as McCarthy says (apparently without a hint of irony): IT’S ALL POSTURING … AND DANGEROUS

Any terrorist worth worrying about is no longer sending e-mails or making international phone calls with any content of any importance. They know their electronic communications are being monitored. They are not stupid, like Bush.

Bin Laden himself sends handwritten messages couriered on pack animals. The 9-11 hijackers met in person in Kuala Lumpur to finalize the 9-11 plot. FISA is as worthless as teats on a boar in preventing an al-Qaeda attack - just like the $500 billion we piss away annually on the Pentagon. What a bunch of fools....

That this guy was once a prosecutor really scares the crap out of me. There's no fact or argument too important to be ignored, if there's a good screed to be enjoyed by its absence.

Taking away the ability of Republicans to argue against things no one is saying would pretty much remove their ability to argue. You aren't against free speech are you Kevin?

Well, the guy's last name is McCarthy ...

...wha? You get on the radio, too?

Jeez, this technical writing thing I've been doing for 25 years sucks. Of course, now that I've been a technical writer for all those years, everybody things I want to be a technical writer.

.
.
... and yes, it's all about me.

Wait a year and a half, Kevin. Andrew will be in complete agreement when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Yup. Note that this meshes perfectly with the fact that one thing the White House insisted on was the clause allowing "the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States’ without a court’s order or oversight.� And who defines “reasonably�? Why, the President by himself, of course, since the courts aren’t allowed to take part in the process at all.

I think the Dems have indeed just allowed themselves to be very seriously rolled again. And while admittedly most of them in the House did vote against this thing -- with it getting through there because only 41 Democrats voted for it -- the fact still remains that the Dem leadership was asleep at the switch when it failed to trumpet this part of the Bush bill as the seriously objectionable part.

Darryl: Actually, I rarely do radio. I'm not very good at it, and it's annoying anyway because the sound engineers always complain about the voice quality of my telephone line. God only knows what I actually sound like when it finally squirts out the airwaves.

(And yes, I've tried virtually every combination of land line, cordless line, headset, handset, and brand of telephone you can think of. It really does seem to be my line.)

But every once in a while someone asks me to talk about a subject I know something about and to do it at an hour acceptable for someone who lives in the Pacific Time Zone. Today just happened to be such a day.

The only plausible explanation for this turnaround is that they also want to be able to monitor domestic calls without a warrant, something that most certainly is or used to be within the province of the judicial system.

Wrong Kevin. As the White House pointed out, the new law proposed by Bush mandates court approval before monitoring domestic calls that target people in America, just like FISA did.

Link

"Under FISA, court approval is required for the government to target an individual located in the United States, and nothing in the new law changes that"

The question he thinks he's answering: "Should they monitor foreign to foreign calls?"

The actual question FISA courts need to answer: "Can you prove the calls are foreign to foreign? I se that you can. Okay Go!"

sound engineers always complain about the voice quality

...a shot of whiskey 20 minutes before going on.

Nevertheless, Kevin, congratulations and excelsior for being an "edumakated" pundit.

Wait a year and a half, Kevin. Andrew will be in complete agreement when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Sadly, you've got that just about right.

The Black Helicopter crowd morphs into the Jack-Booted Thug crowd when there's a Republican in the White House, and then back for the next Democrat.

It's all part of the Wingnut lifecycle.

Bu-bu-but, Kevin -- what about 9/11 and all those Islamo-fascist evil-doers who want to go commit Islamo-fascist evility, and all those killers who want to kill us because killers kill, and all those witch doctors who want to go do that voodoo that they do so well?

How are we going to protect ourselves, if we don't allow the president unlimited authority to eavesdrop on Bill and Hillary Clinton and all those liberal Democrats who just want to offer these killers psychotherapy and doughnuts and coffee?

The only plausible explanation for this turnaround is that they also want to be able to monitor domestic calls without a warrant, something that most certainly is -- or used to be -- within the province of the judicial system.

If we're both in the US and we're communicating using a service hosted outside the US, that would still be defined as domestic. It's also something the IC would surely like to be able to monitor at will.

Kevin: "... and it's annoying anyway because the sound engineers always complain about the voice quality of my telephone line."

Self-deprecating moment: In this day and age of deregulation, I knew that it was time to change phone service providers when my sister told me that my telephone voice reminded her of Anne Bancroft's Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate.

With their shocking surrender over President Bush's draconian new FISA law this weekend, Congressional Democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They not only had the votes to safeguard American civil liberties and prevent the legalization of past Bush White House criminality. On FISA as we knew it before August 5, 2007, Democrats had the law - and public opinion - on their side.

For the details, see:
"Democrats Snatch Defeat from Jaw of Victory on FISA."

"Bottom line: Nobody wants to handcuff the executive's ability to gather foreign intelligence"

Actually, I'd rather every country with the power to monitor my phone conversations didn't have an unfettered right to do so. This is particularly relevant with the old Echelon system, where GB simply spies on us and hands any good stuff back to the US gov't. I'd rather these abilities were a bit more "handcuffed," myself.

Can someone please link me to a piece by Andrew McCarthy that ISN'T a ridiculously dishonest dodge of the actual issue at hand?

Assuming for the moment that the administration isn't planning on using this new authority simply for blackmail purposes; doesn't this law still go against "unreasonable search and seizures"; at least in regard to any information's use as evidence in a trial?
Suppose a government case is dependent on information that was discovered while tapping someone reasonably (by whose standard?) thought not to be in the US. It is proven that both parties were physically in the US at the time of the exchange; then what happens?
I know the neocon's have been trying to stack the judicial deck, but apparently there have been times when they have gone too far (see Ashcroft, hospital) in their quest to resuscitate the Imperial Presidency; is it all possible that even the present SCOTUS might not side with the government in this instance?
This is probably the most unconstitutional legislation that has passed during the past six years and it pitiful to have to rely on the hope that people appointed to the highest court in the country might actually uphold their oaths of office.

nobody disputes the executive's authority to hold foreign terrorists, we just want judicial review to make sure they're terrorists in the first place

As a foreigner, I'd like to make clear that I dispute that. The claim that constitutional rights apply only to citizens and not to all persons within the jurisdiction of the US Constitution is terrifying.

In other words: the idea that you can deprive *anyone* of liberty after simple judicial review, rather than an actual trial, is a very scary one.

FISA is as worthless as teats on a boar in preventing an al-Qaeda attack. Yes but very useful if you want to evesdrop on your political opponents. I think this law can be streched to allow this. Someone commented on this on another blog. The concept was that if someone called from overseas to someone in the US who was even tangentally connected to someone in the opposition then all that persons, and maybe all the opposition, communications could be monitored.
Back in the USSR!!!

I just can't get over how stupid the Democrats are in allowing this unConstitutional law to pass. Do they think members of al-Qaeda don't know how to read English? That they don't read websites? They are going to know that electronic communications are being monitored? Judas Fucking Priest. How stupid have we become?

Suppose Osama mails a letter via snail mail to an operative living in the U.S. saying, "Blow up LAX on 9-11-07" How is this law going to stop that? God, we have become a nation of idiots. I think I'll move to Norway....

Never fear, citizens! Having at least ASSISTED mightily in "screwing the pooch" during their mad dash to vacation, the Democratic Party has SOLID plans to "fix everything" once the Congress returns from recess. I know I'll be waiting with baited breath!!! [End sarcasm.]

Note: A sturdy pair of hip-waders and oversized air-sickness bag are highly recommended for any full reading of this one:

Pelosi Seeks to Change FISA Bill
[Congressional Quarterly]

Despite the win President Bush scored on legislation expanding the administration's eavesdropping authority, Democrats appear determined to make it a temporary victory.

Barely an hour after the House voted, 227-183, to clear the legislation (S 1927) late Aug. 4, Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a letter calling on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees to "send to the House, as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes, legislation which responds comprehensively to the administration's proposal while addressing the many deficiencies in S 1927." The legislation expires in February. ...
____________

Incidentally, regarding that 6-month "Sunset Provision" ... FUGGED ABOUT IT!:

Eavesdropping Reforms Empower Spy Chief
[Associated Press]
The power may last longer than some people expect ... thanks to a little-noticed provision of the bill. While the law expires in February unless Congress acts to extend it, any surveillance orders that are in place when it sunsets can last up to a full year ...

Suppose Osama mails a letter via snail mail to an operative living in the U.S. saying, "Blow up LAX on 9-11-07" How is this law going to stop that? God, we have become a nation of idiots. I think I'll move to Norway....

CD: Haven't you heard?? They already open private mail under "potentially suspicious" circumstances, INCLUDING plain old letters. (That's been going on, at least sporadically, for YEARS now!)

Just another fine example: "YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!"

Kevin wrote:
Nobody wants to handcuff the executive's ability to gather foreign intelligence.

On the other hand, an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal said:

Opposition from the Democratic left to this intelligence program isn't merely part of the partisan blood feud against a weak President near the end of his term. It is part of a far larger ideological campaign to erode Presidential war powers. Goaded by the ACLU and much of the press corps, many Democrats want to use the courts and lawsuits to restrict Mr. Bush and future Presidents in their ability to gather intelligence in the war on terror. For a flavor of this strategy, spend a few minutes on the ACLU's Web site.

I don't claim that the WSJ is right, but it seemed worthwhile to present the other side of this argument.

As McCarthy surely knows, Democrats were completely on board with modifications to FISA...

As Kevin Drum surely must understand, McCarthy more than likely DOESN'T CARE. His ilk at NR/WS/WSJ/FNC/etc*puke* are not about reaching a better understanding of the issues, or fostering intellingent debate which draws the public into a higher level of participation in the political sphere, or anything but gaining more power and, more importantly, defeating and humiliating their enemies.
That's it.
That's all they've got.
McCarthy doesn't need you to take him seriously. He doesn't give dog poop what you think, unless you become visible enough to become a threat to his cause, at which point you'll be dragged through the mud and publicly slammed as a fag Al-Qaeda loving traitor.
No one should have to point this out any more.

"ex-liberal wrote: I don't claim that the WSJ is right, but it seemed worthwhile to present the other side of this argument.

Sure it did to you, "ex-liberal," because you get a sick thrill out of posting the most disingenuous, bad-faith arguments you can think of -- or, in this case, have the wingnuts at the WSJ think of for you. You're even phoning in your insulting dishonesty today, "ex-liberal."

By the by, "ex-liberal," no one here is fooled by your disclaimer that dishonestly attempts to distance yourself from your embrace of authoritarianism and tyranny. We've seen you embrace it too many times.

We also know you'll change your tune in 2009 when a Democrat takes office, but by then it'll be far too late for you and the disgusting neocon cabal you shill for to rescue yourselves from the garbage bin of history.

Ok, Kevin, please explain this to me. The NSA is monitoring communications (emails, cell phone traffice, internet phone calls, whatever) by a target overseas. That target sends a communication to a person in the US. Is the NSA supposed to hang up the phone and wait until the lawyers can obtain a warrant? If that's not what the congressional Democrats want, then what is it they want? What do you want?

the NSA supposed to hang up the phone and wait until the lawyers can obtain a warrant?

DBL is either ignorant of the fact that the 1978 FISA law allowed warrants to be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact, or dishonestly pretending to be so. Given DBL's record as a partisan Bush cultist, the latter is the likelier.

Gregory,

I'm well aware of after-the-fact FISA warrants, but I don't see how they solve your problem. If the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for the Government to listen in on international communications, then how is that satisfied by getting a warrant ex post facto? Suppose the FISA court says no? How does that protect the person whose rights were violated? Does the NSA then pretend never to have read the email in question?

I take it, though, from your comment that you have no problem with the NSA listening in or reading emails in the manner I've described so long as they get somebody to bless it afterwards.

My view is simple. In 1977, the Supreme Court held in the Ramsey case that the Fourth Amendment does not require a search warrant for the Government to open and inspect international letter mail. IMHO, that case applies to international communications of all kinds. The majority opinion was based on the plenary power of the Government to control the border in order to protect the US against foreign harms. One of those harms might be, as in that case, the shipment of illegal drugs. Another might be the transmission of instructions from Al Qaeda to agents in the US. The Government has plenary power to control the border and traffic across it of all kinds.

Now you could argue that as a policy and statutory matter, the Government's plenary power should be constrained in some manner. That is what the Administration proposed and Congress enacted. If you think the constraints in that legislation were inadequate, you might want to explain why.

I suppose, for example, if you thought that the NSA now has a green light to listen in on the conversations of all MoveOn. or DNC members, that would be pretty offensive. But I don't think that was what the legislation authorized.

Since no constitutional rights are implicated, I don't think any courts - FISA or otherwise -should be involved in any way in the review or approval of these types of international communications. My own view is that the Senate and House Intelligence Committees ought to insist on regular, secret briefings about the types of surveillance being conducted and if they don't like what the Administration is doing, they can propose legislation to fix it.

I'm well aware of after-the-fact FISA warrants

Ah, so then

Is the NSA supposed to hang up the phone and wait until the lawyers can obtain a warrant?

Was just a typical dishonest right-winger -- but I repeat myself -- straw man. Thanks for clarifying. But then, we knew that.

Gregory,

I take it from your non-response that you haven't thought very hard about the issues and don't have a response. When you do get around to reading the cases and thinking about it, we can have a discussion.