Surfing around the internetosphere it seems fairly likely that the administration’s warrantless wiretapping broke the law, and was totally unnecessary. If the government has 72 hours to apply retroactively for a warrant, and secret FISA courts had never rejected an application at the time that the ‘special’ surveillance began, why not do the paperwork? Josh Marshall pointed that out two days ago. Kevin Drum asks the same question today. True to form, John Aravosis has some ideas and isn’t shy about sharing them.
If I wanted to fit this into an ongoing pattern, I’d point out that on general principles the Bush administration absolutely detests keeping a paper trail. Part and parcel with managing government as a political operation includes heading off any potential source of embarrassment, and that means shutting down transparency and keeping stuff that you know in advance might look bad off the books whenever possible.
Now one thing we know is that these guys aren’t too sharp about seeing in advance what might come back to embarrass them, as that last link shows. These days it seems like damage control generally gets applied retroactively. So what sort of thing would they recognize in advance as a potential problem? Something to think about.
Paddy O'Shea
Seems pretty obvious to me, Tim. Bush and his band of merry henchman didn’t want anyone to know who it was they were snooping upon. Like the Kerry campaign, maybe?
Methinks the Senate investigation in January will reveal many interesting things.
TallDave
This is not a big deal, nor is it illegal. All it means is that we capture a terrorist and his cell phone has a bunch of numbers, we started tapping them immediately and review them within 45 days rather than going through the FISA rigmarole and trying to meet a “probable cause” standard.
BTW, had we been doing this before 9/11, Zacharias Moussaoi’s phone would have been tapped and we might not have had 9/11. He was on the list for a wiretap.
I love how lefties complain the admin “didn’t connect the dots” before 9/11, but now that we’ve prevented any terror attacks since 9/11, those same people now want to dismantle the means by which we did so.
And whoever leaked this not only committed high treason, but did a huge favor to terrorists. Can we please get Fitz on a national security investigation that actually matters?
TallDave
and secret FISA courts had never rejected an application at the time that the ‘special’ surveillance began,
That’s technically true, but it’s also fairly meaningless. It does not mean the NSA got every wiretap they wanted. The Justice Department went through them beforehand and weeded out the requests that would have been rejected.
John Cole
Bwahahaha. Where did you get that one, Paddy? The DU?
chef
Please! Is anyone tracking the Bolton connection? Remember his confirmation debacle? There were many allusions to Bolton requests for NSA intercepts.Were these illegal domestic requests?
Some (NSA) Hayden comments warn of political pressure for a) raw intel b) intelligence-unrelated requests. The former smacks of the OSP and Cheney. The latter could be Bolton, trying to spy on Powell, the INR etc.
There may be an immense story here. A very old friend of mine, a prominent Reagan conservative, now believes Cheney (and perhaps Bush) may be impeached if the democrats win the House.
SomeCallMeTim
TallDave:
Please promise me you’ll stay in Redlandia, and out of our Blue states. Jeebus. There is literally nothing you people won’t accept from Bush, as long as he says terror three times.
Perry Como
The President can ignore any law during war time, if that law prevents him from prosecuting the war. The President has every legal authority granted to him by his unenumerated powers in the Constitution.
Paddy O'Shea
Ha ha. Cole didn’t read the articles Tim cited.
And how many times has he accused others of such things?
Doh!
jg
Why aren’t righties complaiing that we didn’t connect the dots? We aren’t they upset about domestic spying? Why are they more upset that a secret was let out? Why is it worse to them that someone blew the whistle on a domestic spying campaign than the administration throwing an agent under the bus for political gain? Why do I even care anymore? No mater what is done there are those who will always think Bush is doing the right thing.
Can someone please show me something that in any way shows that Bush has stopped terorists attacks from happening. If not can righties please stop saying he’s done so? Just because we haven’t been attacked doesn’t mean Bush is effective.
KC
I think it’s totally fair to ask why Bush would want to go around the FISA courts. I’m interested to know if it was just a matter of principle or did they really have other things in mind? They’ve been working to roll back laws they believe hinder the executive branch for a long time now. The Presidential Records Act was made moot by executive order, for example. So, was this action merely another step towards actuating the Nixonian bright-line theory government-the President can do what he wants when he wants without interference of the other branches–or was there something more to it? Has the administration decided not only to follow Nixon’s theory of government, but to act on it as well? Of course, it could all be about terrorism too, though I really don’t understand why they’d have a problem with the FISA courts in that case.
Tulkinghorn
Just like I have the unenumerated right to rob banks whenever I feel like it…
I have lost track of who is on which side of the snark around here, Perry. If you make such a deadpan delivery I can’t tell what side you are on.
DougJ
Tall Dave is right: those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. I welcome government surveillance of all of my communications. All they would learn is that I love America and hate terrorists.
The only reason the left is so upset about this is that they are afraid that their anti-American activities will brought to light. Let’s be clear about this only a terrorist should care about having his phone tapped. If you are against wire tapping without a court order it means that you are probably a terrorist.
Furthermore, if the Dems love privacy rights so much, then why did they support Saddam? There were no privacy rights under Saddam. Now the Iraqi people are free. Freedom is God’s gift to the world. Sometimes in order to be free you have to sacrifice what those on the left describe as “freedom”. Truly, they know nothing about freedom. Many of them do not even own fire arms.
srv
Strawman. There was nothing stopping a wiretap on ZM. The FBI agents screwed up.
What I like is all these folks who ranted for over a day at various sites about how all this is covered under the existing code. It’s a big secret, but it’s in the code? So AQ knows the “foreign agent” stipulation, but misreads the code like the rest of us and figuring it out is treason?
Now they’re saying, oh, it isn’t in that code. It’s a special war powers thing… Right.
Great to see all these repubgs finding their conscience about secrets now… You could paint hypocrite on their forheads and they’d still miss it.
KC
DougJ, nobody–ah fuck it.
Mike S
Davey’s right. We are at war which gives the President unfettered power to do anything he pleases. Of course if it was a Clinton thing things would be far different. One has to wonder what the New Republicans will be saying if Hillary gets elected.
Right again. The fault lies in the leakers for exposing the Presidents refusal to abide by the Constitution.
Doctor Gonzo
What I don’t get is why self-described conservatives aren’t up in arms about the fact that Bush has pretty much said that spying on U.S. citizens without court oversight will be around forever. According to him, he will continue to authorize this “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.” Given the fact that there will always be people who want to kill Americans, doesn’t this mean that he will break the law as long as he wants to?
Remember the Second Amendment, folks? This is why we have it according to conservatives. And yet, people like TallDave think nothing of turning our country into a dictatorship because of an endless war.
srv
Tim, I’ve asked John a couple of times – there is a core to all these administration policies. It’s call Unitary Executvie Theory. It would be nice to have a thread on that sometime.
Doug
What I don’t get about self-described conservatives is that they are so disdainful of the government that they don’t trust its ability to fill potholes or perform any number of other tasks that desperately need to be privatized. And yet, without blinking an eye, many of the same folks will readily agree to warrantless wiretaps by the government, secret prisons administered by the government, and the death penalty imposed by the government.
DougJ
Because they’re a bunch of pansies. They’re afraid to think or act for themselves.
T. Miller
If a Democrat President wiretapped anyone in the US, there would be impeachment hearings within a month.
srv
Doug, you are absolutely correct. All these things need to get privatized.
fwiffo
Yeah, like the attacks we prevented in Spain, and London, and Bali, and elsewhere, and oh, those Anthrax attacks on American soil. How’s that investigation going by the way? Have these warrantless wiretaps tracked down those bastards?
None of the excuses given have come close to justifying this violation of the law and the constitution.
Perry Como
The structure of the Constitution demonstrates that any power traditionally understood as pertaining to the executive — which includes the conduct of warfare and the defense of the nation — only expressly assigned in the Constitution to Congress, is vested in the President. Article II, Section 1 makes this clear by stating that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” That sweeping grant vests in the President and unenumerated “executive power” and contrasts with the specific enumeration of the powers — those “herein” — granted to Congress in Article I.
Ancient Purple
Because placing a phone call to an NSA judge is so difficult.
Congratulations, Dave. You just revealed our King to be the laziest monarch in history.
searp
Interesting that TallDave knows the details of the program. I am sure that he is right. Of course, I have read elsewhere that the program had a capacity for 6,000,000 intercepts a month. That is a lot of terrorist chatter, by Jeebus.
Maybe he could share more details of the program with us? I’d sure like to believe his description, but I don’t.
Paddy O'Shea
Bush has taken a big old dump on the U.S. Consitution, and the likes of Tall Dave and Perry Como can’t wait to see if they will be chosen for the honor of wiping his arse.
Eural
Here’s another one I don’t get about self-described conservatives – they’re all about “strict” interpretation of the Constitution and faithfully conforming to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, right? So the whole idea of checks and balances, limitation of powers and individual liberty (all codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) is just nonsense since Bush and company say it is? This is idiotic – especially when compared to the screaming outrage these same conservatives found over a blowjob or two under Clinton.
In case you don’t get it – the Constitution trumps party loyalty (if you disagree that truly is treasonous).
“If oppression and tyranny come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison
Doug
How long do you figure it would take Halliburton to get wiretap, secret prison, and death penalty divisions up and running?
Phil
I think it’s obvious why they didn’t want to go through the FISA court: ’cause some of the people involved in intercepted communications would be Americans, and you can’t use get a retroactive FISA approval unless you can show that it won’t involve Americans. And maybe they couldn’t do that. Of course, one has to wonder why they didn’t just push for a change in the law.
There’s also a suggestion I’ve seen in a couple places that the spying involves new technology that might be quite powerful but could not be used under FISA. Some sort of keyword searching of all communications to and from Afghanistan perhaps? If that’s the case, and we couldn’t really argue it at all without knowing if its true, then FISA would be a real impediment to its implementation, and even debating the issue in public could compromise national security.
So I guess it come down to how much you trust the Bush Administration. For me, it’s very little. The argument that the authorizing resolution gave him the power to unilaterally change the law is ridiculous.
Brian
Questions/comments for John:
1. Isn’t the President still Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces? (See Article II). Aren’t we at war, a war authorized by Congress? If a German Sub is lurking off the North Carolina Coast, and a U.S. citizen with known ties to German Intelligence was sending a radio message to the sub, must the Navy have first asked a judge if it could “listen in?” Taking another example, did we have to declare war, and receive Congressional approval, before responding to Japan’s attacks on us at Pearl Harbor?
2. If the President has the power to listen in on a resident or citizen treating with the enemy, can Congress take that power away by creating a separate process and purporting to criminalize the President’s exercise of the power Article II gives him. Congress might as well try to take away the President’s power to veto a bill by first making him get approval of his cabinet for such a veto. Or, Congress might as well tell the Supreme Court how to rule on a particular case, or revise that ruling ex post.
3. The President need not abide by laws that infringe on his authority or exceed the Constitution. That’s not just John Yoo — that’s James Madison, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, James Wilson, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson. See also Freytag v. CIR (Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor) stating that President may refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. In the same way, a court need not enforce laws that infringe its authority or exceed the Constitution. That’s John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton. Do Josh Marshall, Kevind Drume, etc., have the law degrees/experience to support their critiques of the law?
4. If some believe that Congress can criminalize the valid exercise of the President’s power as commander-in-chief, they apparently think that Congress has limitless power and need not actually adhere to the Constitution. Now, is THAT not truly frightening?
5. Most searches and seizures have probably taken place WITHOUT warrants. For instance, police can arrest felons (a seizure), even if they could easily obtain a warrant first (maybe they have the house surrounded), without getting a warrant. They may then hold the felon for 48 hours before going before a magistrate. After arresting the felon they may search his person and effects “incident to arrest” with no probable cause whatsoever.
6. Did the Clinton admin. not have Conresssionally approved surveillance occuring prior to 2000? Was “Carnivore” not a similarly constructed method of surveillance?
7. OBM declared a fatwa (a.k.a. War) against America as early as 1998. This was not reciprocated until October, 2001. Are we still at war? If not, when did it end? If we are, when should it end?
8. Are these leaks regarding our national security tipping our hand to the enemy? Are we creating an L.A. Law-style of political gotcha that exposes our military activities and attempting to provide our civil liberties to our enemies?
ppGaz
We are not keeping our eye on the ball here. Check out the WashingtonMonthly thread. FISA gives these creeps every tool they need to exactly what the president is talking about. So they aren’t circumventing FISA to “get the job done.” They are circumventing FISA because they want to circumvent FISA. That means they don’t want oversight and don’t want a paper trail.
Bush is absolutely lying. He lied through his teeth today, there is NOTHING he needs to do to deal with the terrorists which he is held back from doing by FISA. His “we have to act quickly” defense is a bald-faced lie. The law lets him get retroactive approval through the established process. He needn’t wait, or let a bad guy slip through the cracks because of process delays.
It’s a blatant lie, and the reason for the blatant lie basically has to be one of two things: Covering up, as I suggested above, or …. he is just using this as a political wedge now. It’s a ploy designed to provide material for future political campaigns. It has nothing to do with protecting this country from anybody.
searp
Phil: it does boil down to an issue of trust. This is not the way the government should operate – law, not trust, is what should guide the government. If there is a problem with the law, fix it.
NSA has done keyword spotting forever. I’d say there is something in the scope of the program that would horrify a judge, or that some of the targeted individuals simply weren’t terrorists.
Bernard Yomtov
John,
Maybe they weren’t listening to the Kerry campaign. But how can you explain the unwillingness to use the FISA court – which is extremely accommodating – unless they really were snooping where they had absolutely no business? Isn’t that the simplest and most likely explanation?
Doctor Gonzo
The other thing that I don’t get is how anybody can say that revealing this program helps the terrorists. There are two kinds of terrorists out there: smart terrorists and dumb terrorists. Smart terrorists already know that their communication is being monitored, so hearing that Bush authorized monitoring without court oversight tells the terrorists nothing new. Dumb terrorists, on the other hand, may not act as if their communication is being monitored, but we really don’t need to worry about them.
Doug
To quote Mr. Bush himself:
And, to quote Mr. Bush once again:
The man has no credibility. Forgive me for not being comfortable when Mr. Bush says “trust me” when it comes to wiretapping U.S. citizens without a warrant or any other kind of review.
ats
“what if a German sub. . .”
Wow!
But what if the government elected to spy on Quaker schools? Oops, that really IS happening. And that tells me all I need to know about where the line is being drawn by GW Bush.
KC
Wow. Is Perry Como a leftist communist? I’m sorry, but from a very conservative, very constructionist point view, I fail to see in the Constitution granting these sweeping executive powers to the president that he’s seeing.
First, the power to declare war is located in Article 1 of the constitution, the part that delineates congressional powers. Article 1 also grants Congress the power to “raise and support Armies,” “provide and maintain a Navy,” and authorizes Congress to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval forces.” It also gives Congress the power to punish “offenses against the law of nations,” establish “rules concerning captures on land and water,” and suspend habeas corpus “in cases of rebellion or invasion.”
On the other hand, in Article 2, the president is deemed “commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States.” While the second Article also allows the president to make appointments make treaties, all of these actions are qualifed by the Senate’s authority to advise and consent to such actions. In essence, other than general management of the army and navy, the president’s so-called war powers are circumscribed (keep in mind, our founders did not want a king) by Congress’s ability to set rules governmening the military, declare war, and determine when habeas corpus rights are suspended.
Of course, in practice, presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt took actions at the height of war that, from a constructionist point of view, were outside the legal mandate of the constitution. These precedents, however, don’t mean president Bush should do the same. Indeed, perhaps its time we ask Congress to assert its war powers and ask the president to step off for a change?
Paul Wartenberg
I’m copying/pasting TallDave’s quote. BTW, how can I do that gray quote-within-a-quote thing you do? Use the brackets?
“…This is not a big deal, nor is it illegal…”
For wiretapping in general, under the FISA, you’re right. The big deal is that Bush and Co. didn’t even use FISA to do this: the wiretapping in question were without warrant. The illegality is from Bush and Co. not working within the established rules to commit acts that would have been legal IF ONLY THEY HAD DONE THE PAPERWORK.
“…All it means is that we capture a terrorist and his cell phone has a bunch of numbers, we started tapping them immediately and review them within 45 days rather than going through the FISA rigmarole and trying to meet a “probable cause” standard…”
I’m sorry, if we capture a known terrorist and get phone numbers pulled from his calling history (there’s a cop term for it, can’t remember it right now), there’s enough probable cause right there to get a warrant to trace those numbers and wiretap them. The rigmarole as you call it is done on a daily basis: from what I’ve read there were 1724 wiretap requests in 2003. If those 1724 went through the rigmarole why didn’t the warrantless ones do?
“…BTW, had we been doing this before 9/11, Zacharias Moussaoi’s phone would have been tapped and we might not have had 9/11. He was on the list for a wiretap…”
Oddly enough, the FISA law has been in existence since, what, 1979? We HAD this before 9/11. The failure to tap Moussaoi’s phoneline has more to do with bureaucratic slowness than with a lack of ability to get wiretaps.
“…I love how lefties complain the admin “didn’t connect the dots” before 9/11, but now that we’ve prevented any terror attacks since 9/11, those same people now want to dismantle the means by which we did so…”
By the by, please note the number of Republican Senators who are upset about this. How many of them are lefties (or even, Spaghetti Monster forbid, RINOs)? How many libertarians are upset about the Bushies disregard for the Fourth Amendment and the system of Checks and Balances?
And if Bush had questions about the effectiveness of FISA, about the speed in which his people needed to get wiretaps, why didn’t he go to Congress and get the law changed? Why didn’t the Patriot Act include wording to make FISA more responsive to his needs? He had at the time a Congress more than willing to pass laws to fight the War on Terror. Why didn’t he just change the law when he had opportunity to do so?
“…And whoever leaked this not only committed high treason, but did a huge favor to terrorists. Can we please get Fitz on a national security investigation that actually matters?”
Whoever leaked this probably did indeed violate national security laws. But guess what? Without whistleblowers revealing the bigger crime (violating the Constitution), we wouldn’t have known about this. You need to balance the question of justice here by recognizing which is the greater crime. To my mind, failing to use legal channels to obtain warrants that they could have easily gotten, the Bush Administration violated the Fourth Amendment. That is a very serious crime.
Brian
Gaz,
Enough posturing. Where would you like this all to lead? Do you want an investigation into the matter? Do you want to know who they’re been monitoring? Let’s face it, the damage is done to our security, so let’s get all the evidence on the table. Does Bush look or seem concerned about people like you? You want a fight over this, then don’t stop with calling him a liar who’s perpetuating a coverup. If any side’s using this issue as a wedge, I’d say it’s the Left.
Are you willing to see a full accountability of this matter? And, while we’re at it, can we also find out why the NYT sat on the story for a year?
Thanks
chef
“”Like the Kerry campaign, maybe?’Bwahahaha. Where did you get that one, Paddy? The DU?”
John’s right. What a silly notion–that a Republican administration would ever spy on the Democratic opposition! Next thing Paddy will cook up is a supposed break-in at the DNC at a Howard Johnson’s. What an imagination!
Perry Como
Finally someone is talking some sense.
Brian Says:
Exactly! When Madison and Jefferson were discussing the formation of a democratic republic, one thing they knew is that the survival of the republic depended on the unfettered power of the President in a time of war. Only by ceding absolute authority to the Executive branch could our democracy be best looked after.
Brian Says:
Bingo. Now terrorists know that the President doesn’t have to get a warrant to tap their communications. I loathe to think what the terrorists will do know that they realize their communications can be surveilled without any need for a warrant.
TM Lutas
Paper trails reduce responsiveness, lengthen OODA cycles and probably cost us successful military strikes on OBL in Afghanistan. There’s a certain amount of stuff that you can afford to lengthen out and bureaucratize to provide that paper trail. To get that FISA 100% rating, it seems to mean giving the target 6 months of non-monitoring while the briefs are prepared.
The President has made the determination that 6 months of paperwork while a lead grows cold jeapordizes our war effort and came up with an alternative oversight structure. It’s not correct to say that there is no paper trail. There is no *judicial* paper trail. There is legislative oversight and executive oversight starting with the President having to personally authorize these sorts of taps.
The minority heads of the Intelligence committees and the minority leaders of both houses were all told about this program and some concerns were raised and apparently addressed. So when did Daschle know and when did he know it? When did Reid and Pelosi find out? Absent a NY Times article, why wasn’t Sen. Rockefeller filing suit in FISA court to restore judicial oversight? Everybody involved would have had appropriate clearances and operational security could have been maintained.
So why didn’t the Democrats do it? Maybe President Bush’s program isn’t as unconstitutional as his political enemies make out.
Paddy O'Shea
Bernard: Since warrants are (soon: were) so ridiculously easy for the bush Admin to obtain under the Patriot Act, why would Bush shine off that process unless he was snooping on folks he didn’t want the courts to know about?
What are the categories of people the court would not be all that happy about should they learn that Bush has been listening to their phone calls or reading their e-mails?
1) Members of Congress
2) American journalists.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office because of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee offices at the the Watergate.
Could you imagine what he would have done had the kind of technology the NSA possesses existed in the early ’70s?
Can you be 100% certain that George W. Bush wouldn’t use that kind of technology to spy on his political opponents?
I’m not.
Tim F.
Paul W,
If you’re using a PC, highlight the text you want to box and push the grey ‘b-quote’ button above the comment box. If you’re using a Mac, switch.
heh heh.
SomeCallMeTim
Brian:
You’re a fucking idiot. Seriously. You’re assuming the answer to the question being raised: are there any constraints on the Executive in a time of war? In what world, particularly in light of a possible endless War Against an Indefinite Noun, is this answer not obvious to any American?
Do us all a favor and move to Argentina.
ppGaz
It’s a big deal for this reason: Bush is lying to you.
FISA is not about “getting approval.” It’s about oversight, even after the fact. Bush does not have to wait, as he claimed today, before going after information. He can go after it and come back the next day and get the stamp of approval he needs from the FISA judge. For what? So that a paper trail exists.
The man just lied right to your face. He does not need approval, he needs oversight. He is not circumventing the process because he can’t act without approval, he is doing it to avoid oversight.
The fact that he wants to avoid oversight by itself is reason enough to insist on the oversight. FISA was put together by intelligence wonks, it works very well. There is no reason to reinvent it now …. unless you are trying to hide something.
Jorge
“Does Bush look or seem concerned about people like you?”
Translates into – the only people that should be worried about illegal searches are terrorists. So, if you aren’t a terrorist, you shouldn’t be worried.
Either way – it seems like there is no actual factual argument that these wire taps are legal. So, now Bush defenders have moved on to emotional arguments about “safety.” But hey, I would love for this investigation to go all out. Because we have whistle blower laws. I’d love to see what kind of charges get filled against the person who divulged this info if it turns out that they blew the whistle on criminal, anti-constitutional searches.
Brian
ats,
That is all you could take from my lengthy post? Grow up. You’re only being another embarassment to your Leftist peers.
jg
From a email on Altercation, we’ve been here before:
“As illustrated by a flood of cases before us this Term, e. g., Laird v. Tatum, No. 71-288; Gelbard v. United States, No. 71-110; United States v. Egan, No. 71-263; United States v. Caldwell, No. 70-57; United States v. Gravel, No. 71-1026; Kleindienst v. Mandel, No. 71-16; we are currently in the throes of another national seizure of paranoia, resembling the hysteria which surrounded the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Palmer Raids, and the McCarthy era. Those who register dissent or who petition their governments for redress are subjected to scrutiny by grand juries, 7 by the FBI, 8 or even by the military. 9 Their associates are interrogated. [407 U.S. 297, 330] Their homes are bugged and their telephones are wiretapped. They are befriended by secret government informers. 10 Their patriotism and loyalty are questioned. 11 [407 U.S. 297, 331] Senator Sam Ervin, who has chaired hearings on military surveillance of civilian dissidents, warns that “it is not an exaggeration to talk in terms of hundreds of thousands of . . . dossiers.” 12 Senator Kennedy, as mentioned supra, found “the frightening possibility that the conversations of untold thousands are being monitored on secret devices.” More than our privacy is implicated. Also at stake is the reach of the Government’s power to intimidate its critics. “When the Executive attempts to excuse these tactics as essential to its defense against internal subversion, we are obliged to remind it, without apology, of this Court’s long commitment to the preservation of the Bill of Rights from the corrosive environment of precisely such expedients. 13 [407 U.S. 297, 332] As Justice Brandeis said, concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 : “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” Chief Justice Warren put it this way in United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 : “[T]his concept of `national defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any . . . power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term `national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which [make] the defense of the Nation worthwhile.” “The Warrant Clause has stood as a barrier against intrusions by officialdom into the privacies of life. But if that barrier were lowered now to permit suspected subversives’ most intimate conversations to be pillaged then why could not their abodes or mail be secretly searched by the same authority? To defeat so terrifying a claim of inherent power we need only stand by the enduring values served by the Fourth Amendment. As we stated last Term in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 : “In times of unrest, whether caused by crime or racial conflict or fear of internal subversion, this basic law [407 U.S. 297, 333] and the values that it represents may appear unrealistic or `extravagant’ to some. But the values were those of the authors of our fundamental constitutional concepts. In times not altogether unlike our own they won . . . a right of personal security against arbitrary intrusions . . . . If times have changed, reducing everyman’s scope to do as he pleases in an urban and industrial world, the changes have made the values served by the Fourth Amendment more, not less, important.” We have as much or more to fear from the erosion of our sense of privacy and independence by the omnipresent electronic ear of the Government as we do from the likelihood that fomenters of domestic upheaval will modify our form of governing.”
driveby poster
If a Democrat President wiretapped anyone in the US, there would be impeachment hearings within a month.
Oh man, how soon we forget:
and..
and..
Those who forget history probably don’t have a Lexis/Nexus account…
Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton”
tah
Doctor Gonzo
[quote]Now terrorists know that the President doesn’t have to get a warrant to tap their communications. I loathe to think what the terrorists will do know that they realize their communications can be surveilled without any need for a warrant.[/quote]
You can’t be serious. Please, tell me you aren’t serious.
Do you think that terrorists were somehow aware of when warrants were issued to track them under FISA? Is that why you think that Bush broke the law and didn’t get warrants, because otherwise the terrorists would know? My God, this tells the terrorists nothing other than the fact that Bush has the same contempt for democracy that they do.
If law enforcement officials captured a terrorist’s cell phone, they could immediately start monitoring and go to the FISA court within 72 hours and get a warrant, with no problems whatsoever. I’m not even going to address the stupid “subs off the coast” argument; honestly. Once again, Bush is doing this not because he needs to, but because he is hiding something.
KC
I see Como is still running with his very activist interpretation of the constitution respecting presidential war powers. Typical liberal.
Steve
I am with Tim in that I don’t see how the ability to get retroactive approval within 72 hours doesn’t simply end the debate right there. There is not a chance in hell that if the administration went to a FISA court and said “we captured this terrorist’s cell phone, and we had to start wiretapping immediately,” the court would somehow say that wasn’t sufficient probable cause. The only reason you wouldn’t go to the court after the fact is if you couldn’t make the case that the wiretapping was legal.
I also think the statute of limitations has officially run out on the argument that “questioning the President makes us less safe,” and the diehard Bushbots need to find a new argument. This is not a case where the media revealed some super-secret spying technology that we were using to track terrorists; all they revealed is that the administration is sidestepping the warrant requirement. Looking at it from the terrorist’s point of view, it goes like this:
BEFORE: “The government may tap our phones, but they have to obtain secret approval from a rubber-stamp FISA court first, or at least within 72 hours after the fact.”
AFTER: “It turns out the government may tap our phones, without getting anyone’s approval.”
Can anyone explain to me why we are “less safe” now that this practice has been exposed? Were terrorists really sharing their plans freely on tapped lines because they believed those lines could only be tapped with FISA approval, and now they know to shut up? Does anyone actually believe that?
Brian
Tim writes:
“Brian:
You’re a fucking idiot. Seriously. You’re assuming the answer to the question being raised: are there any constraints on the Executive in a time of war? In what world, particularly in light of a possible endless War Against an Indefinite Noun, is this answer not obvious to any American?
Do us all a favor and move to Argentina.”
Can you translate this for me? I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Can you please stay away from the epithets or the irrelevant prose like telling me to move to another country.
John,
Is this the culture you want on your site? If so, I’ll pull you out of my bookmars and move on. It’s like a fucking remedial junior high school with some of your flock.
Perry Como
KC Says:
A conservative point of view from a leftist. As if!
All you need to know about the President’s unenumerated powers is in Article 2, Section 1:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
That gives the President sweeping authority in a time of war.
Cromagnon
Bubble-boy complaining about leakers yet Rove still has a job… Thats rich!
Mike S
This whole thing has proven something I’ve been saying for years now. The “principles” the New Republicans claim to have are a sham.
TallDave
DougJ
If you are against wire tapping without a court order it means that you are probably a terrorist.
If your name is DougJ, you’re probably an idiot.
Strawman. There was nothing stopping a wiretap on ZM. The FBI agents screwed up.
Wrong. There was the FISA probable cause standard. The DOJ screened the request out.
Brian
No Jorge, it translates into “Bush is pushing back on the issue because he is confident that what he did was correct, and that the evidence will prove this”. We also have anti-treason laws to go with your whistleblower laws (can you name on of those off the top of your head, or do you only LIKE playing lawyer?
BTW — is it pronounced “George” (as in George W.) or “Whore-Hey” (as in, well, whore)?
ppGaz
If you are talking to me, then my handle is ppGaz.
I don’t answer to ‘Gaz’.
He looks like an alcoholic lying motherfucker, just like he always has. Because that is what he is.
You ain’t seen nothing yet. This story is going to cut deep, and of course, it’s just the beginning of the world of crap that 2006 is going to bring down on their heads there in the White House. Their party is over.
The entire purpose of FISA is accountability. So you might want to think twice about lecturing anybody on the subject of accountability in this context.
The NYT sat on the story because the White House apparently asked them to.
Pay attention, for crissakes.
TallDave
Also, srv, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
TallDave
Gaz,
Isn’t it time for your meds?
Brian
pp:
If anyone’s lecturing here, it’s you. As with other threads, you throw epithets about, and patronize, but offer nothing of substance. There are long posts, lots of juvenile language, plenty of tough talk, but no calories.
On your playground, I’d call you a pussy. Is that language you can understand?
DougJ
What do you think of this, Dave?
From http://macsmind.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-no-more-mr-nice-guy.html
I’m glad the right-wing blogs are advocating rounding peole up. There’s nothing the American people like more than a good old-fashioned round-up.
Jorge
“Bubble-boy complaining about leakers yet Rove still has a job… Thats rich!”
Did you notice that the administration just nominated Viveca Novak’s husband to the FEC?
ppGaz
Go fuck yourself, Dave. Seriously, go fuck yourself.
No, I mean it. Go fuck yourself.
Really, I am not kidding. Go fuck yourself.
TallDave
Why aren’t righties complaiing that we didn’t connect the dots? We aren’t they upset about domestic spying? Why are they more upset that a secret was let out? Why is it worse to them that someone blew the whistle on a domestic spying campaign than the administration throwing an agent under the bus for political gain?
1) Are, and did. Thus the NSA program as part of the solution.
2) Because it only spies on terrorists and is reviewed every 45 days.
3) Because they don’t want to be killed by terrorists
4) See #3. Also, last I saw Plame was doing a spread in a magazine, not under a bus. Have you guys admitted Wilson lied yet?
Brian
pp:
If we want any shit from you, we’ll squeeze your head.
ppGaz
I’m “posturing” and then “lecturing.”
Wow, I must be really important.
Or, I could just be right. Time will tell, eh?
Imagine that I’d say a guy who is believed by a majority of Americans to have deliberately misled them about Iraq … is lying. I must be some BAAAD MOTHERFUCKER, right?
Where do all of you lame rightwing putzes come from?
Mike S
ppGaz
Don’t let the professional talking point bukkakeist upset you. Instead you should pity him for being what he is.
Jorge
Brian,
It really is funny that you complained about the junior high school mentality of these boards and then proceeded to make the quick jump to link my name to the word “whore.” An insult which I heard clear through college but which peaked in – you guessed it – junior high. But yes, I use the Spanish pronounciation of my name.
As far as anti-treason laws – As I said in my post, I would love to see what kind of charges would get brought up against the person who exposed illegal spying on American citizens by the executive office. Of course, if the wire taps are not illegal then it could be treason. But, to make that distinction we will need a full investigation of the actual wire taps themselves.
Ancient Purple
Oh, pul-heez!
It doesn’t take more than 90 seconds to call an NSA judge and get a warrant to tap a line and find out where OBL is and launch a strike.
You all kill me. Your miserable lives are so precious you are willing to sell off your civil and constitutional rights to get a blanket of faux security.
Jesus, could you possible be much more of a coward?
Steve
What I don’t get is how Perry Como can pull the same old DougJ routine (not nearly as well, mind you) that we’ve seen a million times, and yet people still fall for it. I guess it wouldn’t be any fun if they didn’t.
ppGaz
Upset me? I am not the least upset. As a matter of fact I just had a nice lunch and played with my 7-month-old granddaughter. We played “chase the kitty” up and down the hallway much to her delight.
It’s 70 degrees outside and it’s a beautiful day, and those lying cocksuckers are stuck with that smirking little alocholic piece of shit as the basis for everything they say, think, and do. That’s their problem, not mine.
Jorge
“Also, last I saw Plame was doing a spread in a magazine, not under a bus.”
Was this before or after she was outed?
” Have you guys admitted Wilson lied yet?”
This is relevant to the leak why. Yes, I know this line of reasoning is designed to make Wilson look bad and unsympathetic. We all know how it works. But how exactly does that make it any less of a crime to out and undercover agent and/or to lie to a grand jury and attempt to corrupt a federal invesigation?
And yes – to be clear – we all know that you want us to believe Wilson is an awful, lying man. But see, that still doesn’t really have any direct or even indirect impact on revealing his wife’s occupation to reporters. No impact.
Bernard Yomtov
Paddy,
I think you misunderstood my comment.
I definitely agree that the likeliest reason Bush did not use the FISA court is that he wanted to monitor conversations he had no business monitoring – to the extent that he thought he would not get permission from the very lenient court.
I further agree that I don’t want him, or any future President, doing that.
Whether the conversations in question were those of journalists, political opponents, war opponents, or whoever, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. If the court won’t allow it he shouldn’t do it.
jack
“If a Democrat President wiretapped anyone in the US, there would be impeachment hearings within a month”
A Democrat President put American citizens in concentration–oh, wait– internment camps. No habeas corpus, no rights, no nothing.
And you people whine about the Internment and hold it out as an example of ‘racist America’–and it was YOUR lefty icon that did it.
Get real.
jg
How do you know it only spies on terrorists? Its been pointed out many times that the only reason to circumvent the FISA is if you don’t want it known who you’re spying on. No FISA, no paper trail, no record of who they spied on and what was learned. You’re belief they only spy on terrorists is based on what? Faith?
How loose is the definition of terrorist anyway? Does it include those who aid terrorists? Now we’ve just expanded the number of people eligible for spying based on a subjective measurement. Nice.
It’s ok because I’m not a terrorist or a sympathiser though.
Perry Como
The scary thing is that this post is actual text from the Bybee memo. That’s what the administration’s actual arguments are regarding Presidential authority. My favorite part about this episode of administration bugfuckery is people who cite Jefferson when they talk about support for unrestrained executive power. Hell, the Bybee memo selectively quotes the Federalist papers, completely out of context.
Ancient Purple
Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus.
So what is your point?
Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were dead wrong in doing so.
jg
TallDave
Jorge,
I didn’t bring it up, except in the context of important security breach vs trivial security breach.
The fact is, Wilson lied on several counts. That’s not “what I want you to believe,” it’s a provable fact. It’s documented in a Senate report. In the course of exposing him as a liar, someone pointed out that his wife worked a non-undercover desk job in the CIA and recommended him for the job, which he also lied about. His wife’s job was directly relevant to his false claims.
Mike S
Classic example of why New Republicans are fucking morons. (doesn’t know) Jack uses an example that every Democrat agrees was a disgusting thing and acts as if we all cheer it. The only person who has defended it is the shrill Michele Malkin. Maybe Jack is stupid enough to think she represents the left but intelligent people know she doesn’t.
Brian
Grandpa PP is enjoying his day, so now we all can.
Jorge, the word “whore” is used fairly commonly. If you got out more, you’d know this. A better example of jr. high sensibilities and poor literacy can be found in Papa PP’s comment: “those lying cocksuckers are stuck with that smirking little alocholic piece of shit”
What better example of the convergence of low-brow cultural upbringing and unhinged Leftist ideology can be found?
If I may psychoanalyze a bit, a few years ago a Rutgers socioligist offered an insight into the left-wing psychology, saying:
“[Left-wing activists] were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .
The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one’s own ideas on the line.”
See, no ideas put forth, ever. Only accusations, smarmy language, bumper-sticker slogans, etc. Nothing to offer. NOTHING.
TallDave
jg,
How do you know it only spies on terrorists?
LOL Are you calling the NSA liars?
Ancient Purple
I don’t know if they are or not. How about they keep a paper trail and then we can see for ourselves?
Doctor Gonzo
Honestly, that describes just about every far-right person I know of. Especially the narcissism, the obsession with power, and the need for radical ideologies that offer clear answers, i.e. “You are either with us or against us.”
I know of very few Liberals that are obsessed with power or seek rigid ideologies.
TallDave
Perry Como Says:
Brian Says:
Are these leaks regarding our national security tipping our hand to the enemy?
Bingo. Now terrorists know that the President doesn’t have to get a warrant to tap their communications. I loathe to think what the terrorists will do know that they realize their communications can be surveilled without any need for a warrant.
EXACTLY!! We may have just severed our best tool for gaining intel on terrorist plots. This is very, very bad. This may result in Americans dying
I’m glad a couple people here get it.
TallDave
I don’t know if they are or not. How about they keep a paper trail and then we can see for ourselves?
What did you think the 45 day review was for?
Come on people, try to keep up.
Perry Como
Some of the people in the NSA are saying the NSA is doing something that may be shady.
Why does the NSA hate America?
DougJ
Let me know when they start rounding people up, TallDave.
TallDave
DougJ,
I wouldn’t wait. You should flee the country now, before Bush’s Gestapo catches you.
Slide
Tall Dave keeps saying the wiretaps are reviewed every 45 days. By whom? Let me answer, members of the Executive Branch. That is not a check and balance Tall Dave, let me educate you a bit. In the USA we have three independent branches of government. Checks and balances means one branch has a check over another Branch. (i.e. President nominates Supreme Court nominee but the Senate can check that choice) FBI can seek a warrant but the Judiciary can check that request.
I know this is civics 101 but judging from some of the comments here it may be necessary. Notifying Congress, if that is what they really did as Senator Graham, chairman of the Intelligence Committee denys that, is not a check. Going to a FISA judge now that is a check. This is basic stuff. Its there for a reason. A good reason. Without it the chance for abuse is huge. It would be too easy to be eavesdropping on your political opponents. And this is EXACTLY the type of administration that would do that.
Paul Wartenberg
Thanks for the tip on blockquoting.
Perry Como says:
Um, actually that just says the President of the United States is head of the Executive branch of the federal government. That he enforces and abides by the laws passed by Legislature (Congress), and enforces and abides by the laws interpreted by the Judiciary (Supreme Court).
I think you need to spell out a more specific part of Article II, such as the President’s job as Commander-in-Chief, and see if there is anything there that specifically spells out the President’s ability to place himself above the law during times of war. You also need to spell out the parts of Article I concerning Congress’s authority during times of war, and you should also provide some space for the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to the need to have warrants.
If you have enough time on your hands, you could also enrich our knowledge of similar case histories, such as Lincoln’s attempt to suspend habeus corpus during the Civil War, and Congress’s argument that the power to do so rested with them.
Hope this won’t cut into too much of your research time.
jg
No I’m asking you a question?
Does any of that change what he found in Niger? All that you say is nothing but chewbacca defense designed to keep you from having to address the basic fact. Bush knew better when he said in the SOTU that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger. Whether his wife sent him or recommended him or Micheal Moore sent him. He found out there was nothing of substance there and Bush acted like the affair was cassus belli.
Same thing here. You’re finding noise to distract you from basic facts. You’re taking people at thier word after they circumvented the apparatus that provides oversight so we don’t need to take them at their word.
YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT FROM A DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATION. You would cry foul just on the appearance of impropriety. The real problem is it shouldn’t be accepted from any administration. Its not a partisan issue.
DougJ
TallDave, if Bush starting rounding people up, you’d defend him. You know you would. You’d say it was necessary for national security and misquote some old statute that supposedly justified it.
Just admit you’re a whore for Rove-Cheney administration and be done with it.
Jorge
“In the course of exposing him as a liar, someone pointed out that his wife worked a non-undercover desk job in the CIA and recommended him for the job, which he also lied about. His wife’s job was directly relevant to his false claims.”
From Fitzgeralds indictment of Libby
“At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”
The facts that she worked at a CIA front company, that her employment status was classified, and that it was not known outside of the intelligence community are quite a bit more grave than trying to make it seem like she a desk jockey at Langley who went out for Martinis wearing her CIA badge.
At the end of the day, revealing classified information about NOC CIA agents is a crime. Whether Wilson lied or not is irrelevant. The only reason that theory is pushed is to distract from the leak of her name to reporters.
Brian
Eavesdropped on an Islamic chatroom:
“Use their systems, passports, citizenship, laws, traditions, books and media, create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength.”
– Abul ala’ – Al-Ansar chat room, September 2005.
Call the ACLU to get Abul’s right to privacy protected.
TallDave
Slide,
Aside form the irrelevant kiddy civics stuff (we don’t need a check or balance every time the executive branch sneezes), your comment really boils down to:
It would be too easy to be eavesdropping on your political opponents. And this is EXACTLY the type of administration that would do that.
So basically, you don’t like this program because you don’t like Bush.
Slide
As others have demonstrated here and elsewhere, there is no logical reason why the administration would not go to a FISA judge to get the required warrant, whether before or after they began monitoring the communication. What are they hiding? Who are they eavesdropping on? The President says everyone they tapped had ties to Al Qaeda. NYT’s said there would thousands of wiretaps. So, can we conclude that their are thousands of al Qaeda associates in the USA? I don’t believe them for a moment. This administration has zero credibility. What are these criminals hiding?
TallDave
DougJ,
TallDave, if Bush starting rounding people up, you’d defend him.
That’s right. You better leave now, cause I’m a GOP donor and I’m submitting your name to be one of the first dangerous subversives we “disappear.”
Bwahahahahaaha!
Perry Como
There have been rumblings about an idea on the internets that the reason FISA was bypassed was that FISA is too slow to respond. I can think of a scenario where this actually makes sense, and President Bush’s language at the press conference this morning reinforces the idea.
TIA. Total Information Awareness was a program that was started sometime after 9/11 and headed by Admiral Poindexter. The goal was to gather all data in order to predict patterns and the like. The President said that they were still using FISA, but they also went around FISA to “detect” communications. The choice of the word “detect” puts a new spin on what may be going on.
If you are data mining for patterns that are trying to map out terrorist networks, you may not need to necessarily eavesdrop on the communication itself. What you can do is come up with some statistical probability that a series of communications fits a terrorist pattern. The President was clear to say that we need the ability to move faster than FISA requirements allow. If you are mapping where the communications are going, in this instance from the US to someplace that is not the US, but you are not actually monitoring the contents of the communication, it makes no sense applying for a FISA warrant.
In fact, considering the amount of data that would need to be gathered to create something statistically significant, FISA warrants *would* be a hinderance due to the massive number that would need to be applied for.
This is purely speculation and I’ve seen a few other blogs touch on the idea.
Perry Como
btw, that last post isn’t a troll. I’ve already bagged my thread limit.
Slide
Tall Dave missing the point says:
sorry, violating the Fourth Amendment and having the government intude on the privacy of Americans without just cause is not sneezing. How lightly you take our very basic rights.
Dave contiunes:
No, I wouldn’t like ANY president violating the Fourth Amendment. My not liking Bush is quite true but irrelevant in this argument.
TallDave
Jorge,
LOL Yeah, I bet Fitz was mad when Woodward blew that statement right out of the water.
The NOC statute is very specific. The CIA must be actively working to maintain her cover. When you send your husband on a public mission and then he write not just an op-ed but a book about it, you aren’t trying very hard to remain secret. Sorry, if that dog could hunt someone would be indicted for actually leaking her name, instead of not accurately remembering a conversation.
Jorge
“Jorge, the word “whore” is used fairly commonly. If you got out more, you’d know this. ”
Brian,
You’re right, I don’t get around places where the word “whore” is used commonly and is considered a polite term. I must admit that I am constantly amazed by your desire to make these conversations so personal. Considering that we really don’t anything about each other’s personal lives or personalities outside of the fact that we like to waste a bit of time in these internet word games – I’m not sure why you chose to lower our internet verbal jousting into these personal attacks.
Well, cheers. I’m off to start my Christmas vacation and I won’t be posting much. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all.
Paul Wartenberg
EXACTLY!! We may have just severed our best tool for gaining intel on terrorist plots. This is very, very bad. This may result in Americans dying
I’m glad a couple people here get it.
Ah, well, Americans are already dying. The question is, does revealing the warrantless wiretapping make it worse?
Don’t terrorists have other methods of communication they already use that are harder for gov’ts to trace? Didn’t terrorists already know that wiretapping was a high probability, considering how they always talked in code to make it harder for anyone listening in to decipher what they were planning? Didn’t I see a Sopranos episode where they demonstrated a cellphone call that used a one-time-only phone number to avoid possible wiretapping and they claimed that Al-Qaida used the same setup? Is wiretapping really our best intel tool (when it’s more likely getting our people to infiltrate the cells and getting inside info would be most effective though admittedly tougher to accomplish)?
What are the odds that this ‘leak’ regarding wiretapping changed anything the terrorists are already doing?
TallDave
Slide,
sorry, violating the Fourth Amendment and having the government intude on the privacy of Americans without just cause is not sneezing. How lightly you take our very basic rights.
I also enjoy the right to not be blown up terrorists. It’s a balancing act.
Jorge
Woodward – really? His credibility is sooo good right now about this investigation. ;) Oh well, last one I promise. Thanks for keeping it above the belt Talldave. God bless you and yours this Christmas.
TallDave
Jorge,
His “credibility?” You mean because libs are mad he screwed up Fitz’ indictment?
jg
Does any of that change what he found in Niger? All that you say is nothing but chewbacca defense designed to keep you from having to address the basic fact. Bush knew better when he said in the SOTU that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger. Whether his wife sent him or recommended him or Micheal Moore sent him. He found out there was nothing of substance there and Bush acted like the affair was cassus belli.
Slide
the word IMPEACHMENT is going to be heard more and more over the coming weeks. These are high crimes by any standard that goes right to the heart of what America stands for. This criminal president sees no restraint on Presidential power. He is making a lot of Republicans nervous. You don’t hear many GOP congressman out there supporting the President on this do you? You do hear from republicans on the other side: Senator Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Specter, Bob Barr just to name a few. And, other than that lunatic Rohrbacker from California, the silence from other GOP members is deafening. Thats smart because Americans don’t like being spied upon.
IMPEACHMENT. Get used to that word.
srv
TD,
Again, the Supervisor SA F’d up. Which is why it was screened.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html
The joint House & Senate Select Intelligence Committee report also said the same thing.
Perry Como
Crap. I was going to start a terrorist social networking site to see how many Islamofascists I could catch, but http://www.myjihad.com/ is already taken.
Mike S
Most professional bukkakeists just let it stay on their faces instead of spewing them back out. As much as you want to believe that Woody “screwed up Fitz’s indictement” only a lying sack of shit can claim that.
TallDave
There have been rumblings about an idea on the internets that the reason FISA was bypassed was that FISA is too slow to respond. I can think of a scenario where this actually makes sense, and President Bush’s language at the press conference this morning reinforces the idea.
People have this idea FISA is an instant rubber-stamp. It’s not either of those. The DOJ lawyers review the FISA requests first based on what it knows FISA wants and it filters out a lot of them out — including Moussaoui’s.
TallDave
Mike S,
He directly contradicted what Fitz said in his indictment. I guess actually knowing the facts makes me a lying sack of shit.
Slide
America hating TallDave says:
So you are willing to get rid of the Fourth Amendment to fight terrorism? What other rights you want to give up. First Amendment rights? Should the President have the right to censor the news media to not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Its amazing that the little cowards on the right are so scared they are willing to give up our basic rights out of fear. What cowards?
Second point. no one is saying we shouldn’t be eavesdropping on terrorists conversations. No one. Staw man argument. Just do it legally. If we found a phone number up Bin Laden’s ass there is not a FISA judge in the world that would not give you a warrant. Do it legally, that is all we are saying.
Why do you hate freedom Dave? Why do you hate our constitution that seemed to have worked for over 200 years. Why do you want to scrap it all? So sad.
Paul Wartenberg
Apologies for my previous post. I tried quoteblocking TallDave’s comments around Perry Como’s comments and it didn’t take. The first two sentences after the block are TallDave’s not mine.
BTW, how did Plame get into this argument? Oh. Because someone ‘leaked’ her much in the way someone ‘leaked’ the warrantless wiretapping. So one’s not a crime while the other one is.
For what I know about who leaked what about Plame, 1) Wilson did write an op-ed about his trip to Niger to investigate, but his op-ed never detailed his wife’s role with the CIA and never even mentioned her, and 2) Wilson wrote his book about all of this AFTER someone else leaked his wife’s name. Claiming that Wilson violated the identity protection law BEFORE person or persons at the White House did has no basis or proof. Fitzgerald mentioned investigating the possibility Plame’s role as a CIA agent with Non-Official Cover was already well-known before Novak blabbed…and found no evidence that had happened. And I believe Fitzgerald on this. I know this is asking for too much, but can we end the discussion on Plame and discuss more relevant matters such as Presidental authority, the Fourth Amendment, and the system of Checks and Balances?
DougJ
By the way, everybody, I’m writing TallDave’s comments today. I think I fooled a few of you.
TallDave
srv,
And if we’d had this program then, they wouldn’t have needed to establish that probable cause standard, and ZM’s phone would have been tapped, and we might have prevented 9/11.
TallDave
DougJ,
Don’t you have a flight to catch?
Mike S
The indoctement said “earliest known” Davey. Knowing the fatcs and lying about the facts are two diffrent things.
Are there any honest New Republicans?
DougJ
But really
and
should have given it away.
I did break my rule of not arguing with my own creations. Maybe that’s what fooled you.
That was fun.
Slide
Paul its called DIVERSION 101. When you have a losing hand you try and discuss something, anything else.
It must be hard being a Bush apologist. So much work to do and so little time.
srv
FYI, the reference to “Woods Prodedures” are post-9/11, I don’t know why they are appended to that paragraph. And they do require field SSA’s and FBI Hdqt to check the ACS system.
TallDave
Actually slide, the quoted text is what YOU said, so I’m not sure how to respond.
Try to take a deep breath before posting.
And yes, I am more afraid of terrorists than I am of the NSA wiretapping terrorists. I’m just crazy that way I guess.
ppGaz
You fooled us, DougJ, but why did you write TallDave to be so …. over the top today?
Here’s a guy who hasn’t had an original thought since the Vietnam war, and all of a sudden now he is a guest lecturer on the aracana of FISA?
Whubbadubbahubba??
Now, this last from him, that’s genius. See, it’s because we didn’t do this stuff before that we got hit on 911. Not because President Dumbfuck didn’t pay attention to the warning he was given. Once again it’s letting the courts get in the way that caused all the trouble.
I’m starting to think Balloon-Juice itself is just a giant spoof to act as the balogna sandwich that attracts the TallDaves and the Darrells and the MackBuckets. A spoof blog. Which means that you are ….
wait …
uh …
TallDave
Mike S,
I didn’t say Fitz lied, just that he was wrong. And he was. And you don’t appear to know that. And somehow, that makes me a lying sack of shit.
Are there any non-retarded Democrats?
tbrosz
Assuming anybody reads down this far, often the simplest explanation for seeming inconsistencies is that we don’t know all the facts.
The beauty of using secret intelligence leaks as political weapons is that the political attacker is pretty sure the intelligence agencies aren’t going to be able to tell their side in an open forum. This leaves the attacker free to plug in whatever conjectures or outright hallucinations they have in mind without fear of contradiction.
I guess we’ll see how well it works. Bush sure isn’t acting like someone trying to distance himself from this operation, and I’d bet he has a little more inside information than Kevin Drum or Josh Marshall do.
srv
MOTHER F****R @#$%&@?!
YOU’RE A DEAD MAN!
TallDave
I guess Gaz and DougJ have answered that question.
Well, since the “special” kids have taken over the discussion, I’m going to have some lunch.
You kids try not to eat any more glue, ‘kay?
Slide
I’m sorry you are so fearful dave. Must be hard getting out of bed in the morning and going out in the real world. Perhaps some behavior modification therapy can help you with this fear?
DougJ
See, it’s because we didn’t do this stuff before that we got hit on 911. Not because President Dumbfuck didn’t pay attention to the warning he was given. Once again it’s letting the courts get in the way that caused all the trouble.
I thought that might be a little over-the-top, but people seemed to buy it.
TallDave
I’m sorry you are so fearful srv. It must be hell knowing that Bush is constantly spying on you. Maybe some medictation could help.
But you need to actually take it, or you’ll end up like DougJ and Gaz: incapable of serious thought, doomed to trivial childlike posts.
Steve S
The other day there was a radio program on locally talking about Iraq. I considered calling in, claiming my name was Doug J. and asking about all the good things in Iraq like the new schools and hockey arenas.
I’m going to try that next week when I’m on vacation.
Slide
Well, Bush really can’t “distance” himself from this as he personally signed the orders that ok’d it. He DID try to get the story squelched for over a year according to the NY Times. His ONLY hope is that he can frame this (like he does with everything) that you are either with him or with the terrorists. Attack him for violating the law? well then you are helping the murderers of 911. Don’t think its going to work. He is starting from a position of very low credibility with the American public. As Dan Rather might say, “that dog won’t hunt”.
Mike S
How was it wrong? At the time of the indictement it was the earliest known instance of the leak. Now we know they were leaking even earlier. I guess you could hang your hat on that if you choose but I’m not sure I’d praise the fact that the leaking was even more extencive than originally though.
Oh SNAP! Little Davey made a funny.
ppGaz
Pussy.
Grow a pair and stand up for yourself. You need a mama’s boy alcoholic liar to protect you from the big mean terrorists? You need him to play at being a king to save you, Dave? What kind of man are you?
Mike S
Poor Davey. Always getting busted on his bullshit but delusional enough to believe that he is winning the argument.
Paul Wartenberg
We need a tracker to keep up with who is saying what now…
I’m thinking TallDave and Perry Como and DougJ are:
Pro “Bush-Has-The-Power” regarding the issue of warrantless wiretaps and on conducting wars with absolute authority…
And that KC, srv, ppGaz and myself are:
Pro “Bush-Is-A-Lying-ConstitutionHating-Dictator” regarding the issue of warrantless wiretaps and on the need for checks and balances even in wartime…
I hope I have not offended anyone by putting you in the wrong camp on this issue.
If I missed anyone else, it’s only because you haven’t posted 40 times on this thread by now. Either that or you’re Pro-Butterstick-Is-Cute-OMG and thus don’t fit into either category.
DougJ
Paul, I don’t write Perry’s stuff, only TallDave’s. I’m not sure which camp Perry is in.
DougJ
By the way, Paul, I really loved your work with the Replacements.
Slide
When did the right wing become such fearful little children? Its amazing that the are so quick to give away their freedom and rights in exchange for some supposed protection from their alcoholic father. It seems as if they must go through the day wetting their pants fearing a terrorist attack. I live in NY, target number one of terrorists and I find their cowardice nauseating.
Paul Wartenberg
That was Westerberg. Color me unimpressed. Sigh. At least you didn’t misspell my name as Wartenbergh like my high school yearbook. Damn book editors kept making me Scottish. I hated the school cafeteria constantly feeding me haggis. Mike Myers was right, all Scottish cuisine is based on a dare.
I was hoping inserting Butterstick into the thread would calm things down. Instead it’s making people confuse posters with alternative college radio musicians. Makes you want to run for President in 08 as an Independent, don’t it…?
P.S. Bush violated the FISA law and the Fourth Amendment. Pass it on.
tbrosz
Slide:
I gather from your comments that you were not one of those who ran around in tight little circles screamingly accusing the government of failing to “connect the dots” after 9/11.
Steve
DougJ cracks me up. And while I think he’s kidding us by claiming to have written TD’s posts today, making fun of the fact that TD has gone so over-the-top crazy, I can’t say as I’m certain of that. The one where Perry made some absurd DougJ-type trolling comment and then TD was like “exactly!!! thank god one person gets it!!!” – well, you like to think real human beings aren’t capable of coming up with that stuff.
Cyrus
The original post was by Tim F., genius.
This would be relevant if these wiretaps were within the President’s legal and Constitutional authority. Since they aren’t, it isn’t.
There is a difference between saying “Congress can do X” and saying “Congress can do anything,” genius.
Well, assuming both those points are true, it’s still irrelevant. As for (5), there’s still review and oversight and a paper trail. And as for (6), again assuming it’s true, I think it would be as wrong and/or illegal under Clinton as under Bush. Believe it or not, but some people aren’t as partisan as you.
We would loooove to have an answer to that last question. If a state of war exists whenever someone declares it, when will a state of war stop existing? That’s one of the many complaints us eeevil libruls have against Bush, you know. If the president does and should have greatly expanded war powers (there’s no basis for that in Article II, BTW, I went and read it a minute ago – thanks for the idea), then why not cut out the middleman and say that he has greatly expanded powers all the time? Why not just be open and up-front and promote a massive expansion of executive authority?
Here’s why: because it’s a bad idea, an extremely bad precedent, it’s illegal and/or unconstitutional, and would be massively unpopular.
So, in other words, Bush does not and should not get extra authority because Osama bin Laden chose to use certain words to describe him. And, yes, this is extra authority.
Obviously not. As others have pointed out, there is exactly zero reason to believe that this revelation would affect terrorists at all. Let alone help them. (“The federal government of the Great Satan doesn’t always get a warrant like it should? Exxxcellent! We will attack at dawn!”) And even if it did, that is far down the list of concerns.
Slide
Another straw man argument. Connecting the dots means you HAD the information and you didn’t put it together. Bush got a memo on August 6, 2001 that said Bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA. That he was looking at buildings in NY. That they might hijack airplanes. And what did our fearless Commander in Chief do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not even ONE meeting of the Terrorism Task force headed by Cheney.
Asking Bush to adhere to the law by getting warrants is not preventing anyone from connecting the dots. I know the right wingnuttia world would like to make the argument, “do you want us listening in to terrorists or not?”. But that is NOT the argument. I WANT them to eavesdrop on terror suspects, I just want them to do it legally. To bring their information to an independent judge, so that the temptation to wiretap someone other than a terrorist suspect is avoided. You know, like political enemies, like journalists, like the people Bolton might have requested intercepts on. We are a nation of laws. It is the ONLY way a democracy can function. When a president takes it upon himself to be the law we have lost something very precious to me and hopefully to you. Remember, someday you might be saying President Hillary Clinton, do you really want her to have these same powers? To wiretap anyone the executive branch decides to without oversight? Without review?
Gratefulcub
Some one help me out, I am obviously missing something.
There was a law on the books (FISA), that basically stated that a warrant had to be obtained before, or within 72 hours to get a wiretap on international communications involving US citizens.
The Admin, for whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, thought that restriction was too severe.
Obvious solution is to change the law.
Why didn’t they go to Congress and get the law re-written? Isn’t that how our system works?
Instead they got lawyers to write opinions saying the president doesn’t have to follow that law.
Is that the basic outline, or am I missing something?
Ancient Purple
Congratulations, Dave. You will now never be in the same league as Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin.
Your last name isn’t Cassius, is it?
Paddy O'Shea
So how are all of Bush’s shenanigans and speechifying playing with the citizens? The new Gallup/USA Today/CNN Poll hit today, and it shows the Kennebunkport Cowboy’s numbers are heading down south once again.
Approval: 41%
Disapproval: 56%
Iraq: 52% say it was a mistake
And this poll was conducted before the Snoopy George domestic spying scandal broke. Wait’ll that bit of excitement hits the polls.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush.poll/
Gratefulcub
It seems like the wrong debate is occuring here today. The question of ‘should the executive branch and the NSA be able to use wiretaps without warrants’ is very secondary.
The first order is whether the administration’s and the NSA’s actions were constitutional. The merit of the FISA legislation can be debated, but when these actions occurred FISA was the law of the land. It is legislation written to prevent the exact actions taken. The admin has a team of lawyers that know the law, know the intent of the law, the spirit of the law. They wrote creative opinions to get around the law, but everyone knew what they were doing.
Even if FISA is atrocious law, the question is, did the president, his staff, and the NSA violate the law? Their defense so far has been, it is a time of war, so the president doesn’t have to abide by that law. I need to know which laws they think the president has to follow during a time that he says we are at war.
ppGaz
You have it exactly right.
Even the Repubs in Congress are wincing at this latest self-inflicted groin wound by the White House.
They know that one day they’ll want some oversight capability over a Democrat executive, and if GWB has his way, that opportunity will have been fucked up four different ways by the time he gets done with it.
All in the name of protecting us from unidentified “threats”. These lying sacks apparently cared little about those “threats” until they realized that they came with political opportunity attached to them.
Jess
Paul,
Now that you have the blockquote thing down, the next thing you should be aware of is the high satire quotient of this site. DougJ is the title champ, but apparently Perry Como is now the leading challenger. TallDave occasionally does a beautiful wingnut parody, but unfortunately does not realize it himself. We generally end up with a highly entertaining mix of the sublime and the ridiculous. Welcome to the madness.
Gratefulcub
I think it may be deeper than W and his band of constitution hating rethugs. (over the top snark intended)
It seems to have shown a weekness in our system. One party rule of all three branches is very possible in a two party system. Oversight seems to disappear.
With the fourth estate, IMO, being K street instead of the media at this point…..you have one party rule running all four branches. The media is so confused about what their role is supposed to be, they aren’t performing any oversight. And, if they do, they are shouted down as partisan hacks. It has become perfectly acceptable today to not believe a news story you don’t like. O’Reilly, Franken, Hannity, Moore, whoever, just gets on their radio and claims that it is a product of liberal/conservative liars. Hence, America doesn’t torture and global warming is a product of liberal scientists lies.
ppGaz
Snort! TD hasn’t had a “realization” in years. Unless passing gas counts as a realization. Anyway, don’t forget the inestimable Darrell, and the always amusing MacBuckets. For all around righty fun, you can’t beat those guys.
DougJ
TD is much worse than Darrell and Mac Buckets. But they’re all geniuses compared to the people at Protein Wisdom.
Jess
The good thing in all of this is that it’s sending so many of us back to actually READ the Constitution. My favorite part (Article II, Section 1): “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he [the President-Elect] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—’I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'”
On the one hand, I think it’s crucial that we get past the partisan divide and bitterness to make some intelligent decisions and get to work in Iraq and at home. But on the other hand, I really think we’re getting to the point where we MUST impeach this dangerous idiot in order to save our country. It’s the most patriotic thing to do at this point, despite the inevitable nastiness it will bring.
Brian
Cyrus,
Why the sarcasm? It’s completely uncalled for, unless you really do believe I’m a genius, in which case…Thank you, you are correct!
You seem to know so much about the rule of law. Are you taking these position you state because you have some foundation of knowledge? If Bush is proven to be within his authority to conduct the very ting you’re arguing against, will you be in a lather to see that those who leaked this information prosecuted?
Re the issue of whether or not we’re at war, and if we are then when will it be over: when was the Cold War over? Was it over after the fact, or did someone state that it would occur a) when the Berlin Wall crashes down, b) when the Soviet Union falls apart, c) when an ex-Soviet leader says it’s over? I would ayy most would agree that it’s “b”, but there may be some who believe that the fight is still ongoing. Nevertheless, we knew the answer after it happened and there was a consensus that the war was over, not because some free-floating blog commenters said so.
And, another thing, the Congress authorized Bush to do “X”, not to have unlimited authority, as many anti-Bush commenters are desperate to convey.
Gratefulcub
Q If FISA didn’t work, why didn’t you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We’ve had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be — that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that — and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
Sorry, if they didn’t think they could get a Republican Congress that passes everything they want passed, to change the FISA law……..
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be shaking out as: They did what FISA explicitly said they couldn’t, and the defense is: the president doesn’t have to follow that law.
That is the defense, right?
Take it away alberto…..
This is all about the level of executive power. We can have that debate, but we have to have the debate BEFORE they start playing by new rules. They have to abide by the laws of today, not the ones they hope to create.
rayabacus
There is an excellent analyses by Byron York and Jim Robbins regarding the NSA surveilance. For those stating that there is no “paper trail” here is what Robbins says:
Apparantly this program does have oversight and is legal. I think a lot of people are going off prematurely without having the facts. It looks to me like a legal, proper use of intelligence gathering. If facts come out otherwise, I’ll reserve the right to revisit the issue.
Ancient Purple
WELL, WELL, WELL!
Here it is for you. Black and white.
From today’s press conference with Atty Gen. Gonzalez:
In other words, screw checks and balances, screw oversight, screw anything other than what the King wants.
I don’t know what type of government we currently have, but I have no doubt it isn’t a representative democracy anymore.
Gratefulcub
That’s part of the fucking point. The cold war was not a war. We use the word war for everything in this country. But ‘war’ in the US has a definition. It is declared by Congress with a declaration of war. The War on Terror is not a war, it is a monicker.
If we consider the ourselves at war as long as there are small groups of men willing to blow up themselves to kill americans here and around the world, that is perpetual war.
The issue here is whether the Executive Branch of our government is going to be held accountable by the checks and balances built into our system. Those C&Bs are easy to adhere to in normal times, the true tests for our nation come when we are threatened. Do we hold onto what makes our nation better, or do we drop all of that and hand over control to one man?
guyermo
For those who say the President has extra powers during a war, please show me the Congressional Declaration of War which would be required for those powers. Authorization for use of military force is not the same as an “official” war, and is one of many reasons that this needs to be looked into.
None of us knows all the facts and, to quote most of the republicans here, if the President isn’t doing anything wrong, then he shouldn’t need to worry about an investigation since he’ll be exonorated anyway.
Gratefulcub
rayabacus
What is the law requiring the actions that the NRO wrote about? Even if they prove some level of oversight, the actions are still outside the legal framework of FISA that explicitely states that a warrant must be obtained or requested in 72 hours.
Steve
Brian, I confess I don’t get your obsession with when the war ends. Sure, the Cold War may have gone on for four decades, but I don’t recall a lot of Cold War Presidents saying “you have to let me break such-and-such law, we’re at war.”
I remember during the first Gulf War, one of my professors melodramatically intoning, “For the first time in many years, this class meets under the shadow of war.” I don’t recall any students leaping up to point out that we had been at war with the Soviet Union for 40 years, because, of course, no one in their right mind thinks of the Cold War as a literal “war.” Nor is the War on Terror a literal “war.” The armed conflict in Afghanistan, the fight with the insurgency in Iraq, those are wars, and they’ll be over when they’re over. But if you want to claim we’re at war simply because there are some people out there in the world who want to do us harm, then we’ll always be at war, obviously.
I don’t really mind people making the case that the current state of the world requires us to have a more totalitarian society than the Constitution envisions, because I think the American people will overwhelmingly reject that case and we’ll be stronger for it.
Brian
The Cold War most certainly was a war, a war of information and idelogies. Nevertheless, I made the point I made about it to demonstrate that we often don’t know that a war is over until it is.
Let me pose the question to you then, since you think I’m an idiot and this stuff is so easy that a mongoloid could figure it out:
Are we at war? Yes, or no? Assuming that the answer is no, and knowing that our “enemy” is not representative of an identifiable state and therefore is not bound by any laws, how would you, being Mr. President, deal with this “enemy”? Or, would you see them not as an enemy, but a pesky nuisance that blows itse;f up every now and then?
Please try and answer without sarcasm, or name calling, if you can. I know it’ll be hard for you, but please try.
rayabacus
.
That is the FISA. Section 1800 or so. I think Robbins goes through the whole thing. Informative.
Brian
Steve, I have no obsession with when it ends. I am simply responding to those who insist that it doesn’t exist, never existed in the first place, or should end PDQ. In a sense, I guess I’m mocking the “when will Bushco’s phony war be over” meme, which sounds very familiar to “when will the troops be home and this war over” meme. The answer being….well, when it’s over, that’s when, and not a moment sooner.
DougJ
Brian, you’re missing the point here: if the FISA courts were good enough for us during the Cold War, then they’re good enough for us now. You simply cannot argue that the “Islamofascists” or whatever wingnut term you like to use are more dangerous than the Soviets. Or maybe you can. You’re new here, so I don’t know whether or not you’re a whack job. Assuming you’re not, you really have to admit that the Cold War was more serious than GWOT and TWOC put together. And we were able to fight that war without giving up our principles. Why not this one?
ppGaz
We are conducting a war. We do not have a declaration of war. The War Powers Act seems to govern here.
The War Powers Act of 1973
Whether this act is constitutional or not … dunno.
The language is vague and seems to deliberately conflate “approval of Congress” with “declaration of war” when in fact, they are not the same thing.
It’s my opinion that the War Powers Act should be repealed and a proper act constructed which provides for temporary power to use force but does not attempt to obfuscate the declaration of war provision of the Constitution.
I do not believe in the expansion of executive power, and neither the Cold War nor the phony War on Terror are reason enough for me to change my mind. In my opinion, trading restraint for a little bit of safety is a bad bargain.
DougJ
Also, Brian and ray, do admit that we are at war over Christmas or do you regard the people who say “Happy Holidays” as merely a pesky nuisance?
Gratefulcub
No, it wasn’t.
Yes it was. But, if you consider that a ‘war’, which gives the president extra ‘war time’ powers, then we will always be at war and the president will always have extra super duper unconstitutional war time powers.
Of course we are at war, even if it is undeclared. And how would I deal with the ‘enemy’ (considering the topic of the thread and conversation, I am assuming by ‘enemy’ you mean people in the US, including US citizens, that may or may not be working with Al Quaeda from within the US). I would get a warrant. I may decide that the process is too tedious, and then I would go to congress and say, I need some help. we need to streamline the process, help me out here.
I would not get my lawyers to declare me above the law because we are at war.
DougJ
Brian, please try to answer my question about the war on Christmas without being sarcastic or calling me names.
ppGaz
Are we sure he didn’t mean “The Cold Sore”, because that text is right off the Blistex lip balm label.
Gratefulcub
Robbins jumps through several hoops to define people and acts to get them to fit into this law. I am not discounting his argument. But, it is one man’s opinion, and he isn’t exactly a constitutional scholar. If that is the concensus opinion of the constitutional law community, I will accept that. And that is why we need someone like Arlen Specter to hold hearings.
Personally, I am not buying it. Gonzales didn’t even make that argument this morning, and we all know his staff studied this extensively trying to get around FISA.
DougJ
It looks Brian is afraid to answer my question about TWOC.
Gratefulcub
Thanks DougJ, you are so much more intelligent than your alterego.
There are no super duper extra special evildoer fightin raghead killin soviet destroyin war time powers. Period. Our rule of law can’t be dismissed by the executive just because he can drape himself in the flag and scare the shit out of everyone. I don’t want to end this thread, so I will just say, look through history at the countries that allowed that to happen.
Andrew
Wow, since DougJ is doing Steve as well, he’s reaching new heights of meta-impersonation.
rayabacus
I thought his analysis was reasonable and logical. I was especially interested in the “paper trail” part. For someone whose speciality is this area of the law, Owen Kerr has a post up that analyzes it from several perspectives.
ppGaz
Thur is when they tried ta kil yer daddy!
It ain’t just a war … it’s a damn FEUD!
Gratefulcub
George should nuke Paris and make the surrender monkeys cry. Then threaten NY and LA with the same. Put a nativity scene in every school, right next to the creationist science textbooks. every time a liberal complains, rip off his fingernails (it isn’t as bad as organ failure so STFU). Before you know it, the Global War Against The Global War By Secular Liberals Against Baby Jesus Loving Real Americans will be over. And then Kansas can have Christmas and Creationism. But, who are they going to blame for all the knocked up teenagers in Topeka then?
Slide
rayabacus I dont’ know what you are talkking about and the lying sacks of dog shit over at NRO dont’ know what they are talking about. You are arguing what the president did was legal under FISA? Even the President and Attorney General aren’t saying that. They are saying that their authority to go ‘around’ FISA comes from the constitution (huh) and the authorization to go to into Afghanistan. Totally bogus.
DougJ
Given your own status as a constitutional scholar, that is all I needed to hear. I’ll take the word of a wingnut commenter and couple of guys from the National Review’s word on constitutional matters anytime.
Davebo
Slide,
Just be patient. Those first two links were or the early defense mechanism. Unfortunately, due to the bureaucracy inherent in the early defense mechanism, sometimes the information gets a bit garbled.
It can take several days for the medium to long term defense mechanism to synchronize, but it always does eventually.
Gratefulcub
Even if the NRO column is 100% accurate, that isn’t the justification Gonzales and Bush used. When they took actions outside of FISA, they weren’t thinking of the NRO column as justification. Kind of like shooting a dead man you don’t know is dead, not illegal, but you sure meant to break the law.
Brian
Doug, I’m actually not new here. Maybe new to the comments, but I’ve been following this site daily for over a year. What’s a “whack job”, BTW?
You pose a good point: why are the rules different now?
Well, are they being applied differently? I don’t know if either of us can really answer that right now. We’re all asking some very difficult legal questions today about the Constitution, presidential powers, the definition of “war”, citizen rights versus rights for foreign nationals, etc.
That said, I am willing to see our enemy as being almost as dangerous as the Soviets. At least the Soviets were a recognized state; we knew what we were dealing with. The Islamofascists (and yes, that is a perfectly useful term, but if you have a better one, I’ll use it when communicating with you) do not seek to coexist with us, but instead wish to see our complete annihilation by whatever means necessary. They have made this clear through their own words and actions.
I have always, ALWAYS, had problems with Bush and his administration’s arrogance and tendency toward complete secrecy. I had this belief back in 2001, before it was in vogue. But, I also read voluminously on the subject of terrorism from a wide variety of sources (not just neocon types like Michael Ledeen) to try and understand what we’re up against, and as a result I am willing to give the president, as the leader of the military, the leeway to fight this enemy. For all that we know through the press, how much don’t we know? For every success by terrorists, how many have we thwarted?
Obviously, our society is a balancing act of liberties and restraints, and part of that balancing act is having a president who must be duplicitous at times with the public. All cannot be disclosed, nor should it be. And he will at times be required, even obligated, to do things that ordinarily would not be allowed. I see him as fulfilling this obligation, and am willing to accept a certain amount of flexibility for him to do his job. I am however, vigilant for the very reason mentioned above: that I consider his presidency to be pathologically secretive. But my vigilance has not yet crossed over to fear.
Darrell
Are you serious? During the cold war, we cozied up to Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, multiple African scumbag leaders all because they helped us fight Communism. Now I happen to think this was a flawed but often necessary foreign policy. But we definitely gave up a lot of moral high ground/principles by siding with and supporting so many dirtbags during the cold war. Are you seriously that ignorant, or was that a sarcastic post on your part?
Slide
And as far as the “paper trail” Senator Rockefeller just released a hand written letter he gave to VP Cheney regarding this program after he FIRST learned about it in July of 2003 (well after the program started). Rockefeller wasn’t allowed to talk to other Senators about it. He wasn’t allowed to even talk to his staff about it. He disagreed with the policy. To use, as an excuse, that Congress was notified and therefore had oversight over this program is just some more bush lies. Here is the actual hand written letter of the Senator.
IMPEACH THE LIARS
Darrell
Yes, because it’s so much easier to call them names rather than explain what you specifically disagree with and why
Paddy O'Shea
New American Research Group Poll is in and has the Chimp at 40%, with 56% disapproving.
Sooo, here’s the tally on the latest:
Zogby 38%
NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll 39%
ARG 40%
Gallup 41%
Rasmussen 44%
Now some peope might actually believe the hype and think that the Snoop-in-Chief is really taking charge and getting back to where he was.
But you want to know something? He isn’t.
He’s stinking up the place.
Davebo
I’d say Digby nailed it.
Brian
rayabacus,
Aren’t you glad you raised the issue here? Feeling like you’re part of an intelligent give-n-take on the subject? Nah, me neither.
DougJ,
Are you serious? You really want me to talk about the war on…..Christmas? Doug’s another American amusing himself to death.
Gratefulcub
Cozying up to ‘scumbags’ was not giving up our principles, it was a continuation of our principles. We haven’t exactly been lilly white and pure. Realpolik has been the guiding principle for as long as history has been recorded.
ppGaz
That’s right Darrell, refraining from name calling and polite discourse have always been your hallmarks.
If you’re here, the thread is queered. Game over.
Davebo
Darrell,
There’s nothing unconstitutional about a foreign policy that cuddles ruthless dictators. I’d agree it’s come back to bite us, as with Saddam, but a president is perfectly within his powers to make such decisions. And they are made with congressional consent assuming any serious money is spent in the effort.
You’re comparing apples to alligators.
Darrell
Actually, I wasn’t. I was responding to DougJ’s comment that during the Cold war, we didn’t sacrifice “principles”.
As for the legality of Bush’s ‘data mining’ authorization, I’m still digesting info
DougJ
Darrell, I see your point about principles in foreign policy. I shouldn’t have said principles, I should have said civil rights.
ppGaz
Are we going to need extra toilet paper?
Paul Wartenberg
Oh, great. Should I have brought pie?
DougJ
You sound like a parody of a right-winger. Can I use that line?
Slide
More on the LIES that congress was “notified” about the program from Tom Daschele:
So we have Dashcel’s statement that he wasn’t told “all” of the details (yeah like the illegal ones”). We had former Senator Graham who was chairmen of the Senate Intelligence Committee said he was not told “all” the details. Senator Rockefeller objected to the program but was not allowed to talk to anyone about it. Congressman Pelosi objected to the policy but was not allowed to talk to anyone about it.
yeah, oversight.
DougJ
I’m glad you’re back, Darrell. You’re the best rightie I’ve yet to encounter in the blogosphere.
srv
Only if you promise to hang yourself with it.
Perry Como
Can we put that on virtual sign boards and start a protest march?
srv
Now DougJ does Darrell, I assume.
DougJ
Seriously, Darrell is the only real rightie I’ve come across who makes an honest effort to argue the issues. The others all resort to “why did you support Saddam”-type talking points almost immediately.
ppGaz
DougJ has also praised Charles Manson for blazing new trails in Team Dynamics.
Stormy70
Go away a few days and look what happens… This is just another Bush bashing frenzy put on by the media, because his poll numbers are climbing and we are winning in Iraq. America knows the truth as evidenced by the turn around in the numbers. Why are all you poll quoters no longer interested in the latest polls? LOL.
The Dems are totally useless in the arena of National Security. I can’t believe you expect to engage Bush again on these issues, when it has caused the rest of the country to focus on how pathetic the Dems have been on everything to do with Terrorism. I can’t wait for the midterms . Maybe we will see the mysterious Democratic “PLAN” for the War on Terrorism the Dems have been teasing us with since 2001.
Brian
What the hell are you talking about, Doug? You call me a right-wing parody because…..why? The whole TWOC is something I have not been following, and won’t comment on, because, comparatively speaking, it’s trivial.
Sure, you can use the line, but I got it here. It’s a very good book, regardless of your politics.
DougJ
Darrell resorts to them occassionally, don’t get me wrong, but not nearly as much as any other rightie I’ve come across.
rayabacus
Here is an opinion by the FIS Court of review. [Emphasis mine]
I know no one here wants to possibly believe that Bushco complied with the law. You all want to believe that they wanted to “as they damn well please”. I’m saying that you don’t know the internals of the program, how it operated or even who was survieled. I don’t either. I linked the two NRO pieces to give background. York’s piece layed out the beauracracy involved in obtaining a warrant, Robbins’ piece had the actual FISA statute and laid out the necessary paper trail of even warrantless surveilance.
I linked to Professor Kerr’s piece as he is a Constitutional Law Professor and did an in depth (without knowing the internals) analysis of the NSA wire taps. He even, sorta, agreed with some here.
The above quote is from an actual opinion by the court that oversees FISA. It is my opinion (which no one here gives a damn about) that the program was leagal, reasonable and necessary to protect US Citizens. Most of you obviously disagree.
DougJ
Brian, the irony of a rightie talking about entertainment detracting from serious discussion….I don’t even know where to start.
Jess
Nice! Would that be a good example of death by amusement?
Steve
Now Stormy is channeling DougJ as well. It’s crazy I tell ya!
ppGaz
We are winning in Iraq? Yes 20% No 80%
That’s MSNBC, this morning.
That darned media, brainwashing all those people!
There’s real life outside of BigHair, TX, Storm. Honest.
Mike S
The GOP has only been effective at creating fear of furriners causing semi rational people like Stormy to embrace totalitarian rule. I’m sorry Stormy but you need to get a grip. You have moved into the New GOP’s territory here.
I will ask a simple question again. What will rge reaction be to President Hillary Clinton using this precient? Saying she won’t be elected is not an acceptable answer.
Darrell
Because the paperwork can take a week or more
ppGaz
Fo shizzle ma nizzle, she is one badass bitch in da bizzurg.
ppGaz
Ooops, who knew, the whole world could be destroyed by the need for PAPERWORK!
Fuck you Darrell, that’s so lame, you should make one more post and then quit.
Brian
Doug, you’re the one who insisted that I comment on the War on Xmas. If that’s not trivial bullshit for the sake of entertainment, I don’t know what is.
Mike S
The next logical question is why wouldn’t the adminstration get the law changed, especially when they have majorities in both houses.
The Atourney General answered that question.
Why that doesn’t scare people is beyond me.
Davebo
Are you basing this claim on anything other than a York editorial?
Darrell
Huh?
Davebo
Darrell,
Did you really think that linking to a an interim congressional report that recommended more congressional oversight in the operation of FISA was a good idea?
Especially one that pointed out that it was the FBI, not the FISA court system that screwed the pooch in requesting FISA warrants?
Not that we’re talking about the FBI here anyway. But I have to seriously question whether you actually read the document you linked to.
Davebo
Actually this could explain it all. Once the administration realized the FISA courte expected AFFIDAVITS
DougJ
Bullshit. You’re better than that, Darrell. Come on.
DougJ
Oh, young Brian, you are so naive.
Darrell
Ok, the way I worded my initial response to Tim F’s comment did not come out as intended. I was only pointing out that the 72 hour requirement, which Tim has held out as a prime example of Bush arrogance, seems to be more complicated than he suggests. And Harry Reid bragging that “we killed the Patriot Act” doesn’t inspire confidence in the Dems ability to take fighting terrorism seriously
Davebo
oops..
To finish. The committee found that the FBI was submitting FISA affidavits with false information (read innacuracies).
As I was trying to say, this could explain why the administration felt it needed to end around the FISA system.
I mean, if they are gonna complain about having affidavits (read sworn statements here) submitted with false information in them then they obviously hate America.
Thanks Darrel for clearing that up for us.
Darrell
I read it.. that report is but one of many examples of FISA applications taking a long time. Are you seriously basing your argument on FISA applications all taking less than 3 days? Because if you re-read your posts, that’s what you sure seem to be saying. Doesn’t a FISA application have to obtain DOJ stamp of approval too?
Perry Como
I’ll make a prediction: The system in question involves automated data collection that has a volume that would overwhelm the FISC. I’m also predicting that FISA doesn’t apply to the data gathering due to the definitions in § 1801 (f).
Slide
raybacus the case you site has to do with law enforcement using evidence seized under a FISA warrant (which doesn’t require probable cause but a lesser standard). It doesn’t relate to what the president did at all.
there is no disagreement the the President has certain ability to do wiretapping without a warrant. But the law makes it quite clear that a requirement to do a warrantless search you can not have the possibility that a US person’s communication would be captured. its clear. Its unambitious. Not even the the administration is arguing they complied with FISA.
Brian
Doug,
Oh teacher, my teacher! Please instruct me on the ways of the sophisticated world. I am only but a naive, intellectual dwarf in your presence.
Please, teach me The Way, before O’Reilly does.
Slide
towards the continuing education of raybacus:
.
ppGaz
There ya go! Too complicated!
It’s too complicated!
You win, Darrell! Master stroke, demolishing all before you!
We are unworthy. We learn at the feet of the master.
Mike S
Finally, something we can all agree on.
ppGaz
Relax, that only lasts for a year or so.
Then you go up in class, and can form and articulate your own thoughts.
jg
I guess its kind of stupid to expect the folks out to show how ineffective government is at doing anything to have any respect at all for established process.
Brian
But is learning to be articulate from you guys like learning to expand one’s vocabulary from an Ebonics professor?
“Yo buss dis. Bush be a smirkin chimp an’ tortures all yall Sheeit!”
Darrell
Funny how those screaming about Bush shredding the constitution with data mining, are silent about those who leaked info on the classified program.
jg
The person who did that should go to jail.
Now back to the larger and more important issue, the classified domestic spyng program.
Perry Como
Darrell Says:
They are going to wait until things flesh out (things are happening fast and furious, with accusations flying) on that issue before they come to any conclusions.
The Comish (sic)
And here is one reason that it’s impossible to have a political discussion on these boards. Some people aren’t interested in actual discussion. They ask for a justification, they’re given a justification, and their response is to misstate that justification in a high-pitched, girly voice.
Good to see that you guys are still heeding John’s call to raise the tenor of debate around here. But I guesss if the facts aren’t on your side, you should just be louder and more insulting. Maybe then people will take you seriously.
Mike S
Rockefeller’s letter to Cheney after he was briefed.
I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.
I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller
I guess congressional oversight has become “quaint” as well.
Slide
I think they should be given the Medal of Freedom for defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
srv
rayabacus:
Interesting, it’s clear that Congress had issues with the FIC ruling, but with the Dems out of power, there is a rabbit hole for George here:
Now, there is no SCOTUS ruling on electronic warrantless searches, but this could fall under the “Special Needs” criteria applied to other cases? So we have law on “warrantless foreign intelligence” being constitutional and “warrantless searches for criminal purposes” being unconstitutional, but not a clear rule on “foreign intelligence cases involving a domestic US citizen (who has probably not been clearly identified as a foreign agent).”
ppGaz
You want to “raise the tenor” of “debate?” Yeah, right.
Okay, then debate whether a president should (a) work to revise a law he thinks makes his job too “complicated” or (b) just have his blowjob lawyer write a brief that says the law doesn’t matter.
Discuss. Because that’s the argument that Darrell is making here …. we just can’t govern on accounta these complicated laws with their complicated paperwork!
Go ahead, raise the tenor, I double dog dare you.
Steve
I would like for some defender of the President’s program to describe, in real-world terms, the harm to national security that results from the exposure of the program.
Darrell
Hey, if they did nothing wrong, the Federal Whistleblower protection laws would take care of them right? We’ll see
Brian
Gotta log off for the day. The discussion here has been anything but respectful, hence I erally don’t believe that many commenters who disagree with me actually have any facts on their side. Instead, the comments are fed by anti-Bush fury and/or a tendency to jump without a chute by making pronouncements on technical issues they have zero experience with.
What the Left has been saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators under any circumstances. They are proposing in essence that only calls to terrorist co-conspirators who are well known and under surveillance already can be monitored. The idea that the US should put its fingers in its own ears and repeat, “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!” when terrorists communicate with their agents in the US is one of the most ridiculous and silly ideas that I have ever heard. Most reasonable people already know that Democrats cannot be trusted with the security of the United States, but this highly political stance they’ev chosen cannot be mistaken as anything other than the utterly irresponsible and laughably weak gesture that it is.
Timing the release of this story with the filibuster of the Patriot Act and the successful Iraqi elections demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the MSM and the radical Left are one single-purpose entity focusing on any possible method of attacking the President and prematurely ending his term. This is from where all of their opinions emanate, their arguments formed, and their world-view shaped.
srv
Slide, warrantless is applied differently in several of these cases based on whether it’s used for “foreign intel” or “criminal cases”. Regardless of FISA. The FIC punted to the AG’s view because there isn’t a clear SCOTUS ruling. If they haven’t already, the admin is going to argue they could do whatever as long as it wasn’t a criminal case.
Darrell
The NY Times sat on this story for a year. It then became FRONT PAGE news the day after the Iraqi elections in which the Patriot Act comes up for re-authorization… completely innocent coincidence I’m sure. No extreme bias there, nothing to see
ppGaz
Liar. I’ve been here all day, that is not what “the Left” has been saying.
All this time, and the best you can do is construct a sloppy strawman, take a shot at it, and bail?
jg
What if a militia wannabe committed a heinous terrorist act on US soil? Could the president then use this power to start spying on all america militia members’ communications?
The Comish (sic)
What a huge shock. I guess if you surfed to Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, and John Aravosis, and they all reached the colusion that Bushitler is a fascist pig, then you’re certainly well-informed enough to make sweeping generalizations about what was necessary and unecessary. I just hope you also stopped by MoveOn.org and the Democratic Underground to see if they offered any defense of Bush’s actions. No defense? Well, if none of them support Bush on this, then he must be wrong.
If you really want to see some opposing arguments, then check out protein wisdom, which quotes and collects links to other sites. If you’re going to claim that you “surf[ed] around the internetosphere,” then you should at least be aware that there are valid arguments against your position.
ppGaz
So, news should be timed so that it can’t possibly affect the political fortunes of … whatever it is you are defending? Fuck you, man. Fuck you very much.
The NYT should release the news at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME for these lying assholes and their power grabs. And who the hell are you to decide when any news story gets air or the light of day?
The main job of the press is to be adversarial to power, Darrell. Otherwise, why even have a press? Why not just leave everything to the Government Printing Office?
Why don’t you go live in North Korea, where you belong?
pharniel
wow. trade 4th amendmant for security.
I really hope anyone who spins that gets raped by the spectral remains of ALL the founding fathers.
Since we all know the famous quote by the first grade a american pimp.
srv
Well, Einstein, if we went from JeffG’s early posts (which said this was all legal under FISA) we’d be just as wrong. Now they’re claiming something else.
Brian
At least you admit to wanting the media to be your tool, which it has demonstrated it is willing to do. The action of the NYT is a textbook example of the media being cozy with the Left, and when I say Left, I mean in the macro sense, not the micro sense of this blog.
Darrell
Fine, as long as they admit that they are, like you, nothing but partisan hacks.. who report “news” when it can do maximum harm to the fascist Rethuglicans. If the NYT were willing to do away with their phony pretenses, you would have a point
Mike S
Jesus Christ. If you are so confident that you are right why do you have to lie about what is being said. I don’t agree with Darrell but at least he has the honesty to argue against the comments without a total disregard for what they actually say.
Idiots like you make Hannity look like the most honest man on the planet. Of course he gets paid millions and you just lie because you know you can’t argue honestly.
The only honest statement you have made is this one.
Even then you were dishonest because there is nothing intellectual about you.
Brian
Mike, I’ll leave you guys to your little piss party. I don’t like being called an idiot, or any of the other epithets so freely thrown at me on this site. You are incapable of debate, of give-and-take, of hearing opposing views. I have offered up numerous posts here that have gone ignored, yet have laid serious questions on the table or comments unconsidered. Instead, I have been called silly names, read tons of circular logic posing as informed opinion, and had a self-deprecating comment used against me as an insult.
You have no humor and no class. Who the hell needs you? John can have you guys. You’re mostly a cavalcade of codependent dolts.
Mike S
\
Boo fucking hoo. I debate honest people all the time. But hen they lie I call them on it. Mental midgets like you need not apply unless you can be even slightly honest.
srv
I’ll place my predictions now. The administration did this b/c of this type of scenario:
1) Osama’s 3rd cousin AbuJ calls DougJ in the US.
2) DougJ calls TallDave in the US.
3) NSA tracks/processes domestic calls like #2 w/o invoking FISA, as long as no criminal case is pursued.
They want to follow all the combinations and they don’t want any oversight.
Of course, if we start hearing that the NSA is being cleaned out and restaffed with political appointees ala the CIA, I reserve the right to make more predictions.
Juan Gewanfri
Q. What do you call a Republican who professes a belief in less government and more freedom?
A. A goddamn liar.
The above is more than just snark. Anyone who has voted for George Bush in 2004 or any Republican for evermore has forfeited their right to falsly claim they believe in more freedom and less government and deserve to be called a liar or hypocrate.
ppGaz
It is not the TOOL OF THE GOVERNMENT, you idiot.
What country were you raised in, the USSR?
ppGaz
They are not the TOOLS OF THE GOVERNMENT, you moron!
Where did you grow up? Cuba?
ppGaz
Your Frigging Tax Dollars at Work, Darrell
Bush begs NYT not to blow his cover.
Steve
Uh, I don’t think I saw a single person say that the government should be unable to monitor calls between al-Qaeda and their co-conspirators. The only position I’ve seen is that wiretapping should require a warrant. And since it would be absolutely trivial to abtain a warrant, either before or after the fact, if all you sought to monitor were terrorists and their co-conspirators, it really does make you wonder who was actually being wiretapped without a warrant.
Brian, the idea that liberals don’t want Osama’s phone tapped is so crazy and insulting that I’m really not surprised some of the posts were less than perfectly civil. The point is, FISA provides an absolutely secret method for the government to obtain warrants, akin to a rubber stamp in practice, and you can even go back and get a warrant retroactively if you’re in a hurry. You couldn’t make it any easier. So when the administration felt it necessary to circumvent even those basic procedures, it really should make anyone wonder why they felt the FISA courts wouldn’t approve a warrant the same way they do in thousands of other cases.
I am still waiting for anyone to make the case that the disclosure of this program has made us less safe. Were terrorists really relying upon the warrant provisions of FISA to protect them from wiretapping?
The Comish (sic)
Is this a serious question? You don’t understand how revealing our spy tactics will make the enemy better able to counter those spy tactics? Take a look at the NYT article. I’ll give you one “real life” example of how this could harm national security (although there are many). The NYT story has the following passage:
Well, they didn’t specifically name the doctor, but you better believe that al Queda isn’t going to be sending any more vital communiqués through Iranian-American doctors in the South,and it probably wouldn’t take them too much work to figure out which specific doctor has been compromised. Now al Queda knows which source has been compromised, the methods of communication that were compromised (and which weren’t), and they know how has been compromised. So the US has lost this source of potential information, and al Queda is better able to tailor their methods of communicating in ways that aren’t compromised.
The article describes in detail one of the methods the US uses to gather intelligence about terrorist attacks. If al Queda knows we use this method, you think they’ll be more careful about who they talk to, and how they communicate through international calls and emails? You think they won’t change their phone numbers or email addresses, or take measures to make sure their phone calls and emails are coded, or start communicating through different mediums?
The article also gives specific examples of terrorist actions that were thwarted by information gathered through the methods. So now that al Queda knows how we thwarted those attacks, they can likely deduce which sources are compromised, and they aren’t going to use the same communication methods and sources for future jobs. So we’ve lost those sources.
Sorry, I got worked up and gave more than one example. But frankly, I’m a little surprised at your request. I don’t say that to be derogatory, just wondering where you’re coming from.
neil
What the fuck, John? I come back after a week out of range of news, and find you quoting 4 lefty bloggers and not even mentioning that they are on the side of terror and Bush is the only thing keeping our precious bodily fluids safe. Get with the fucking program, man! Because what’s the point of being a conservative blogger if you don’t defend Republicans when they shit on the Constitution and use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper?
(Note: I have not read up that much on this topic — so I am not quite sure if they are actually using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper — will have to check up on that)
Slide
This is what I hate about the right wing. Brian says this:
That is not what anybody I know is saying in the slightest. Let me make it clear for the record, I think the government should aggressively eavesdrop on any American if it is shown that they have contacts with known al Qaeda or other terrorists. But it has to be done according to the law. You have to have a system where the information of such a connection is brought to a FISA judge to get the authorization. Checks and balances. If it is an emergency you can even wiretap first and then within 72 hours go before the judge. No problem.
This is not a question of wiretapping or not, it is a question of following the law or not. And why do we insist that the administration follow the law? Well to avoid the potential of abusing the authority to wiretap. If there is no independent review of the wiretaps and they can wiretap solely on their unreviewable authority, how do we know the government is acting ethically? Hos do we know that they are not tapping journalists or political opponents. The law does not just to apply to Bush but any President. I don’t’ trust anybody. And I THOUGHT conservatives had a basic distrust of government as well. Our Constitution is not to leave anything to “trust” but to have a constant system of checks and balances, war time or not. You should want that too because someday we might be saying Good Morning President Hillary Clinton.
So you can go shove your argument that those of us on the left are “soft” on terrorism or don’t want to wiretap potential terrorists. that is bull shit. We want the LAW followed. I thought that is what we were fighting for in Iraq.
Slide
The usual suspects are straying from the farm on this one:
Steve
I appreciate your response, Comish. Considering the NYT apparently held back this story for a year because of the administration’s national security concerns, I’m making the assumption that any specifics regarding sources were vetted by the feds to ensure that only stale information was revealed. Now, I hardly have a lot of faith in the NYT as a bastion of responsible journalism, so I’d hardly stake my life on that proposition. If we were indeed still wiretapping the aforementioned Iranian-American doctor in the South, then yes, I’d agree it’s absolutely egregious to leak that information. However, I wouldn’t take it as a given.
I’d continue to disagree with the general proposition that merely revealing the existence of this wiretapping program endangers national security. You describe the issue in generalities (“revealing our spy tactics makes it easier for the enemy to counter those spy tactics”), but let’s be real: everyone knows we use wiretapping. The only difference between today and last week is that last week, someone communicating with terrorists would have “known” that they could only be wiretapped pursuant to a secret FISA-approved warrant, but now, they know they might be wiretapped without one. Big deal. For all they knew, they were being wiretapped pursuant to a warrant all along.
So I’m with you with respect to any specifics that may have been leaked regarding currently ongoing investigations, but I don’t join in the assumption that the specifics which were revealed are necessarily sensitive, and I don’t believe the relevation of the general concept that we sometimes wiretap without a warrant tips off the terrorists in any way. I would note that in the case of the Plame leak, defenders of the administration shrug off the idea that any harm was done, demanding to see the corpse of a dead agent before they’ll treat it as serious. But when it comes to any leak that makes the administration look bad, the harm to national security is taken as a given. I’m not impressed by the double standard.
Ancient Purple
Sleep well, Brian, since you are more concerned about your own precious life than the Constitution.
Perhaps in the morning you can inform all of us what shade of yellow that stripe down your back is.
Slide
Last words before I go to bed.
IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL PRESIDENT
Pooh
Brian did allude to a neat trick:
If they just told us when the war was going to end before hand, I could stop with the phone sexy-sexy until then. Sorry baby, My civil liberties are in the shop until sometime next December, but they’ll come back better than ever.
The Comish (sic)
First of all, if the number of NSA and CIA leaks during the Bush admin have proven anything, it’s that nothing is “absolutely secret for the government.”
Second, “circumvention” implies that the Bush admin was required to apply for a warrant before getting the wiretaps. It wasn’t. But we’ve been over that. See the President’s war powers; 50 USC 1802 (discussed in other threads).
Third, it’s not just a matter of asking “mother may I?” and being told “OK.” It takes time to put the required volumes of information together for submission to the FISA Court. And our intelligence community does not have unlimited personnel. Because the Executive did not need a warrant to have the authority to perform the wiretaps, there was absolutely no reason for the Bush administration to pull people off of other, more vital work. Sure, they might have provided political cover, but I guess the Bush admin once again overestimated the intelligence community’s commitment to the concept of “Confidentiality.” At least while Bush is in office.
Fourth, Bush was required to act as he did. I’m assuming that many of the wiretaps were time sensitive. In other words, the gov’t found out about the sources of information and had to act within hours, rather than days. The paperwork was voluminous and detailed enough that it sometimes couldn’t be prepared by the 72 hour deadline, and the FISA Court frequently didn’t act on those applications for months anyways. So it would have been impossible to comply with the FISA requirements to obtain a warrant. But that doesn’t relieve the President of his oath to protect the American people from enemies foreign and domestic. Worst case scenario: the President gets the information and stops a terrorist attack (the NYT article lists at least 3 attacks that were thwarted through the program), and a Court later decides that warrants were necessary.
This is interesting because it’s a situation faced by cops all the time: stop the crime while it’s occurring, or leave to get a warrant and potentially let the suspect get away.
So what happens if a Court later decides that a cop needed a warrant? Are the criminals allowed to perform the crime that was thwarted by the “illegal” cop’s actions? No. The gov’t is merely prevented from using the information obtained without a warrant in the trial against that particular criminal. It can still thwart the attack, which is the most important thing anyway.
So worst case scenario: Bush was wrong and he needed to get a warrant. But even if you’re right and Bush needed a warrant (although I don’t think so), Bush’s “illegal” program thwarted at least two terrorist attacks: one to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches; and another to blow up British pubs and train stations with fertilizer bombs.
Do you really think he should be impeached for that?
Pooh
What about the guys with rotary hammers?
Ancient Purple
Exactly how long do you think a police officer who continually refuses to Mirandize a suspect would last on the force?
ppGaz
Oh my God, you actually believe that story?
You deserve this lying little prick of a president, really. Bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches! Oh my fucking god.
And after that, they were going to saw the top of the Empire State Building with a cordless jigsaw.
Pooh
How has the “War on (non-Pfizer) Drugs” not been used to justify suspension of Miranda? Genius, simply genius.
(Man, the rhetorical tobbaganing is fun when the slopes get this slickery…)
The Comish (sic)
You’ve completely missed the point of my post, Socrates. I was suggesting that TimF shouldn’t suppose that he knows all the facts merely because he’s read a few lefty blogs. I think Tim can probably handle exposure to some competing ideas. (I would never suggest something so dangerous for you, Mr. Hawking.)
And JeffG is not “claiming something else,” Copernicus. He’s still arguing that the program was legal under FISA. But you’d actually have to read the post to understand that, and we don’t want you being confronted with inconvenient facts, now do we?
And maybe cut down a bit on the snottiness, da Vinci. While I appreciate the assuredness that comes with never having been exposed to competing viewpoints, I think you may want to follow John’s lead on this one and take a wait and see approach.
ppGaz
?
Yes, for thinking that he could get away with trying to get people to believe such a completely horseshit story. Only fast — FISA avoidin’ — action prevented maniacs with blowtorches from toppling the Brooklyn Bridge? Whew! Who knew that maniacs could get blowtorches, even? Go to blowtorch school posing as demolition technicians. Where do they practice their evil blowtorch skills, do you think?
Say, who are those twenty guys goin at the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches? HEY YOU! HEY! LET’S ROLL!! GET DOWN FROM THERE YOU RAGHEAD FUCKERS!!
We better put Pinkerton men around the St. Louis Arch, and the World’s Tallest Cross near Amarillo, TX. In fact we better put Pinkerton men around everything taller than one story in the whole fucking country. If we are vulnerable to maniacs WITH BLOWTORCHES and their vast conspiracies … well, we’re toast.
Jesus.
ppGaz
At Risk – Vulnerable to Lunatics with Blowtorches?
Thanks to FISA-avoidin’ techniques perfected by the Bush Administration, these landmarks STILL STAND.
ppGaz
Still Standing! Blowtorch-Wielding Lunatics Foiled Thanks to FISA-Smashin’ President!
Another terrorist act, avoided!!
The Comish (sic)
Well, here’s what the NYT story has to say about it:
Considering these “officials” are the same confidential “officials” who were revealing the program to the NYT, I’m guessing that they’re pretty credible when they talk about the program’s successes.
But just for clarification, would you mind letting me know how to tell when the confidential informants were lying, and when they were telling the truth? Because it sure seems like anything that helps Bush is a lie, and anything that hurts him is the truth.
And just to be sure, the person who pleaded guilty to planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bidge with a blowtorch, he’s a liar, too, right? Man, that Karl Rove is good!
ppGaz
Gingerbread Castle — Another Piece of Americana Spared the Terrorist Blowtorch
Thanks, George W. Bush! Your FISA-avoidin’ ways have given us another place to celebrate our freedom!
ppGaz
The Big Duck — Spared the Terrorists’ Flame Thanks to Evil-Fightin’ President Who Puts Finger In Eye of FISA Bureaucrats!!
Thanks Mister President! The Big Duck quacks for you!
rayabacus
Here is Walid Phares. His “Catch them but don’t watch them” article explains how this has hurt national security.
The Comish (sic)
Yep, keep posting those “hilarious” links, ppGaz. I couldn’t do nearly the damage to your credibility that you’re doing yourself.
Or maybe stop, take a breath, and respond to my previous post.
ppGaz
Giant Paul Bunyan Stands In Defiance of FISA-Lovin’ Defeatists
Spared the terrorist’s blowtorch, another proud piece of American history stands tall, like our president.
ppGaz
These Crullers Don’t Run!!
Giant Donut stands proudly after terrorist plot foiled by strong, decisive president who scoffs at weakness and outdated laws!
ppGaz
Okay, this is a call to arms, patriots! Right here in Phoenix, we are organizing block watches to keep an eye out for gangs of blowtorch-wielding thugs and suspicious characters with welding equipment.
We are inspired by our Fearless FISA-Smackin’ Leader, who gives the presidential heave-ho to old-fashioned laws and impediments to protecting America from terrorists!
Be on the lookout for men wearing unsightly checkered shirts, and cloth headgear, especially if they are driving around with several tanks of acetylene and/or oxygen in their vehicles, or have welding masks or other terrorist paraphernalia.
Remember, acetylene is flammable, so don’t try to apprehend these individuals yourself. Call your nearest Homeland Security Office and report the suspicious activity before these Destroyers of Freedom put the flame to structures in your neighborhood!
Paul Wartenberg
This isn’t about the Democrats. This is about a Presidential administration ignoring congressional law, judicial oversight, and the Fourth Amendment. Why do you think REPUBLICAN SENATORS are calling for investigation?
Ancient Purple
Oh my god! They are going to go after the “art bridge” on McDowell near 16th Street here in Phoenix!!!
We’re doomed! Doomed, I tell you.
Charlie (Colorado)
John, if they were worried about a paper trail, would they have been briefing the Congress over and over again?
That’s got to be the most implausible argument I’ve ever seen you make.
Perry Como
You people shouldn’t joke about serious issues.
ppGaz
I know! And then they’ll go after Patriot’s Square and blowtorch those ugly damned things up in the air, whatever they are called. I hope.
But not before we take another swipe at FISA-huggin’ defeatists!
DougJ
Go the fuck back to redstate, you lying sack of shit. Over and over again? Kiss my ass.
Perry Como
They most certainly did. Senator Rockefeller even kept a diary.
DougJ
Charlie, I have no patience for you. That is the worst bullshit I have ever seen on this site. They did not brief the Congress over and over again. You are a liar.
You are the first commenter I’ve seen on this site who really would support Lord George Jesus Bush if he ate a baby.
ppGaz
We haven’t seen the full extent of the damage that FISA has caused.
ppGaz
Officials today announced the appointment of Michael Brown
Things just have a way of working themselves out.
DougJ
I know a lot of you hate George Will, but this is a very good piece on spy-gate.
Perry Como
George Will is a liberal hack.
The Comish (sic)
I sometimes joke about folks on both sides of the aisle who are psychologically incapable of dealing with facts that don’t fit into their predetermined worldview. ppGaz has just provided Exhibit A that sometimes, the joke is all too real.
ppGaz, I eagerly await some evidence that this conspiracy — confirmed via the New York Times (with its multiple layers of fact-checking), officials critical of the wiretapping program, and at least one person who admitted that he was part of the conspiracy — is false. But I’m not holding my breath.
But, hey, credibility is not that important, right? It’s much more important to insult Bush and Republicans, no matter what the truth is.
ppGaz
Never trust a man with two first names.
Perry Como
I never trust a man who won’t state his intent.
George Will…George Will…
What the hell will George do? Enough with all the suspense.
ppGaz
Yeah, the thing about blowtorches, Comish, is that they can be concealed in a ball point pen, or in an MP3 player. You get a couple dozen guys with palm-sized blowtorches, working at night when the flames will just look like festive pyrotechnics, and they could bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, or for that matter, the Eiffel Tower.
But thanks to George Bush and his quick action, this evil band of “Torchorists” have been foiled and will now spend their lives welding for Jesus.
Thanks, Comish, for staying “on message” with this and making sure that your fellow Americans know what is keeping the safe. You are truly an unsung hero.
srv
Uh, Comish (or DougJ, whatever), you need to be reading PW more. He’s now up on the War Powers talking points (which is not what he started with). As for my blinders, perhaps you should read upthread instead of jumping in at the end…
There you go again.
DougJ
I thought I went out this evening, but I guess I was here writing the Comish.
ppGaz
Thanks to quick work by FISA-skirtin’ authorities, everything came out in the end, once again.
srv
Well, of course all laws are great and wonderful, and save children. And the NYT is always accurate. I suppose it would be impertinent to ask:
How exactly, would have nominal use of FISA have prevented these cases from being uncovered?
I guarantee that we’ll never, ever know that answer.
The DOJ tells us how bunches of terrorists have been convicted under the Patriot Act. Alas, the figures show the vast majority of folks charged under the PA are in fact not terrorists…
The Comish (sic)
So your defense has nothing to do with “facts” or “evidence” or “intelligence.” It has to do with whether or not you think the plan would be successful. That’s a wonderful attachment to reality you’ve got there. Leaving aside that the Brooklyn Bridge is made of metal, which I assure you can be cut by blowtorches, let’s take a look at your analysis.
Does that also mean that no one ever jumped the White House fence to meet Chelsea Clinton? Because there’s no way that would work. I mean, Bush was in office, so the Clintons weren’t even in the White House! It’s preposterous!
And I guess we can also conclusively say that a plane didn’t crash into the White House, followed shortly by a man shooting 29 rounds into the White House’s north face. All while Clinton was away from the residence. So what would be the point of that?
Also, the Red Sox and White Sox didn’t win the World Series in consecutive years. And nobody’s ever won the lottery, let alone twice. And the Berlin Wall never came down. And man never landed on the moon. And the Soviet Empire didn’t voluntarily switch to democracy. And one man didn’t shoot Kennedy three times with a bolt action rifle while Kennedy was travelling in a moving vehicle. And the child of a poor, single mother in Arkansas never grew up to be President. And that whole thing about al Queda hijacking 3 planes at the same time and crashing them into two American monuments and killing thousands of people never happened.
It’s all just too farfetched.
The Comish (sic)
Boy, I’d love to see a cite for this. Please?
The Comish (sic)
(Sorry, hit send too soon)
You’re right. I don’t know. It’s possible it would have made no difference, and it’s also possible it would have. But it doesn’t matter because the President wasn’t required to seek warrants.
The Comish (sic)
Careful, Doug. The NYT story I cited to earlier (and the one giving rise to this whole debacle) refers to one initial briefing for Congressional leaders of both parties, and “later briefings.” So there were certainly multiple briefings. I don’t know exactly how many or how often. But it’s certainly enough to support a claim that Congress was briefed “over and over again.”
srv
I’m looking for the original 2003 DOJ report that was emasculated (ACLU?), but haven’t found it yet. They’ve been much more vague about actually providing case data since then:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050516/NEWS08/505160326/1001
Personally, I listened to a Federal DA in late 2002 who talked about all the wonderful cases they could try under the PA. You know, if he didn’t have enough cases to justify his Counter Terror unit, they’d think he was slacking.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Tall Dave points out that we don’t need our centuries-old Constitutional protections against the executive branch, because previous Presidents were doofuses, but now we have George W. Bush. Remember, the Fuehrer is always right.
srv
Criminal Terrorism Enforcement Since the 9/11/01 Attacks:
http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/report031208.html
This is before the later analysis (referred to above). Someone had to piece together individual newspaper stories and couldn’t match the feds numbers.
Does not specifically break out PA charges. Bush used “400” this month. Whereas Ashcroft was using “345” back in 2003. Seems like our national security is going backwards.
StupidityRules
You could bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with some nail files. Obviously you would need a lot of nail files and a lot of time. But you could.
Think this was posted earlier about the possibility of bringing down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches…
DougJ
It’s still a strech, Comish. And you’re okay — why do you want to take the side of a moron like Charlie?
ppGaz
No, you think? Nail files? See, if it were me, I’d go to the hardware store and get some real metal files, to reduce the amount of filing I’d have to do.
No point, ever, is too unsubtle to be safe from mishandling around here, you see.
If you want to believe that American buildings and bridges are just sitting there vulnerable to imminent attack by people with hammers, tongs, files, torches, chainsaws … and …. here’s the beauty part ….. only quick action by government wiretappers is standing between you and the sudden collapse of all these structures …. necessitating a president who, along with his leg-humping Attorney General, decide to skirt the law at the drop of a hat in order to save you from these horrors …. if you really want to believe that, then go right ahead. Believe it.
But don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining, and try to manipulate me into going along with the charade. Because it’s bullshit.
Ancient Purple
Wait a second, ppGaz. We have a new front in preventing terrorism:
Yes, we must keep our eyes on those Catholic groups, especially those monks with their communist ways. I mean, I was always suspect that giving up your worldly possessions and working for the “common good” of the community was always a bit suspicious.
Now I know that monastic life, vegetarianism and environmentalism are all simply fronts for Al Qaeda.
Thank God the King is keeping an eye on them.
StupidityRules
ppGaz, perhaps if you had read what I linked to you might have had an idea about wether I believe a man with a blowtorch would be a threat to the Brooklyn Bridge or not…
leefranke
I was talking to a coworker today about this and he was defending the President’s actions (our safety, I trust him, etc).
I think he almost threw up when I asked if he would still be fine with it when President H. Clinton is doing it in 3 years (not that she’ll actually be President, but he got my point).
TallDave
Good news for all you lefties concerned about the civil rights of terrorists making international calls: you can safely remove your tinfoil hats, because the NSA is starting a do-not-wiretap list.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2106
TallDave
Oh, and Clinton was already monitoring domestic calls under ECHELON. I guess the Bill of Rights is only intended to protect terrorists from Republicans.
TallDave
LOL Under the new “Gaz Doctrine,” I guess we now only prosecute terrorists who have good plans for killing thousands of Americans.
Terorrists with poor plans, such as using blowtorches to bring down bridges, will be given job training.
TallDave
IMPEACHMENT. Get used to that word.
Sorry, Bill Clinton can’t run again.
Pooh
Thanks to Lazarus, this thread is finally Godwined…I’m shocked it only took 300 some posts…
Il Supremo Benito Bush
While President Bush has freely admitted to engaging in domestic espionage activities that could very well be found to be both unlawful and unconstitutional, some say he is now taking the “hang out” route a little too far.
http://www.thehammer.ca/content/2004/1001/bush.jpg
Perry Como
So that’s Pelosi’s plan to take back the House in ’06.
ppGaz
I don’t really care what you believe, no offense. I was writing to the general readership, making a rather general point. Your post was just a launching pad for mine.
The idea that people are having “conversations” here is quaint and charming …. but false.
There are very few legitimate conversations going on in a space like this. And most of those are dysfunctional, in that only one side is genuinely interested in what the other is saying.
This is neither a complaint, nor a criticism. It’s just an observation.
The bridge-blowtorch thing, AFAIC, is iconic. It’s totally symbolic. If anyone in this country thinks that they are going to get to govern by scaring citizens into giving up their liberties because men with blowtorches might go around burning holes in things that can fall down … then I say, fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Don’t peddle that kind of bullcrap and then expect me to sit here and have a “conversation” with you.
If that blast applies to you, then so be it. If not, then fine. I’m happy either way.
ppGaz
TallDave is on record, folks: He apparently wants you to flaccidly and wekaly surrender your liberties to a government that insists it has to have them, in order to protect you from people with blowtorches who are lurking out there RIGHT NOW ready to burn holes in big things that might fall down on you.
Is there a pillory somewhere that people like Dave can be put out on the street and be targets for overripe fruit?
Jesus. You know, it’s one thing to be a manipulative shithead, but do you have insult the people you are manipulating at the same time?
When did the GOP vision of America turn into something so lame and weak that we have to have secret wiretaps to protect us from people with blowtorches?
Go forth and support your president who
a) Tells Americans to cower in fear of people with blowtorches, and
b) Tells Iraqi insurgents who are slaughtering their own people on a regular basis to “Bring it on!”
c) Laughs and jokes about not being able to find WMDs in the Oval Office
How can you fucking people even sleep at night and look yourselves in the mirror? How low are you willing to go with this pathetic little fucker?
DougJ
TallDave, your posts have made my satire redundant.