And the facts continue to dribble out:
U.S. President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush administration, the report said. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years — the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court’s history.
Precisely the type of story that partisans like- Republicans can claim that the court was playing politics with Bush’s wiretap requests, liberals can claim Bush is such a threat that even the mild-mannered FISA court, which approves almost every request, had to try to restrain the ‘Imperial President.’ It’s a win-win for everyone. Except the country.
Ancient Purple
On what basis?
demimondian
Other than wondering if all Republicans need to be tarred with that brush, the basis is pretty clear. The Court was limiting requests. If the wiretaps had gone through, then the President’s administration would have looked better, and, therefore, the Court must be trying to undermine the President. The only explanation for that would be political machinations on the part of the FISC judges.
Jim Allen
Will somebody *please* give George Bush a blow job so we can impeach him?
demimondian
He’d have to lie about it. When has Bush lied about something important?
Ancient Purple
True.
But I can’t wait for the Bush noise machine to explain away the fact that it was Chief Justice Rehnquist (and now Chief Justice Roberts) who appoints the judges to the FISA court. I guess Rehnquist was a closet liberal after all. /eyeroll
Doug
Bush was requesting wiretaps at something like 3x the rate of his 4 predecessors. War on Terra I suppose.
Jim Allen
“He’d have to lie about it. When has Bush lied about something important?”
DougJ, please tell me that’s you.
Matt
So only 6 requests were modified in all of 2001 and 2002. The administration started bypassing the court that this point, not after 179.
Pooh
For the second time this week, disappointed, but not surprised.
Blue Neponset
I think the partisan Liberals have a pretty good point. A President shouldn’t be allowed to ignore or avoid rulings from the Courts simply because it suits him. I don’t actually think that is a partisan issue.
KC
I think we really need more facts to assess what was going on. Was the court really hindering the president? Or, were their wiretap requests way out of line? In other words, what kind of wiretaps was the administration asking for? And who was going to be tapped? Additionally, to skip the details, if the president broke the law, he broke the law, right?
Perry Como
KC Says:
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
John S.
Cue Darrell to rush in and claim victory by selectively citing excerpts from this linked story and proclaiming that the evil hate-Bush liberals have been thwarted yet again from destroying our precious country.
In 3,2,1….
Otto Man
It’s only a partisan issue in the sense that it’s an issue only for people who put their party ahead of their country.
Darrell
Even if FISA was cooperating with Bush admin requests fully, given the likely volume of data from high tech surveillance of suspected foreign enemies, was it even practical to get a warrant for each piece of information intercepted which went either to or from a US citizen? And more importantly, was it within FISA’s authority to tell the President how to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorists?
John S.
So, in 22 years the court only modified 2/13,102 warrants, but in the last four years under Bush that ratio has skyrocketed to 179/5,645. Which means that out of 2.5 times less warrant requests over 1/5 the length of time by Bush have produced 90 times more modifications.
The right says: It changed because of 9/11.
The left says: It changed because of Bush.
Only time will tell, but my money is on the man – not the event.
John S.
Exhibit A
Ancient Purple
Sorry, I guess I missed the part in the Constitution that says you have to get a warrant, unless it isn’t “practical.”
Care to show me where that is?
Darrell
When you show me the part of the Constitution which says the President has to get a warrant to monitor foreign terrorists
Lis Riba
But this doesn’t prove cause and effect. Quite the opposite:
Simple subtraction shows the judges only modified 6 requests in 2001 and 2002, but the administration began bypassing the court shortly after 9/11.
In other words,
kdaug
Foreign enemies, eh Darrell?? Per John S, Exhibit B:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/nsa-spied-on-un-diploma_b_12927.html
Turns out – old news really – we were also spying on UN diplomats, in direct contravention to at least three international treaties we’re party to.
I wonder why we’ve found ourselves “isolated”?
Blue Neponset
I don’t see the distinction Lis Riba. What difference does it make if Bush ignored the courts before or after they started to “challenge him”?
John S.
That’s what laws are for Duhrrell. You do realize that not everything that governs us is written in the Constitution, right? And you also realize that Congress creates laws that while guided by the spirit of the Constitution, may be overturned by the Supreme Court when they violate it? So when there is a law that requires the President to act in a particular fashion that has not been found inviolate of the Constitution, the President is bound by that law and cannot break it just because he feels like it or because he interprets it differently.
There are laws to prevent the President from overreaching his power, aside from the fact that it is also hardcoded into the Constitution. The Executive branch does not have the authority to create legislature, nor does it have the power to interpret legislature. That is what the Congress and the Supreme Court are for respectively.
Didn’t you ever take a government or civics class in school?
Darrell
At least one federal court has written:
Like Jeff Goldstein said, If Dems really believe the President’s NSA foreign intel gathering program is illegal, then they should call publically for the immediate end of this horrible illegal program which is trampling our civil liberties. Assuming the Dems believe country before party, they should follow their accusations with actions.
neil
I don’t get how this is supposed to amount to a defense. The court kept getting in our way, so we decided to ignore it? How is that any more justifiable than, say, bribing the judges, or just having them knocked off?
John S.
It speaks to motivation and the cry of foul partisanship.
If the Bush administration began bypassing the court BEFORE they were challenged by it, that means that this line of reasoning:
Is complete bullshit.
John S.
Exhibit C – Apples vs. Oranges
You say ‘foreign’ and I say ‘domestic’, you say ‘warrantless’ and I say ‘only for 72 hours as defined by law’…
Let’s call the whole thing off.
synuclein
Lisa makes a good point, and raises another key question, that is “why is the Administration still filing wiretap requests with FISC?” Especially since they now seem to view it as “inconvenient”. Is it possible that these requests to FISC are a consequence of the “questionable” stuff the NSA is doing?
I’m not a lawyer, but this would seem to taint the legal admissability of any subsequent evidence gathered if it was shown that the initial request for wiretapping was based on “illegally” gathered information (as most of us, except Darrel would seem to acknowledge the NSA wiretaps are).
So, if the initial source for the “probable cause” argument before FISC is illegally gathered, what is the use of getting legal coverage later? Or are these just unrelated to the NSA stuff, raising the question of just how many people the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc are listening to.
Darrell
Except in cases which your little mind hasn’t anticpated, say warrantless monitoring of foreign terrorist suspects when they make domestic phone calls into Albuquerque. The Bush admin says they have constitutional authority to monitor these same foreign suspects the same as always. What a wild-eyed power grab, right?
Darrell
Very likely because those cases are dealing wholly with US citizens/persons not involved with any foreigners outside the country
Mike S
Keep trying to frame it as a “foreign intel” program that we’re complaining about. There are plenty of FOX news Republicans that will buy that. Honesty is a dead end when arguing politics.
We are calling for Congress to do it’s job and do a real investigation of what has been happenning. Not many of us are holding our breath for that since this congress decided long ago that it is not their job to investigate the administration, unless it entails thousands of hours investigating a Democratic one.
Lis Riba
Kills the cause and effect defense.
Can’t claim Bush bypassed the court because they were unreasonably restrictive, if he did it before they restricted him.
Darrell
But it * really is * a foreign intel program we are talking about. No Fox talking points needed when the facts speak for themselves. Talk about dishonesty
John S.
Yawn. This tired rhetoric gets old fast.
The law anticipated ALL circumstances relevant to this discussion, including your ‘hypothetical’, as per 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1801
Do you know how to read, or do your partisan goggles hinder you from making out complete sentences?
John S.
Oh, and let’s not forget this part before you start shrieking:
Darrell
John, read the last phrase of your quote: “a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes”. The President isn’t running surveillance for “law enforcement” purposes, he is running it for MILITARY purposes… a huge distinction. In fact, if any dirt comes out on a US citizen as a result of such warrantless surveillance, it CANNOT be used against the American for law enforcement purposes.
I hope this clears things up for you, but we all know you’ll just move on to your next BushHitler talking point without ever acknowledging how wrong you were on this one
Don
You liberals are so silly. How can it not be obvious to you that a 3% modification rate and a 0.1% rejection rate is completely partisan and insane? At that rate it’s virtually a remote possibility that the 24-esque “cases which your little mind hasn’t anticpated” will come about and not be stopped.
And what then, huh? You’ll have completely failed to protect the Constitution and a few thousand people! All in the name of protecting this “Constitution” and a few million people’s rights!
Sheesh!
Darrell
yes, because it’s these noble, ever so patriotic liberals who are protecting our Constitution from FascistBush(TM) attempts to trample it. Because if Bush gets his way, the terrorists have won, don’t you see?
John S.
As usual, attempting to discuss anything with Darrell is pointless:
I guess if you concede the point 9/11 magically turned the entire world into a giant battlefield and everyone is an enemy combatant, then laws are totally irrelevant because everything the President does is just part of one giant military operation. That must be very convenient to be in a permanent state of war so you can play by different rules in the name of defense.
Anyway, I’ll let you get back to your mafia mentality where you happily cede total power to Bush in exchange for his ‘protection’. Don’t let little things like laws or the Constitution stop you from wielding your next ‘George the Godfather’ talking point like a cudgel.
Ancient Purple
Then why the need to get the AG’s opinion on the matter? The AG is not the arbitor or the UCMJ.
Doug
For those strict constructionists out there, I thought it might be entertaining to read the text of the Fourth Amendment:
It’s not just important that warrants issue prior to a search, but also that the allegations of probable cause be supported by oath or affirmation. In other words, you put the person seeking to perform a search on record about just what he has in mind and subject him to penalties for making shit up.
Those who are prepared to give Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt believe him when he says that all of the searches involve agents of foreign powers, even if one party to the communication might happen to be a U.S. citizen. But, really, how would we know if he was telling the truth?
Madison and the rest of the Framers designed our government so that we need not rely on office holders being angels. Instead, government can still work with office holders being flawed humans. The government is set up so that the ambitions of one group of flawed humans work against the ambitions of the other group. But in the case of Bush’s warrantless searches, there are no checks. Nobody from another branch of government is being allowed to put the brakes on Bush’s authority. And that arrangement can’t last for long. Congress needs to step up and rein him in.
Ancient Purple
Yeah, that is EXACTLY what we have been saying, Darrell.
Congratulations on becoming the poster boy for the disingenuous.
ppGaz
Uh, Darrell, I think you’re up ….
John S.
Sorry to say, but your very existence and mentality proves that the terrorists have already won at a certain level.
The more your vision of America resmebles Saudi Arabia, the happier Bin Laden gets.
ppGaz
It’s right there, Darrell, next to the part where the president always has to tell the citizens the truth. Which is right after the passage that says that the people’s liberties are not to be suspended just because bad people knock down some buildings.
Not everything is spelled out in the Constitution, Darrell. I guess the Framers didn’t count on people being as stupid as you are.
demimondian
Eh, Don, it isn’t that simple. The President’s power to perform actions in a war zone in order to defend the Republic, for instance, is not subject to review by Congress or the Courts. There and then the Prez can pretty well do whatever he pleases. (Cf. Ex parte Milligan)
The check on this power is that he doesn’t control whether we are at war or not; that power is granted solely to the Congress. But I don’t know any serious legal scholars who don’t construe AUMF as a declaration of war, even if it’s a peculiarly badly framed one. I’m not one of the local legal experts, though, so I don’t know that literature as well as some people do.
Zifnab
More and more I have to begin asking the question of who, exactly, is being wiretapped. So far I’ve heard reports of the ACLU, Greenpeace, and Quakers being investigated by the FBI. I’d like to know exactly how many of the organizations the White House failed to investigate via FISA (or tapped without regard to a FISA blessing) are actually Islamic Terrorist organizations and how many are people with no clear connection to terrorist fronts.
I’d just like a few names. Just to make myself feel better, knowing that our President is chasing after the right people.
Stormy70
Bush is spying on terrorists?! Quelle horrour!
This is how you guys spent Christmas?
I do like the set up for the 2006 elections. Well played, NYT, well played. {snicker}
The question now becomes, could the Dems protect the country against any enemy tougher than France?
Better set up a Senate hearing to check it out, while our enemies wait.
Zifnab
Ah. here we are.
Mike S
And we know that how? Because that’s what they tell us? They’ve never done anything dishonest, right? They’ve never used their power to attempt to destroy political opponents, right? Maybe we can ask John Bolton about what was going on.
I’m not sure why anyone would put blind trust into any administration, let alone one that has been shown to shade the truth if not outright lie. Are the New Republicans really so cowardly that when the administration just mentions terrorists they wail in fear and beg Daddy to protect them at all costs?
Ancient Purple
The answer to your question is an unmitigated “yes.”
Sojourner
Shoot those damn Quakers before they bring this country to its knees!!!
Mike S
I feel sorry for you Stormy. The leaders of your party decided that fear was the best way to win elections and they’ve succeeded in making their own people simpering children dependent on them to check under their beds. Yet they have shown not a sentilla of evidence that they are capable of protecting this country any better than anyone else.
In 2004 they elevated the terra alerts on an almost weekly basis. Doing so seems to have turned an otherwise very strong woman into weak, terrified one. So you cower in an area unlikely to get hit with an attack while I live somewhere that is undoubtably a target and live without fear.
Pooh
Darrell, stop linking to El Hage. That case doesn’t mean what you think it means, and it does nothing for your ‘argument’. Hell, I could link to Plessy v. Ferguson and say ‘at least one federal court has ruled that ‘seperate but equal’ is ok’. But that doesn’t get us anywhere, now, does it.
Here’s some questions that you have avoided even attempting to answer since the whole story came out: how do you know the NSA program only deals with “Foreign intelligence” issues? Why do you think so? Who gets to decide whether something is “foreign intelligence”? If it is the President, what limits that determination? Try it out, see how it goes.
Andrei
Wait… Maybe I missed something… we’re at war?
kdaug
Yeah, MikeS, whatever happened to those terruh alerts anyway? Had a bunch of them, right up to about Novemeber of last year… since then, nada.
Things that make me go “hmmmm…”
Mike
All these Bush Apologists need to sign the following:
I, [state your name], do give up all my Constitutional rights* necessary in support of the Federal Government’s ‘War on Terror’. I freely give up these rights indefinitely no matter if a Republican or a Democrat is the President. I will not criticize the President no matter their party as long they are fighting the ‘War on Terror’.
Full Name
* Rights to be determined by the President with no oversight by the Congress or the Judiciary
Well, Darrell and Stormy, we are all waiting for your signatures…..
Stormy70
I am not afraid, I am still pissed that terrorists thought ramming airplanes full of civilians into buildings were an appropriate political statement. I think people who are into that type of political statement should be killed when they declare war on the US. I know that one Party understands a war is going on and one Party would prefer to bury their heads in the sand. I would prefer terrorists get the message that killing innocent Americans will get you and your terrorist network annihilated.
Why do you think noone is out there trying to kill Americans? Do you see the daily reports of Islamic radical violence in the world? Or do you really think the World Trade Center was a one off?
I have yet to hear how the Democrats plan on protecting the country, and I do believe it needs protecting. I don’t know why people on the Left think everyone on the right is cowering in terror. We are not, we want terrorists wiped out, by violent means if necessary (preferably, in my case).
I like terrorists that are pushing up daisies when they are no use to us anymore. Not afraid, but still pissed the terrorists thought for one second America was soft enough to hit with impunity. I still find it amazing how much the Left hates it when 9/11 is brought up. It’s because in their heart of hearts, they know the Democratic Party has no answer to the terrorist threat to America.
Off to cook stir fry in my new wok. I hope my hands don’t shake from being scared in the Fraidy Cat America.
Ancient Purple
We do?
Only in your alcohol-soaked brain, Stormy.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
If we’re at war, then the president has the obligation to win it as fast as possible. So, why isn’t Bush cranking up the draft and commiting America’s resources toward wartime production?
Davebo
Hey, I’m with you on that one Stormy!
And besides, that whole “killing innocent Americans will get your biggest nemisis toppled from power throwing the country into total chaos” message doesn’t seem to work worth a crap does it.
And of course, the old “I’m not concerned with him anymore, he’s irrelevant” message has got to be encouraging to Osama right?
Pooh
Stormy,
I speak for many here when I say WHAT? Is anyone saying that chasing down and killing terrorists is a bad thing? Is saying ‘do it right and don’t kill me while you are at it’ a bad thing? Is saying put some effort into making sure that you are actually chasing terrorists a bad thing?
Let me put on my DougJ hat for a sec…
The terrorists hate us for our freedoms. By all means let’s give up our freedoms. (WHAT????)
Andrei
It’s clear that people like Stormy would say things like we’re fighting a war, need to kill the terrorists (even when we kill 30,000 or so Iraqis while losing 2,000 soliders in the process), blah blah blah and then turn around and discuss dinner plans with her brand new wok — and not see the irony.
I ask again, we’re at war? When did that happen?
Cromagnon
America (used to be): ‘Give me liberty or give me death’
America (now): ‘Please please please protect me from the bad ole terrorist! You can do anything you want just don’t let me die’
Darrell
As 90%+ of those arguing against Bush’s executive order program cite the 4th amendment, El-Hage is entirely relevant to this discussion. A warrantless search of a US citizen caught in a NSA surveillance ‘net’ overseas was upheld. This is a big deal ruling. What’s more, that court gave specific commentary on the limitations of FISA regarding foreign intelligence gathering.. so if you’re going to say that it does “nothing” for my argument, why not state WHY you think it does ‘nothing’. I think I’ve been pretty specific about my arguments and why I think they are relevant
As with any program there is potential for abuse. But I trust the process, reviews and oversight already in place. Based on everything I’ve read, what the President did seems entirely reasonable
However, as I understand your position based on what you’ve written, you would never be satisfied with any amount of oversight because Bush’s actions were a “sweeping reinterpretation” (your words) of the law and therefore unacceptable. Is that a fair characterization of your position?
Darrell
Well then, instead of sniping about “abuses” of Bush’s “illegal” foreign intel program as many Dems have done, why don’t Dems have the principle to publically demand an end to Bush’s ‘illegal’ program? Demand an end to on the record.
I haven’t read you saying those words, although “sweeping reinterpretation” of the law comes pretty close. What alternatives are the Dems proposing to protect us?
Zifnab
To you, and probably to many others, what President Bush did may have seemed “reasonable”. However, there is a big question as to whether it was “legal”. If I think my girlfriend is cheating on me, it may be “reasonable” for me to break into her house and pick through her things. If a large biker dude walks up to me and punches me in the face, it may seem “reasonable” to pull out a gun and shot him. If a terrorist slams an airplane into one of this country’s larger buildings, you could find it “reasonable” to wiretap every person of Arab decent in the country.
But in the end, I don’t care what reason may have been in your brain when you did it. We live in a nation of laws. Those laws apply to everybody. If the President pooh-poohs the law, no matter how reasonable he may have been at the time, he’s still a criminal and should be dealt with as such.
Zifnab
Full Story
Seems like they’re saying just that, Darell. They’re investigating the legality of the program, and if it is legal I suspect either the Democrats as a party or elements within the ACLU or a like-minded organization will challenge the wiretaps in court against freedoms garanteed by the fourth amendment.
Pooh
Hey now, I have not, not will I ever, worked for OLC or DoJ…
Sojourner
Perhaps because they’re so quick to give up the rights that so many Americans have died to preserve.
But don’t let that addle your little brain. A little scotch will soothe whatever ails you.
John S.
Damn straight.
And I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit around and let the likes of Stormy and Darrell turn America into a nation of legal relativism i.e. certain laws only apply to certain people, certain circumstances, certain situations, etc. Particularly when they are misguided enough to think that is patriotic and reasonable to accept the government doing whatever the fuck it wants – all in the name of defense.
Ben, why won’t the people listen to you?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Pooh
Erm, no. The sweeping reinterpretation (which I stand by) is that the executive acts in question are not subject to meaningful oversight (and no, briefing 8 members of Congress in secret, and gagging them, does not qualify in my book). So no, that is not a fair characterization of my argument. If I had said “the President cannot spy on us even with a warrant,” then your characterization would be fair. Would it make you feel better if I termed it a ‘novel and unsupported intepretation’ instead? Or how about if I just skip to the point and call it ‘incorrect’?
BTW all, check out my new Darrell Discussion Gear. I still have a headache though…
Ancient Purple
You truly are the master of the false dichotomy.
It isn’t “Bush’s way” or “no way.” There are other choices and alternatives.
Mike S
Never said I didn’t think they were. I’m just not letting it control me nor will I let the most recent fear of destruction be a pretext for making my own country less free. You all act as if there has never been a point where this country was in as much danger. The fact that the leader of your party made a big tadoo about the fact that our oceans no longer protect us just shows the stupidity of the whole fear tactic they use. I was far more worried about a nuclear war with the USSR or one of their satalite countries launching on us. But
Daddythe President needs to see himself as the great protector and the party needs to win elections so it’s time to revise history.We don’t hate it. We find it unseemly that the fear mongers use it and the 3000 dead as a political club. We also find it both pathetic and funny that the people who went through it and the people most likely to be affected by the next one are less afraid of it than the wimps who think it’s going to happen to them in bumfuck Oklahoma.
What, pray tell, has the Republican party done to protect us? Get bribed on the appropriations committee? Or maybe it was the mass transit cuts. These idiots were given a list of things to do and the last I saw they got a failing grade for implamenting them.
I hope so too. I vacilate between bemusement and disgust at the New GOP.
Pooh
Dem, you asked a question in the previous thread which I missed so:
Well the fact that it is an evidentiary hearing means that it has little, if any, precedential value (unless appealed and upheld). It is also limited in scope to claims advanced in support of suppression by El Hage. From reading the opinion, it’s essentially a standard 4th Amendment challenge (with an unusual fact pattern to be sure). Basically it’s self-limited to the particular case and the particular issue (i.e. 4th amendment), so it’s of limited relevance unless we are talking about 4th amendment aspects (and even then, it’s easily distibguishable on the facts do to the fairly unique scenario).
Is that what you are asking?
John S.
To quote Dan Aakroyd, “Stormy you ignorant slut…”
America is still soft enough to be hit with impunity. We were four years ago, and the situation has improved only marginally according to those who actually know what the fuck they are talking about (i.e. not you).
And if 9/11 pisses you of so much, why don’t you care that Osama bin Laden isn’t a concern for this administration? Why don’t you care that he is still roaming free with a smug look of satisfaction on his face that the strongest nation on Earth can’t find a 6’4″ Arab on a goddamn dialysis machine?
Or are you waiting for the next 9/11 commission to reveal that there was some mysterious ‘historical’ PDB titled Bin Laden Still Determined to Strike Inside United States before you actually start to give a shit about how the campaign for our safety is being conducted?
Zifnab
That brings up an interesting point of note. There were rumors about a year back that bin Laden had died of kidney failure. I still wonder at those rumors. It’s become increasinly humorous to me that the phantom of bin Laden seems to have faded from fashion in use by the Right and picked up steam with the Left.
Before it was “Big Bad Bin Laden’ll get you if you don’t pass the Patriot Act quick!” Now it’s “Bush can’t fight the war on terror. He can’t even get one freak’n dude!”
Darrell
Virtually every lefist on this site was pushing for prosecutions in the non-leak Plame case. But every one of you now are silent on the leakers of a classified program involving national security. Unprincipled and hypocritical? You bet. But hey, if it hurts Bush, who cares how much damage is done to the country, right ‘patriots’?
demimondian
Yo, Pooh! Perry Como has even better Darrell Discussion Gear. (You need to be running Greasemonkey on Firefox to make this work; I’ve tested it using Trixie on IE7, and it doesn’t work there. First time I’ve ever felt that IE7 genuinely would gain something from better standards-compliance.)
demimondian
Pooh — yes, that was what I was asking. tnx
Sojourner
Sorry, Darrell, if you fail to see the consistency in our position. In both cases, laws were broken – apparently by your beloved president and his thugs. As the Repubs used to say during the 90’s, no one is above the law, including the president. Kudos to the whistleblowers who blew his illegal cover. Plame, on the other hand, was not involved in illegal activities and there was absolutely no reason to blow her cover – especially by the very same people trying to scare the American public into submission with the threat of WMD – her specialty.
Stormy70
I think he is already dead. You guys hate Bush, and that is that. You can sling insults my way, but it does not change the fact that the Dems are rightfully considered soft on National Defense. I have not seen where Bush has violated any laws, so already we will never agree.
What the hell is the New GOP supposed to mean? This another pet nick name picked up on Kos to show you are with the “in” crowd in politics. Sorry, my wok cooking offends the serious posters here, who live in perpetual OUTRAGE against Bush and all who support them. We in the “New GOP” can live with it.
Darrell
Except that Bush’s program was legal.. If it’s held to be legal after Judicial committee view, I’m sure such an honest consistent leftist as yourself would then support bringing them up on treason charges then? Because you and your side are so honest and principled, that would be your position, right?
Who leaked Plame’s cover other than her big mouth and that of her husband’s?
capelza
New GOP, the party that calls the old GOP RINOS…
Sojourner
Yeah, and nobody was tortured under US control in Iraq. Do you ever read what you write? Or have you completely lost the ability to feel shame?
Yeh, we’re soft on national defense because we wanted the job in Afghanistan done first. Instead, your idiot president picked a fight against a country that was absolutely no threat. And guess what, it’s now a haven for terrorists improving their skills before they spread out throughout the world. You must be so proud, Stormy.
The US is only marginally more safe than it was in 2001 (after billions of dollars have been spent) and a hell of a lot more in debt. The military is becoming depleted. That’s not my idea of being strong on defense.
You absolutely refuse to face facts. It must be awful to be so frightened. Behind the tough talk is a scared little girl. I feel so sorry for you.
Mike S
Picked up at Kos? Only if someone else has been using it after reading one of my comments.
What does it mean? It means that the true Republicans are no longer in control of the party. The so called “principles” of the GOP such as smaller, less intrucive government means nothing. It means that the party of “moral values” is a joke. It means that the people screaming for integrity just over a decade ago were full of shit and will jump to Delay’s defence even though they know he is a sleaseball. It means that the people who claimed that no one was above the law and that lying is a mortal sin were lying when they said it.
I’ve watched your party for a long time and while I disagreed with them fundamentally I respected them. That is no longer the case because the New Republicans are unworthy of respect. And as I watch many of my Republican friends leave the party because they see it for what it has become I regain a little hope only to see it dashed by the elected officials of the party.
One more thing.
Compare dKos with any of the hallowed Republican sites ther than B.J. See what happens when someone posts a dissenting view or something that is against the party line. dKos will engage while the Republican sites will ban and spew talking points. Not to mention the cowards that don’t even have a comment section.
We make up our own minds while the New Republicans wait to see what the party line is supposed to be.
Otto Man
It means it’s different from the Old GOP. The differences between the two are best described here.
capelza
Thanks to those who posted below me. I would like to expand a little on my one sentence. The New GOP are the people who barged their way into the Grand Old Party and took over and then had the temerity to slam any Republican who did not tow the party line. Even if said Republican had been a loyal and decent man or woman for decades, sometimes even before the the whippersnappes who hijacked the party were even born.
These newcomers have the nerve to call those who don’t blindly follow the New Gop RINOs…it infuriates me. I think always firstly of Mark O. Hatfield, my former Senator. Sometimes I have fantasies of Barry Goldwater coming back from the grave and laying into these yahoos as only he could.
It’s shameful, really.
GTinMN
The fact that Darrell keeps peddling the same tired old debunked talking points makes me wonder at times if he’s not just emotionally disturbed, but also a paid shill. Just punching a clock for Rove and company, keeping the feces a-flying. Viewed from that perspective, his dogged persistence in dead-horse beating makes a bit more sense.
I guess it’s more likely he’s just a stubbornly in-denial Bush-fluffer. Lord knows I encounter too many of them in encounters off the internets, and I see the same pathetic attempts to avoid having any real discussion of the issues. God forbid they might learn something or have to admit a change in point of view, they’d sooner die.
Pb
Stormy,
I agree that we should hunt down the terrorists.
I disagree that a large percentage of Americans *are* terrorists.
Cheers.
Sojourner
Pb: you’re wasting your time. Apparently ole Stormy is afraid of her fellow citizens.
Ancient Purple
It means that you aren’t the old GOP.
If you think that today’s GOP is in line with the vision of Barry Goldwater, then you are nothing more than perhaps the most ignorant person on the face of the the planet.
John S.
No other real explanation for this:
Which is so thoroughly debunked that it is ridculous, or this little gem:
So he proudly declares “BUSH’S PROGRAM IS LEGAL!” and then one breath later says “Well, if it’s found to be legal by a group of Republicans…”. I mean, contradicting yourself in the same sentence takes talent.
How about when some JUDGES, you know, in the Judiciary branch of our government do their job and interpret whether the law was broken? Then you can crow about your ‘victory’ over liberals, but more likely you’ll start bitching about ‘activist’ judges.
As far as I’m concerned, Darrell is the eighth wonder of the world.
Stormy70
I love how a bunch of raving leftists know so much about the GOP to determine who is new and who is old. I have been in the GOP since voting age, and I don’t always agree with them, but they are getting the big things right. The Dems are getting nothing right. Nada. Still waiting for some leading light on the left to come out with their plan on anything. Waiting.
Still waiting.
This is the third election coming up with no Democratic plan.
Or are we waiting for 2008? I promise I won’t vote for Bush again, unless it is his brother.
michael
I think we’re still missing a few facts in this debate. According to these numbers Bush has been requesting FISA warrants at a much higher rate than his predecessors did. He gets a 97% rubber stamp on those requests and a 3% ‘modification’ rate. Doesn’t sound like a bad deal to me. But wait – he’s been bypassing the court at the same time! How many FISA requests would he have made if he’d simply gone to the court according to the law? And why did he think those particular requests might be modified?
John S.
Wowee! So your extensive knowledge of the GOP goes all the way back to Reagan? Have you ever voted for any other Republican President except a Bush (or Dole that one time)?
Seems to me you prefer a monarchy. Better move to Sweden or somewhere where your eager embracement of royalty is more appropriate.
But now for the real irony…
So, leftists aren’t equipped to judge the party on the other side of the aisle? Fair enough, except:
But righties are perfectly capable of judging the party on the other side of the aisle?
If there is one thing I love about you conservative types, it’s your penchant for consistency and egalitarianism above all else.
Seriously, lay off the sauce.
Sojourner
Nah. Let her continue with it. Her brain would explode if she were actually capable of understanding how foolish she looks through her unthinking support for this administration. Better she stay juiced.
Otto Man
You’re right, Stormy. The Republican Party is the same as it ever was, and only crazed lefties like former Republican Senator and Bush’s UN Ambassasor John Danforth would dare disagree.
Drink up, buttercup.
Ancient Purple
That, of course, means you are indeed the complete and total expert on GOP history. Again, if you think today’s GOP is anything like the GOP of Goldwater, you are the dumbest person on the face of the planet.
But for you, Stormy, I will simply chalk it up to your Scotch bottle tongue kissing.
Pooh
I’ve got a fun hypothetical:
Apologists – what info would it take to convince you the W. has done something wrong here?
BDSers, libertarians, skpetics, tinfoil hatties and rule-of-lawers – what info would it take to convince you that he hasn’t?
I’ll even start. For me, there are two levels of badness – the first is the potential out-and-out violation of FISA, the second is ignoring the whole lawmaking process altogether. For the first, it will take a showing that every single person snooped for longer than 3 days was in fact al Qaeda related. I.e., the law was not broken. For the second, I’m not sure, maybe a revelation that the technology used was just outside the scope of FISA (which I can’t imagine, but that’s why I’m not a technologist), or that the whole story is false (which seems unlikely at this point…)
demimondian
I’m more forgiving that Pooh is. Given how crude an instrument any statistical pattern recognition algorithm is, I’d accept that nothing was wrong if it could be shown that any incorrectly gathered data was gathered without conscious intent, and that an aggressive minimization technique was employed. I don’t expect 72-hour turn around; I would settle for the disclosure of a finite, bounded algorithm which got rid of data which was not clearly about non US persons, provided the process also tracked back into the database to remove the suspect records everywhere they’d been gathered. (There will be some grey area here about newly detected patterns; that will need to be handled on a case-by-base basis.)
I will also obviously be satisfied if it is shown that no data was obtained that required a warrant. I would, in fact, be happiest if that happened.
Zifnab
This sounds like the classic hypothetical: If Bush killed a kitten, would the GOP be able to justify it? If so, how loudly?
This one is a bit similar. Democrats have consistantly shown that, while being lilly livered cowards (or perhasp because they’re such wimps), they are normally quick to admit when they’re wrong. For instance, when Dan Rather reported on a fake Bush transcript, he resigned. If O’Reily had even a fraction of Rather’s honor, he’d have had to horsewhip himself down to Times Square and back before releaving himself of his job.
You want to convince us that Bush is innocent. Fine. Show me a group of non-Bush apologists who will vouche for him. Perhaps a delegation of moderate Democratic Congressmen. Or a group of retired judges with no political obligations. You could even use the FISA judges themselves. If PBS were to openly state that President Bush was legitimately cleared of all charges, I would bend my neck and admit I was wrong.
But if the only people clearing Bush’s name are GOP cronies, I hope you’ll forgive my continued suspicion.
demimondian
I don’t think that Pooh wants to convince anyone of anything. He wants to know what it would take to convince people of something.
For instance, my guess is that most of the defenders of the President would flip if a memo came out from GWB directing that Gov. Richardson be surveilled as a part of this program, with plans on how to intimidate him with the results. Obviously, that’s a ludicrous scenario, of course, but that’s not the point; the point is “what would it take”, not “is it likely to happen”.
Pooh
dem, that is a good point, I think. I don’t really have the technical knowledge to fully grasp what you are saying, but…
zif, just trying to get certain people to put their money where their keyboards are…
Pb
demimondian,
An obvious Democratic forgery–why, just look at that liberal typeface! Besides, Gov. Richardson had it coming. If GWB directed that he be surveilled, then he must have been communicating with foreigners or liberals–both known to give aid and comfort to the enemy–and therefore Gov. Richardson is a traitor, and GWB is keeping us safe from terrah blah blah blah etc. etc.
For more, stay tuned for Darrell And Friends (right after Stormy’s Super-Patriotic Super-Show (no liberal terrorists allowed!)).
Perry Como
demimondian Says:
Wouldn’t that be counterproductive to any sort of large scale pattern recognition system? You typically want more data, not less, when you are developing a system that is trying to discover patterns that are undetectable by normal human analysis.
That’s one of the issues with an intel gathering system that is non-specific. You not only have the (relatively) high false positive rate, wasting physical resources that could be used better, but you also have to collect alot of data in order to make the system somewhat practical.
The Other Steve
The odd thing is. That’s the same defense Saddam’s half-brother used this past week to defend the killings.
“I didn’t do it, but they had it coming!”
Baron Elmo
Demi, surely you jest.
If Bush was caught in bed with a naked 13-year-old boy, the likes of Hannity and Coulter would indignantly huff “The little bitch wanted it!”
searp
I guess we will have court challenges tout de suite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?hp&ex=1135832400&en=90d025b930c5720f&ei=5094&partner=homepage
demimondian
Perry Como, regarding aggressive minimization procedures:
Yes, it would. Problem is, that is what the law says, in clear languiage. For what it’s worth, I think that FISA needs updating here, although gguring how it should be drafted will be quite difficult. (Hey, Senator Cantwell? If you’re looking for someone who would be willing to work on your staff on this matter? Oh, well, just saying…)
Darrell
For a lawyer you’re not too bright. Being a partisan hack doesn’t help either. As of now, there is no dispute that Bush followed the legal process to get his program approved. Whether the program itself turns out to be legal is still unknown.
Given these realities, most people realize extremism when they hear it: “Bush ignored the lawmaking process altogether”
demimondian
I thought that the trope here was “if the President ate a baby”? I’m getting old; I can’t keep up with these intertrons any more.
searp
I’d say we will know pretty soon whether the program tainted major prosecutions. We may not know whether the program itself is legal until some time after that.
To my mind, Bush followed a procedure, but getting people who work for you to OK something isn’t much of a procedure, and so he doesn’t get any points from me for that.
Otto Man
Nah. The White House would announce it was a success in the President’s No Child Left Behind program. Bush would address a crowd of Boy Scouts with a backdrop that repeated the words “A Pederast with Results” over and over again until even the most mouth-breathing supporter got the message.
And only THEN would Hannity call anyone who criticized the president’s actions a supporter of the terrorists. “If we don’t have the freedom to sleep with young boys, the Islamofascists will have won.” And then Alan Colmes would bend over for the usual wedgie.
John S.
a.k.a anything that dribbles forth from Darrell’s lips.
Darrell
Huh? Did you not know that Bush’s executive order program was not looking for evidence to prosecute in a court of law? It is a military program looking to hunt down terrorists and foil plots, not a program to make criminal prosecutions.
In fact, if any evidence against an American turns up as a result of warrantless surveillance of a foreign enemy, it explicitly cannot be used to prosecute the American.
NSA judges who approved the program are independent from the President
searp
Darrell: the potential for tainting prosecutions is well documented elsewhere. The issue is simple: if I get a judge to issue a warrant based on evidence gleaned illegally, the warrant is invalidated. The FISA judges are very concerned about this and defense attorneys are already preparing motions for major terrorist cases.
You keep talking about NSA judges. I don’t know NSA judges, I know of FISC judges. They didn’t approve it, one resigned because of it. Without documentation I must consider this response to be pure baloney.
Darrell
As this program has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions, how do you come up with that? It think a lot of the reason many people are leftists is because they are ignorant. They hold strong opinions about subjects for which they have little or no understanding
Which further proves my point as NSA judges had to give approval to Bush’s program, not FISC judges. That you were too ignorant to know better says it all. The FISC judge you refer to was a political hack who resigned even before being briefed on the program. He had previously ruled that Guantanamo itself was illegal and was overruled unanimously by appellate court. But I’m sure you knew that already
Pooh
Morning Darrell, punching the clock as usual. Noble work you are doing.
Just so I know, was anyone else unclear about the point I was making?
John S.
I doubt it. Darrell seems to hold the patent on obtusity.
searp
I mentioned before that your addiction to ad-hominem attacks cheapens your arguments.
I will try again: there are no NSA judges, period. NSA is an arm of DoD, part of the executive branch. There are FISC judges. You don’t like the guy that resigned, OK, what about the others, who seem to all want a briefing on this program that they approved? I provided the link previously.
On tainting prosecutions: I thought I explained it well enough, evidently not.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013526.html :
Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.
The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency’s domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration’s most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.
The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises “fascinating and difficult questions,” said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
Finally, I am finished trying to discuss things with you. Your debating tactics are duplicitous and ill-informed.
searp
Statement of Michael V. Hayden, HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
12 April 2000
The result today at NSA is an intelligence gathering system that operates within detailed, constitutionally-based, substantive, and procedural limits under the watchful eyes of Congress, numerous institutions within the Executive Branch, and — through the FISA — the judiciary.
Got it, Darrell? No NSA judges, FISC judges, exactly the judges who want the briefing. I guess they either didn’t know what they approved or they don’t feel that they know enough about what they approved.
Why don’t you work on your facts before you destroy threads with easily disproved propaganda?
Darrell
TL cites cases to do with US citizens being monitored by NSA without warrant. If they are monitored without warrant, then hell yes that would ‘complicate’ things. But that has NOT A DAMN THING to do with the president’s executive order as you previously asserted out of ignorance.. a program which DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that warrantless surveillance of US citizens STILL cannot be used to prosecute them.
If info from such warrantless info was obtained and used in a prosecution, that would seem to be a violation of their civil rights, but it has nothing to do with the President’s program as you erroneously asserted above. You were too ignorant to know better, plain and simple
searp
Darrell: the link I provided cites legal actions that are being taken in response to the revelation of “the president’s program”. US persons were monitored, that is what the debate is about.
I really don’t understand why you bother posting. Putting dumb things in capitals doesn’t make them less dumb, it merely emphasizes the stupidity of the remark.
And now I promise to download the filter and set you on permanent ignore.
Darrell
No one, most definitely not me, disputes that this argument is over the surveillance of US persons, specifically US persons in communication with suspected foreign enemies. But pound away on those strawmen if it makes you feel better
You have asserted that Bush’s program has tainted criminal prosecutions, yet as I’m sure even Pooh will tell you, under Bush’s program, if dirt is obtained on a US person in the course of warrantless surveillance of a foreign enemy, such information cannot be used to prosecute the US person.
Therefore any suggestion that Bush’s program in particular, a program military in nature, would taint a criminal prosecution is false and ignorant.
searp
I asserted that there are pending actions to try to determine if prosecutions were tainted. I explained to you how that might happen. I suggested to you that it had been reported elsewhere that the FISC judges themselves are concerned about just this sort of taint.
What I never asserted was that criminal prosecutions were tainted.
You keep calling me ignorant. I like to think that if you had some sort of cogent argument that I am capable of seeing it your way. That is, I don’t want to wallow in my ignorance and am amenable to informed argument, although it would be a little hard to swallow given your insistence on calling me ignorant.
Pooh
Darrell Joel Osment sees strawpeople
tzs
Since Quaker meetings are open to everyone, can someone tell me how you SPY on a Quaker meeting?!
I can see his report already: “We all sat down in a circle. Nobody said a word. At the end, there was an announcement about a yard sale.”
Sheesh.
demimondian
txs — you’re confusing “Quaker Meeting” and “a Quaker meeting”. They’re quite different; one is a religious service, and the other is religious service.