit and listen to all that traffic in real time. The only plausible way of processing that amount of traffic is a massive Orwellian application of automated voice recognition technology to sift through it all, searching for interesting keywords or searching for a particular speaker's voice.

Why does Kike mcConnell even care what the FISA law says? The White House will bypass whatever law congress passes anyway.

Did McConnell work for the KGB back in Cold War days? I thought I was reading Pravda. What an insult to our intelligence.

A lot of the comments count, particularly those who fear continuing infringement.

But why can't we stop this abuse here, now?

You? Me?

Write your reps and more.

This entire discussion is beyond-the-pale treason.

It should be unconstitutional to question or in any way cast aspertions on the duly elected Commander-in-Chief in time of perpetual war. We have no need for FISA. What we do apparently need is a Board of Patriots to protect the citizenry from the crime of wrong thought and through which all publications and all web postings or comments should first be passed before they can be allowed into the domain of public discourse. Good right-thinking candidates would be egbert, Al and the Objective Historian. I would have hoped this was not necessary in our U,S of A but the liberals have so poisoned our populace that these measures need be taken immediately and our 18th century Constitution updated to deal with current contingencies.

Marlowe: Well, that would be classified, wouldn't it? Are you some kind of a Jeffersonian fanatic who things the Constitution is a suicide pact?

I think Fox News would refer to those people as "Jeffersono-fascists." Fundamentalist freedom peddlers with no regard for National Strength, Unity, and Faith. ;)

Wonderful!

Ar last we are being driven, our backs to the wall, to preserve both democracy and choice.

Wow!

Fantastic! After 230 years, to reclaim the primary thoughts of our founding fathers, something our dicotemous Republican friends claim as a prerequisite to US patriotism, they claim those who support the Constitution to be unpatriotic.

Eff effing them.

Come on. Let's get angry and active,

Kevin: "Then we can sit down and talk."

Why? They no longer have any credibility on this or any other issue or public matter.

The fact that anyone would consider giving this bunch the approval to change any laws regarding security scares me to death. More security = less civil rights. Since this bunch thinks nothing of breaking laws to do as it pleases, why do we need changes in FISA? Only to screw the rest of us, I presume.

"I'm willing to consider changes to FISA. McConnell is right that it's three decades old and could use an update to address changes in technology."

speaking of vagueness...

so what changes do *you* think it needs?

Spot on right, Kevin. When will people get it through their thick skulls that 19 suicidal men with boxcutters does not justify throwing away over 225 years of American constitutional law?

The reactionaries on the right are wrong, as usual.

I'd rather be alive with a government-issue anal-probe tracking-device than be converted to a bunch of supersonic molecules on the edge of a mushroom cloud.

Then we can sit down and talk.

Just lean over and talk into blue pen in the pen cup.

I agree with ole Jimmy about his comments about this current administration of gangsters, from the war in Iraq to the illegal wire taps these corrupt officials need to answer for their crimes but W never has had to answer for his crimes like stealing from the S & L's when his goofy daddy was president and stealing 2.3 trillion in gold and silver bars from the basement of the Twin Towers, all republicans are a bunch of underhanded corrupt theives to one degree or another.

The only BENCHMARK Bush is really interested is this kind of Benchmark that USAToday writes about:

Oil law mired in dispute over foreign rights

BAGHDAD — Disagreement over the future role of foreign investment in Iraq's oil fields has stalled passage of an oil law the Bush administration says is crucial to Iraq's future.
The measure seeks to establish a framework for how the world's third-largest oil reserves will be divided among Iraq's rival sects. The parliament will miss a May 31 target date set by the Iraqi government to pass the bill, said Mahmoud Othman, a leading Kurdish lawmaker.

"There's no way it will be done by then," Othman said. "Not even close."

And this: Many Sunnis and Shiites favor tighter control by the INOC, fearing that otherwise a greater share of oil profits — which account for more than 90% of Iraqi government revenue — could go to multinational energy companies.

"We want foreign oil companies, and we have to lure them into Iraq to learn from their expertise and acquire their technology, but we shouldn't give them big privileges," Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraq's Sunni vice president, said in Geneva on Sunday.

AND this: Othman, the Kurdish lawmaker, said U.S. pressure to pass the oil law as soon as possible was making matters worse. The legislation was written "in a hurry" and left some crucial details unclear, he said.

Really, written in hurry was it, has Bushie written all over it.

I have to wonder who wrote the Iraqi oil "legislation"? Was it the Bushies, with help from ExxonMobil and BP? Because it sounds like one of those butched style of government decisions that Bush and Cheney do from time to time. And hey, wasn't Cheney just OVER THERE to oversee the how big oil contract was being divided for his good buds, ExxonMobil and BP.

Yeah, the Bushies are running out of time and all the Iraqi government has to do - in order to get a better deal from companies other than those greedy, nasty Western oil companies, is simply wait until Bush is out of office. True Iraqi freedom is less than two years away right now.

These guys always always always ignore the fact that under FISA emergency taps can be put in place immediately and that retroactive warrants can be sought days later. Bushies just get bored with the whole oversight question.

McConnell demonstrates what a complete idiot he is when he says "We will continue to collect intelligence under strong congressional, executive and judicial oversight mechanisms." Is he joking? What oversight???? Total boob. He conveniently neglects the abuse issue. 19 religious nuts backed by perhaps a couple thousand other nuts attack us and this admin abuses the rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Unfortunately it seems congress doesn't have the courage to confront them.

Uh, as Glenn Greenwald notes FISA was amended. McConnell out lies in this oped.

Kevin,

I hope you read down to this. If you saw the Frontline episode, most experts appear to pretty much state outright that FISA is fine as is.

If correct, this is little more than a ruse and effort to mix apples and oranges.

"We want foreign oil companies, and we have to lure them into Iraq to learn from their expertise and acquire their technology, but we shouldn't give them big privileges,"

Oh the irony! This would almost be funny, if it weren't so tragic. Swallow another digitek Mr. VP, your work in convincing them that giving away 70% of oil profits for the next 30 years is good for Iraqis isn't done - maybe on your next visit. But now you have to wait til after their 2 MONTH SUMMER VACTION.

Kevin - Can you respond to this?

The idea that FISA is some sort of obsolete relic from the rotary phone era that has never been updated has become pervasive even among well-informed commentators (Kevin Drum, for instance, yesterday said, incorrectly: "George Bush can recommend legislation to modify FISA anytime he wants. In the six years since 9/11 he hasn't done so . . .I'm willing to consider changes to FISA. McConnell is right that it's three decades old and could use an update to address changes in technology"). That FISA was substantially expanded in October of 2001 -- at the administration's request -- is one of the central (and often overlooked) facts illustrating how severe is the corruption and dishonesty which lies (still) at the heart of the NSA lawbreaking scandal.

FISA revisions, October 27, 2001 :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011027.html

Radio Address of the President to the Nation
. . . The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need . . . we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists . . .

sorry kevin, but you're wrong. please update.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/index.html

Good to see the above commentors pointing out the Greenwald link. It's a testament to how warped the NSA debate is that republican talking points go unchallenged by liberal commentators such as Kevin Drum. A number of great bloggers have been hammering away at many facets of this issue for years now but still the most basic facts are misunderstood. Not only was FISA ammended several times but it's most recent change had Bush commenting he had all the legal changes he needed to win the war on terror...he then proceded to violate the very law he praised.

Spot on right, Kevin. When will people get it through their thick skulls that 19 suicidal men with boxcutters does not justify throwing away over 225 years of American constitutional law?

I suspect we will find out in the coming months, the wiretapping was not about 19 suicidal men with boxcutters. It was about exercising power, plain and simple.

First and foremost, Senator McConnel is wrong. FISA does not need to be "amended." FISA needs to be eliminated because it is a speedbump that prevents us from catching terrorists.

If the average American is under surveillance, and if that average American is not breaking the law, so be it. But from the average and regular population springs the terrorist--the housewife who reads a jihadist pamphlet at the supermarket, the disaffected teenager who reads Daily Kos and becomes radicalized against his own people and the dejected baby boomer hippie who has no retirement savings--his life has been spent in splendid consumption and personal decadence, living paycheck to paycheck and using drugs while failing to become famous or noteworthy. All three of these potential terrorists are out there, awaiting a trigger or a command from the leader of al Qaeda. How do we keep track of them and stop them before they launch devastating attacks against America?

Make FISA go the way of the aggressive taxation Ronald Reagan did away with. It is outdated and foolish thinking. The Congress can oversee things just fine, liberals--that is your check on power. But remember this--when the terrorists attack, all of you will be screaming and blaming George W Bush, even though none of you will remember tying his hands and preventing him from doing what he needed to do to keep us safe.

[The IP on this comment traces to the pentagon. Make of that what you will]

Ah, Kevin.

You go on to to accuse Mr. McConnell of vagueness, then go on to be vague yourself.

What, specifically, do you love about this law? Why do you think we should be shackled by a law instituted by people 30 years ago who do not understand the way of life of today? Why do you think it's ok to institute laws that leave us venerable to hostile elements?

McConnell wants to protect us with the "highest quality of intelligence." Whats your angle.

But remember this--when the terrorists attack, all of you will be screaming and blaming George W Bush, even though none of you will remember tying his hands and preventing him from doing what he needed to do to keep us safe.

Norman, you're a bedwetter. Grow up. His job is to protect and uphold the Constitution. He's not your all-encompassing shield.

The Congress can oversee things just fine, liberals--that is your check on power.

That's what the new changes are trying to accomplish - eliminate oversight.

Norman, you're a bedwetter. Grow up.

Oh, sure. Personal attacks are so much easier than debating the facts. Well, the fact of the matter is this--America is safe, America hasn't been attacked, and it drives you moonbats up the wall to have to admit that George W Bush has killed more terrorists than any other government in the history of the world.

His job is to protect and uphold the Constitution. He's not your all-encompassing shield.

When the terrorists attack, you'll be wheezing and crying uncontrollably--and no document can protect you from being blown up and incinerated. Only a strong nation full of brave men who are willing to kill our enemies can protect you.

Norman Rogers,

Is your mind still a bit tetched from rounding up the "ladies" for ol' Joe Hooker? This is not about the Senator from the Blue Grass State, nor his wife who attempts to crush the laborers in this land. Mike is out of a very similar stripe, but a different fellow.

Little hangover from watching the Orioles?

Normie, grab your Depends and go hide under your bed or else the housewives and teenagers and hippies are gonna gitcha!

This is a bogus arugment, that changes in technology ipso facto require changing the FISA statute.

The statute is very general when it comes to the technology (though it does not appear to account for wireless). Changes in technology do not impact the focus of this statute on who does the survellience on whom and by whose permission. Technology doesn't change the agents, doesn't change the subjects of survellience, doesn't the rights to privacy. Read it, and you'll find very little that addresses specific technologies.

The overwhelming meat of FISA is about the process and the justifications for surveillance. It is about what the requirements are for gaining a legal basis for surveillance.

In short, FISA is about why and when, not the how.

McConnell's argument is sophistic b.s.

All we hear from the moonbats is what is wrong with me; none of you have an answer for the fact that George W Bush has kept you safe and sound.

A pity that the American people have forgotten what it is liked to be attacked.

Mithter Rogers: "Only a strong nation full of brave men who are willing to kill our enemies can protect you."

Such a big, stwong man. You should be in a place where there are many big, stwong men who wike to hurt things. Who needs those twoublesome women, anyway, with their iwitating weminders of the wule of waw?

Poor, poor Normie - Not getting the proper recognition and respect for his fine work in reprising the role of Harry Caul over at the National Observe-You and You and You-atory of Cheney's, er the people of the USA.

Yeah, Uncle Paul, and Gene Hackman could play Normie in the remake.

Normie, how's this for an answer? George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have endangered the American people to an unprecedented degree with their lawlessness and idiocy. They have created terrorists because they have waged war on an innocent population, enraging millions. They indebted us and made us vulnerable to the powerful, unpredictable Chinese. If you feels safer, you are a fool.

McConnell is fighting a losing battle, in my opinion.

His big problem is that, with the exception of the bedwetters on the extreme right, Americans just simply aren't scared out of their wits anymore by allusions to 9/11.

Inevitably, this had to happen over a sufficient period of time. We're not back at complete complacency yet by any means -- we're probably just approaching a period where we can rationally trade off genuine risks vs genuine losses in privacy, without slighting either.

But the day for easy successes in political argument by the likes of McConnell are probably behind us.

Norm! You'll die safe one day and leave this country a totalitarian state.
What is it with you BIG STRONG men and safety? Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"?

But from the average and regular population springs the terrorist

This same reasoning applies to criminals: no one is a criminal until they break the law. Yet, in more than 200 years of some leaving in fear of the potential evil among us, we have maintained the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Just because you have discovered some new threat doesn't change that our rights are in fact what we are trying to preserve.

Your heart's in the right place, Kevin, but Glenn Greenwald beats you on the facts. Check it out.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/

But...why spy at all?

Norm, while you are focusing on that perceived "Islamofascist" threat, the Canadians are about to hit you from the rear.

CBC Radio Two is currently in the midst of a fifteen hour marathon of presenting the four operas by Wagner of "The Ring". Tomorrow, there could be hordes of Germanic Crazed Canucks striking us from across the border. And since you ran rick mick off, who will intercede on your behalf?

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have endangered the American people to an unprecedented degree with their lawlessness and idiocy.

Cite, please. This country has issues, yes, but the last time I checked, things were pretty good. The stock market has stayed about 13,000 for a good long while now.

They have created terrorists because they have waged war on an innocent population, enraging millions.

How did they "create" the people who have hated us since long before he was President? Did those same people not attack America when Bill Clinton was pretending to know what was going on?

They indebted us and made us vulnerable to the powerful, unpredictable Chinese.

You're afraid of the Chinese now? A country with which we have full economic, political and military relations? You're insane and troubled, dear lady. The Chinese are not a threat to us--al Qaeda is. The Chinese aren't knocking down buildings and attacking people all over the world with terrorism.

Look at the moonbats scurry--five and a half years of being protected and safe makes them so complacent. And none of you has the decency to thank Bush and Cheney for keeping us safe.

What Bush, McConnell and their supporters refuse to state is what they truly believe: that FISA itself is unconstitutional.

But they'll never make this claim publicly, because they know they would lose both in the court of law and the court of public opinion.

For more, see:
"The Republicans' Constitutional Crisis."

This same reasoning applies to criminals: no one is a criminal until they break the law. Yet, in more than 200 years of some leaving in fear of the potential evil among us, we have maintained the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Thank you for making my point for me--ever heard of the fight against organized crime in this country? We use warrants, eavesdropping and detective work to keep the Dons of the mafia on their heels. Rudy Guiliani has personally tried and jailed them. We use every technique we can because the mafia--and by extension--the terrorists--will not play by the rules.

In a perfect, pre-9/11 world, I suppose that if everyone played by the rules and cooperated by exhibiting chivalry, we would not need to throw away things like FISA. Unfortunately, the enemies of this great nation have an ally in the liberals who choose to live as if it is permanently September the 10th, 2001. You enable them to scurry about, protected by outdated laws. You enable their malfeasance.

I support the efforts of destroy our enemies and protect this country. Why don't you just give up a few rights and privileges that you didn't even know you had in the first place in order to remain safe? It's not like any of you have been paying attention.

Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"?
It dribbled into his panties when a scary brown man looked at him funny.

Norman R wrote:

If the average American is under surveillance, and if that average American is not breaking the law, so be it.

And

Why don't you just give up a few rights and privileges that you didn't even know you had in the first place in order to remain safe?

If you want to live in a place like China/North Korea why don't you just move there?

And none of you has the decency to thank Bush and Cheney for keeping us safe.

No, I thank the CIA agents and others who have done so in spite of Bush and Cheney, the team that thought a report titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." was historical and ignored it.

The Chinese are not a threat to us . . . .

You're naive if you think China is not a threat. After all, why did conservatives piss themselves over the Chinese getting classified information during the Clinton administration? We shouldn't be afraid of China, but China is a still an authoritarian government, and they are an economic threat if nothing else.

He also fails to mention that George Bush can recommend legislation to modify FISA anytime he wants. In the six years since 9/11 he hasn't done so.

This is not, in fact, true. The Bush Administration has repeatedly sought alterations to FISA since 9/11, and in fact, responding to Administration requests, Congress has passed several laws effecting FISA since 9/11. It has been updated, at least, by:

Pub.L. 107-56, October 26, 2001.
Pub.L. 107-108, December 28, 2001.
Pub.L. 108-458, December 17, 2004.

Each of which expanded surveillance authority under FISA.

The current FISA regime is closer to three years old than thirty, and McConnell is selling lies to the gullible hoping no one will both even the most casual review of the facts.

I support the efforts of destroy our enemies

Welcome to America. "Speak English."

Whatever happened to "give me liberty or give me death"?

Whatever happened to taking up arms to defend your country?

The founders put down Shay's Rebellion, you know. Explain to me how it is that when the government intercedes to stop people from destroying this country that it somehow presents itself as an affront to "liberty."

A hint to you moonbats and your delusional enablers--if the government stands by and does nothing to preserve itself, you won't have any liberty to speak of. I can cite you countless examples of how the rights of Americans have been temporarily and harmlessly set aside for short periods of time to put down rebellion or violent dissent.

1. Shay's rebellion.

2. The Indian wars fought by Andrew Jackson

3. Andrew Jackson's war against Spain in Florida

4. Abraham Lincoln and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

5. The US war to stop Pancho Villa

6. Forty years of FBI efforts to stop communist infiltrators in the US government

7. The use of the Bunco squad, the RICO statutes, and over fifty years of fighting against organized crime

And had the United States not done any of those things, you liberals wouldn't exist at all--because in a truly totalitarian regime, you would have been chained to the wall and shot long ago. No one is advocating such a thing. In fact, I enjoy it when a few of you put down your crack pipes and your water bongs and actually engage in a discussion about how screwed up your thinking really is.

The biggest change needed in FISA is that the people need to be able to examine emails and monitor phone conversations involving members of the executive branch.

So, Normie, is "Arbeit Macht Frei" still on your family crest?

After all, why did conservatives piss themselves over the Chinese getting classified information during the Clinton administration? We shouldn't be afraid of China, but China is a still an authoritarian government, and they are an economic threat if nothing else.

Now that China has been brought to the table, do you really think they would do anything to upset the status quo? Now that they have membership in the world economy? Now that they have been granted access to world markets? I believe change in China will not grow out of the barrel of a gun--it will come in the form of a simple asthma inhaler. We know they are fouling their own air, shortening the lives of their own people. They have the Olympics--and when that falls flat on its face and when Olympic atheletes are grasping their throats and throwing up black tar in front of the entire world, a shame-faced and disgraced regime will collapse.

The spread of democracy throughout the world is inevitable. When a humiliated China is forced to pay reparations to world-class atheletes for giving them asthma and emphysema, an environmentally-based Chinese democratic movement will spring forward, armed with a Clean Air Act written in secret by George W Bush.

Meanwhile, liberals look for ways to weaken America. How many more insults do you kids have? I need to drive into town and buy some new stereo equipment and a new fish tank.

Having heard McConnell speak on this subject before, I'm sympathetic to his concerns. But I still agree with Kevin. Someone in McConnell's position is not being as useful as he might by complaining about an admittedly problematic law without laying out what he would change.

Why doesn't he? I don't know the answer to that. The leading candidate, based on prior experience with this administration, is that no internal administration consensus has been reached as to what to do about FISA. Within the admninistration McConnell most likely has enough authority to point out the inadequacies he sees in the statute; authority to propose a specific change rests elsewhere, perhaps with the Attorney General in consultation with the Vice President's office -- in which case the process would be stuck, for obvious reasons.

The Decider, in this administration, really isn't. Bush in fact is an extraordinarily weak President, particularly on an issue like this one. What would be required here is not that he come up with suggested changes to FISA himself, something that no sensible person would demand of any President. It's something even more difficult -- Bush would have to assign responsibility for coming up with revised FISA language to a specific officials, or perhaps to a group of officials, and force everyone else within the administration to keep their objections to the end product to themselves.

He can't do it, or at any rate he hasn't done it, on a whole host of issues and certainly on this one. In fairness to McConnell -- and as I say I agree with Kevin's criticism -- it may well be the internal sclerosis of an administration headed by a weak President that has put him in the impossible position of being unable to do more than complain about a statute he feels outdated and inadequate.

I forgot to mention the US government putting down the anti-slavery revolt of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. This is exactly the type of thing that proves we need to get rid of FISA. While one can certainly say that Brown's attempt to end slavery was justified, how can anyone ignore the fact that doing so by attacking Federal property was justified? They hung Brown, even though he was morally correct for wanting to end the abominable institution of slavery.

So if your government can put down a revolt by farmers who want redress against unfair taxes (Shay's Rebellion) and if your government can hang a man who wants to end slavery (Brown) and if your government can suspend habeas corpus (Lincoln) and if your government can pass statutes that specifically attack organized crime (RICO laws) then why can't your government take the necessary steps to protect you from terrorists?

And we silence from the liberals. Except for the occasional non-sequitur and personal insult, nothing at all from you, eh?

How very typical. Remember to thank your President for keeping you safe, despite your less-than-gracious carping about things you don't even understand.

Mithter Rogers: "Why don't you just give up a few rights and privileges that you didn't even know you had in the first place in order to remain safe?"

I wonder what torture would induce you to give the right to remain smug? Let's find out, shall we? Every odious behavior is okay in your book, unless you disagree with it. Of course, the Politburo was chock full of people like you -- peculiarly arrogant lickspittles -- but you wouldn't recognize that because the mirror is blank when you stare at it.

Oh, right, we almost forgot: enemy, terrorist, fear, penis. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. And we get you too, you phony fruitcake.

You know what's really telling? There are no honest-to-God righties on this site anymore. Every last one of them (Al, Norman, egbert) are just parodies. There's no one left as a true Bush apologist (I guess the 30% don't come here anymore - and are ashamed). Bush is truly alone.
It's about time.

Shay's Rebellion, you twit, Normie, was by former soldiers and officers in the Revolutionary War. They rebelled against egregious taxation by the State of Massachusetts.

As a result of this rebellion, there was a call for a Constitutional Convention, out of which came not only the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights, both of which you are so eager to tread upon.

Were you any better in shoveling manure up the road from you at Pimlico this weekend? Did your Aussie named Circular Quay run out again?

Huh? I'll ignore that Kevin Drum is simply proving and and again how completely out of his depth he is here. FISA gets changed all the time. It's been amended very often, and it has been updated several times to apply to new technologies. Kevin Drum is simply wrong here, and I don't understand how that can happen with even the most rudimentary research.

As for those who disgustingly refer to our Constitution as a "suicide pact" because we won't let them do the things people like them always want to do, You're the reason we have a constitution. Men like you always make these argument, because men like you are dishonest scum. You want ot violate the constitution because you DESPISE the notion that there should be any limits on the power of those who run this country. You want them to be able to murder people you dislike. You want a government that acts as a sword against your enemies. You're whining is no better than the whining of some NAMBLA member who's upset he can't rape little boys. You don't believe a word you're saying, you're just saying them in the service of your perverted compulsions.

I doubt that "those who would do us harm" rely on cellphones to coordinate their nefarious activities.

I bet E-bay auctions are an easy way to 'disguise" covert activities.

If messages are relayed by "land" signals (like the techniques perfected by the Underground RR) how on earth will a sophisticated electronic sieve intercept such messages?

We need to think outside the box. I think it's a waste of money to think FISA will thwart real threats.

The right to privacy which liberals made a constitutional right decades ago

You're welcome.

right of terrorists to conduct their electronic plotting free from interference

Liar. There is plenty of legal wiretapping to be done. Liberals just tend to frown on the broad, nonspecific domestic, illegal wiretapping. Go figure.

Ken Wainstein has been in the news lately as a suggested (who is the anonymous suggester?) replacement for some of the current (or upcoming) vacancies at USDOJ.

That's a terrible suggestion.

Here's some of the proposed "FISA modernization" and here's some of how Ken Wainstein is lying about it.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070504-bush-administration-proposes-retroactive-immunity-for-phone-companies.html

Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone companies
By Nate Anderson | May 04, 2007
Retroactive immunity from prosecution is a beautiful thing if you're a major telecommunications provider in the US, and phone companies are about to receive it if the Bush administration gets its way. The administration's new appropriations request for intelligence agencies was recently disclosed at a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and it includes a massive gift to the phone companies who have been (can we drop the "allegedly" at this point?) helping the NSA and other agencies. Prepare yourself for the longest single sentence you have ever read:

Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack.

That's from section 408 of the proposed bill, and it's buried beneath the innocuous headline "Liability Defense." As the government explains later in an analysis of the bill, "companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection—not litigation." Any court case dealing with the issue would be thrown out of court, and the protection would include all phone company interaction with the intelligence community since September 11.

The issue of whether any of this behavior was legal is not important. The government has already argued that legality doesn't matter when it comes to the phone companies, since even a ruling that their actions were illegal would expose the existence of the intelligence-gathering program in question. Therefore, such cases should not even be considered by the courts.

Kenneth Wainstein, an assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, told the assembled Senators that this provision of the bill would simply "fill a gap in our laws" by allowing the phone companies to assist the government.
- - Nate Anderson | May 04, 2007

What Bush, McConnell and their supporters refuse to state is what they truly believe: that FISA itself is unconstitutional.

No, they've openly argued that, previously (or at least, that the President has inherent Constitutional authority to wiretap whoever he wants if he waves around national security excuses, regardless of the prohibitions in FISA.)

What they are afraid to admit is that they've been freely breaking the law left and right and if they don't get it changed in a way that applies retrospectively, a lot of people in this administration are facing jail time as soon as they don't have control of the executive branch, unless the most politically explosive series of self-serving pardons of all time is issued.

I disagree with that nasty crack. The overriding goal of the Bush Administraiton has plainly been to prevent another massive terrorist attack like 9/11. Fortunately for all of us, they have succeeded.

Yes, ex-liberal. As the man falling past the 70th floor mark said, "So far, so good."

China's participation in world trade guarantees nothing about its government or its actions towards the U.S. China has been purchasing interest in U.S. companies. Just go search on the topics of China and U.S. clashing over Africa's oil resources. China's competition with the U.S. to secure energy resources is not the behavior of a friendly competitor. Experts on China don't take it lightly as a brother in the democratic fold.

You also dismiss China's increases in military spending the last few years. The Rand Corporation (lousy liberal think-tank) recently released a report on the threat China poses to stability in East Asia and to the U.S.

And I guess Taiwan is not longer an issue for China and the U.S. either.

Getting all pollyanna about China doesn't help your argument. It shows just how an obsession on unnecessary conflicts has confused people.

...Remember to thank your President for keeping you safe, ...Norman Rogers at 11:17 AM

...The overriding goal of the Bush Administraiton ...ex-lax at 12:05 PM

The overriding goal of the Bush Administraiton has plainly been to prevent another massive terrorist attack like 9/11. Fortunately for all of us, they have succeeded.

Objection. Council is arguing an assertion not in evidence.

… has morphed into the right of terrorists to conduct their electronic plotting free from interference… moronichypocriterepublican at 11:29 AM

"ex-liberal" wrote: The overriding goal of the Bush Administraiton has plainly been to prevent another massive terrorist attack like 9/11.

I don't think the word "plainly" means what you seem to think it means. No one's buying your bullshit assertion, "ex-liberal." Why do you bother?

True. In fact, the name of the story has now been officially changed to "The Boy Who Cried Blitzer".

Beautiful.

And Norm's in top form today. That bit about regime change at the barrel of an asthma inhaler is outstanding.

Excellent point, ex-liberal. My personal goal has been to stop bears from invading my Chicago condo this year. So far, not a single ursine has gotten in. I don't think anyone can argue with that kind of success.

1. Bush said that preventing another massive attack was was his overriding goal.

Only a fool or a tool would believe, at this point, that Bush's stated motivations == his actual agenda.

Oh, wait -- it's "ex-liberal"; it's both a fool and a tool.

It's just a pity, isn't it, that Bush didn't have this motivation, stated or otherwise, during the first

2. The actions of the Bush Administration were consistent with preventing another attack.

(It can't be the mere absence of attacks. My magic rock prevented those. It also keeps away bears...)

The redoubtable shortstop must have the same kind of rock...

So far, not a single ursine has gotten in. I don't think anyone can argue with that kind of success.

*Snort!!!*

Now be a dear and pass me a Windex Wipe. I gotta clean the mocha off the monitor.

By the way, "ex-liberal," you dipshit, the entire point of this post -- which you have not contradicted -- is that the Bush Administration's surveillance program is not ocnsistent with preventing another terrorist attack. Those necessary changes were already written into law, and whatever else McConnell and Bush want, they refuse to specify. Do try to pay attention and not make an ass of yourself?

Well, try to pay attention, at least.

You update, and you are still wrong.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald points out that, in fact, FISA was modified as part of the passage of the PATRIOT Act in October 2001. Since then, however, George Bush has turned down every opportunity to amend it further.

No, he hasn't. FISA was, as I mentioned above, amended in December 2001 (in the FY 2002 Intelligence Authorization Act) and again in December of 2004 (in the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004), both in response to administration concerns, both to expand the powers under FISA, both with the complaint that the FISA regime was outdated and poorly adapted to the modern war on terror, and needed updated to accommodate the needs of the present conflict.

George Bush hasn't turned down a chance to expand his powers under FISA, he's done it many times, each time complaining that FISA was written 30 years ago and not adapted to todays needs. It was dishonest to start with: FISA had been updated many times after it was enacted but before Bush came into office, most recently in 2000. But it has been particularly dishonest since then, since FISA has been revised at this administration's request, three times since 9/11.

You're welcome in my treehouse any time, Gregory. You too, Globe.

It does have a NO REPUBLICANZ sign, though.

If those bears get through, you have safe harbor out here on the edge of the prairie, Shortstop.

Many thanks. Hey, are you going to that big barbecue festival thingy in KC this weekend?

Shortstop - I think you are attempting to teach ex-liberal the Homer Simpson's Rock fallacy ...

...the Bush Administration's surveillance program is not ocnsistent with preventing another terrorist attack. Those necessary changes were already written into law, and whatever else McConnell and Bush want, they refuse to specify.

This is a canard. Of course the President is chasing terrorists. Of course he is simply doing what is necessary to defend America. Are you some kind of tinfoil hat loony liberal who believes that the government actually cares what you, Joe Q. Public with a sixpack under your arm and a flair for the dramatic, actually says into your crud-encrusted cheap little throwaway cellphone? Do you live in a world that is demonstrably ridiculous where the government gives a hoot about what you read, what you think, what you say to your buddy at the packing plant, or what you read on the Internet?

The government doesn't care about YOU. The government is just trying to track terrorists who want to blow up the buildings you probably don't make enough money to actually go into. There's a huge difference there, sir. Try to put your conspiracy theory of government aside long enough to figure out what is really going on. The terrorists are here, but George W Bush has been catching them and frustrating them and that's why you're safe.

….They succeeded in preventing another massive attack.ex-lax at 1:32 PM

Bush to control entire government
…(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
...
(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;
(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency….
In less legalistic terminology: total control of the government by Herr Bush.

royalblue_tom: Ah, so that's where I got it. Homer...is there nothing he can't do?

I dig Norman's insistence on removing the period from Dubya's middle initial in a hilarious attempt to back up Bush's comparison of himself to Harry S Truman.

This is a canard.

Thanks for the warning, but the "Posted by: Norman Rogers" is a dead giveaway anyway. ;)

Poor Gregory. You blow away his little fallacies, he gets all red in the face and huffs and puffs.

The simple fact of the matter is, enjoy being safe. When the Democrats fully take over someday, all bets are off and our enemies are going to invade every state in the Union and begin attacking us while President Clinton and her pal Helter Skelter Eyes Pelosi look for a quick way to surrender.

You blow away his little fallacies

Yuor argument by assertion blows, all right, Normie; just not the way you think it does. I'm only red in the face from laughter.

When the Democrats fully take over someday, all bets are off and our enemies are going to invade every state in the Union and begin attacking us while President Clinton and her pal Helter Skelter Eyes Pelosi look for a quick way to surrender.

Yeah, the minute the swarthy guys start swarming in, scimitars between their teeth, Hillary and Nancy will start blubbering and moaning about how they didn't think running the country would be this hard and maybe they went too far with the "A Woman's Place is in the House--and the Senate" t-shirts.

Wait, that last bit was almost Norm-worthy. I think I just did a Norm semi-parody.

The overriding goal of the Bush Administration has plainly been to try to cover its ass regarding 9/11.

fixed it.

My personal goal has been to stop bears from invading my Chicago condo this year...

Very good shortstop. With the manner in which Bush has inflamed the Middle East and neglected domestic security, I'm tempted to further your analogy by saying you've stopped bears despite laying a trail of twinkies from Yellowstone to Chicago

Many thanks. Hey, are you going to that big barbecue festival thingy in KC this weekend?

Maybe. I am back to pulling hospital shifts, and weekend diff is hard to pass up....

Too right, ckelly!

Terrifying terrorist to George W. Bush: "What's in your pic-a-nic basket?"

mhr: "The right to privacy which liberals made a constitutional right decades ago..."

Hey, shit-for-brains, that was always a conservative tenet until Dubya cornholed it in this decade. Why do you come to a center-left site and ascribe everything you don't like to "liberals", as if our democracy is made up of separate species? Can it be that you hate Americans? The majority certainly doesn't agree with you. Feel free to have your tantrums somewhere else -- like North Korea.

Normy: "Of course the President is chasing terrorists..."

Yes, right onto his Crawford ranch. You really are the most frightful arselicker, aren't you?

mhr, beeeep! Warrants can be obtained retroactively when applied for within 72 hours; virtually none have been turned down by the FISA court. Really, you're not very good at this.

Even though it turns out that the call is to an islamist in the US who is taking airplane landing lessons

The redoubtable shortstop covered another of mhr's factual errors, but I thought I'd also point out that if 9/11 taught us anything, its that the problem is with the guys not taking landing lessons.

Dope.

Please to note that Norman Rogers addresses no issue other than the general one of defense. He does not address the issue of warrants at all. It is, as I noted earlier, ever thus. None of these rat brain types ever address the actual issue of the warrants.

mhr, here's a scenario for you:

A presidential daily briefing drops in the lap of our Dear Leader in August 2001 that states "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US". Our typical Republican Dear Leader ignores and dismisses this briefing as well as warnings from the Clinton administration, says "Well, you've covered your ass" and goes brush-clearing in Crawford. 9/11 soon follows and Republicans praise Bush's resolve and national security prowess and that we haven't been attacked yet again. Does this make any sense -even to a Bush lickspittle apologist?

A CIA operative in Europe spots a known Al-Quada operative making a call on a cell phone. He gets the number and calls NSA to have them collect the calls and translate them. Even though it turns out that the call is to an islamist in the US who is taking airplane landing lessons, NSA might have to decline the request and tell the agent to apply for a warrant.

You seem to ignore the rather pertinent fact that FISA, in the situations where warrants are required, allows for the warrants to be secured up to 72 hours after the actual tap is conducted.

The "definitions" section of FISA (50 USC 1801) was last amended in 2004. I haven't checked the other sections.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-notes.html

You can laugh if you want, but we already know al Qaeda is trained to operate in so-called "ninja" costumes in order to conceal weapons, suicide vests, and body armour. It is not a stretch to believe that they wouldn't use bear costumes or other such devices in order to infiltrate crowds. Case in point--the use of the Mickey Mouse character in a Hamas-driven harangue of Israel. No one would suspect a person in a Mickey Mouse suit of having thirty pounds of semtex and twenty-five thousand ball bearings strapped to their torso under that costume, would they?

Well, liberals--keep taking away the tools this President needs to keep you safe and that could be you turned into Hamburger Helper the next time you tip your saucy little Indiana Jones hat to the next person in a Scooby Doo costume.

norman rogers: George W Bush has kept you safe and sound.

not counting 9-11...

norman rogers: George W Bush has kept you safe and sound.

not counting 9-11...

Posted by: mr. irony on May 21, 2007 at 4:27 PM

safe, maybe, but certainly not sound. norm seems to be missing a few parts...

your pal,
blake

…NSA might have to decline the request and tell the agent to apply for a warrant…. moronichypocriterepublican at 2:52 PM

…this President needs to keep you safe …Norman Rogers at 4:27 PM

It should be obvious this administration doesn't want to involve the judiciary even though the FISA court wouldn't know probable cause from a ham sandwich. Its all about executive power.

The funniest (read: saddest) thing here is that some of the posters seem to believe that the very notion of congressional oversight, in any area, is a "liberal" idea. Boy, have the lunatics ever taken over the chicken coop. Or something.

I think it's "The lunatics have taken over the chickenshit coop." Snaps to St. John McCain.

norman rogers: George W Bush has kept you safe and sound.

is that why after 1991-days, the 5-color terror code has never been at green or blue?

not once

Mr. Drum, you may be interested in reading Glenn Greenwald's article of May 21st, "The Administration's FISA Falsehoods Continue Unabated", in which he explains step-by-step how the FISA Act was indeed amended at the request of the Bush Administration in 2001.

As he explains it, the idea that FISA has not been amended to keep up with the times is a neoconservative myth- one which even those who oppose the Bush Administration's FISA violations have fallen for. That willingness to accept outrageously and demonstrably false claims by their Neocon opponents amounts to a needless capitulation on the part of those who would bring Bush to account for breaking the law.

You should never underestimate the magnitude of the Bush Administration's dishonesty by giving them more credit than they deserve, just because you already oppose them in every other way. After all, why waste time attacking Mike McConnell's logical inconsistancies when you can just present facts which prove him to be a flat-out liar?