This morning’s New York Times reports that 9/11 spurred the NSA to shrug off its institutional safeguards without any direction from the president, based at least in part on declassified correspondence between Nancy Pelosi and Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then head of the N.S.A.
One step that the agency took immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter, was to begin forwarding information from foreign intelligence intercepts to the F.B.I. for investigation without first receiving a specific request from the bureau for “identifying information.”
In the past, under so-called minimization procedures intended to guard Americans’ privacy, the agency’s standard practice had been to require a written request from a government official who wanted to know the name of an American citizen or a person in the United States who was mentioned or overheard in a wiretap.
In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the agency began monitoring telephone calls and e-mail messages between the United States and Afghanistan to track possible terror suspects. That program led to the broader eavesdropping operation on other international communications, officials have said.
The agency has also tapped into some of the nation’s main telecommunications arteries to trace and analyze large volumes of phone and e-mail traffic to look for patterns of possible terrorist activity.
If this is true then Bush’s 2002 executive order almost seems like a justification after-the-fact. As unnecessary as it seem to point it out, Hoover’s reign at the FBI shows the danger that an agency with extensive intelligence capabilities can pose to our democracy when the rest of the government is either afraid or unwilling to act as an effective check. Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller clearly wanted to act as a check, but doing anything more than what they actually did would likely have netted them a prison sentence. Bush’s executive order suggests that he felt more comfortable in the enabler’s role.
Fiction teachers will always tell you to show rather than tell. Read this bit from a recent piece in Slate and tell me that you’re comfortable with these guys tapping whomever they please.
The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a “data-mining” operation, which might eventually cull “millions” of individual calls and e-mails.
Like the pressure applied to ITT a half-century ago, our source says the government was insistent, arguing that his competitors had already shown their patriotism by signing on. The NSA would not comment on the issue, saying that, “We do not discuss details of actual or alleged operational issues.”
Here you have one of many ways that dishonest people took advantage of the 9/11 dead to turn the word ‘patriotism’ into a blunt weapon with which to beat their enemies. What did it mean, in those months following the September attacks, to lack patriotism? In the words of the great leader, he of 90% approval ratings, you either stood with him, patriotically, or you stood with the terrorists. By using an ultracharged but conveniently ill-defined word like ‘patriotism’ the NSA implied that telecom providers either assist them in breaking the law or they stood with insatiable, bloodthirsty America-hating savages. George Orwell would be proud.
Paddy O'Shea
Maybe Hayden can go the Abramoff route and cop a plea in exchange for providing evidence of Bush administration wiretapping shenanigans? It would certainly spice up the Senate investigations to have so highly ranked and deeply involved a witness singing under immunity.
After all, Hayden surely must know where all the bodies are buried.
Blue Neponset
Per normal, the Bush apologists at The Sundries Shack read the article differently and are inappropriately outraged.
Lines
Once again a Republican defense mechanic runs out screaming that Pelosi knew! but ignores the point in the base article that says she was under oath to not disclose that knowledge.
They also append the ability for Democrats to know what is going to happen in the future. Nancy just tucked away this knowledge, because she knew that in the future it could be used against the President.
Those crafty, wily Democrats! However, they’ve sold their souls to witchcraft and the Devil in order to have the powers of future-telling, so they’ll get their due in the afterlife.
skip
A very highly placed guy at NSA told me Hayden sold out the agency for a star. He is not held in high regard at Ft. Meade.
Grumpy
The problem is that her oath is to “support and defend the Constitution”. If she truly believes this is unconstitutional, then it was not a violation of her oath.
p.lukasiak
Call me an old softy, but I’m not going to criticize anyone for actions they took in the immediate wake of 9-11…. legal or not.
The problem to me isn’t that the NSA exceeded its authority right after 9-11. The problem is that their “excesses” were institutionalized by Presidential fiat.
….and it should be noted that this story appears to be pure Rovian spin, designed to insulate and draw attention away from Bush. Note the very first line….
(emphasis added)
Its the use of the word “formal” that suggests that this is an attempt at spinning the story. Did Bush “informally” direct the NSA to do “whatever it could” at that point? The story doesn’t say — but I wouldn’t blame Bush if he did do so, and I wouldn’t blame Hayden if he subsequently violated the law in carrying out Bush’s “informal” directive.
Sherard
People are nuts, I tell ya.
And changing that takes, what, exactly ? Here’s a tip, it’s not in the US constitution. Sounds like something the boss can, at his discretion, change. If it’s so all-fired important, maybe it ought to rise to some level ABOVE “agency standard practice”.
Then again, maybe post-9/11, that “agency standard practice” was idiotic and partially responsible for failing to prevent the deaths of nearly 3000 people.
I say, good job to “the boss” for rescinding a stupid and possibly dangerous “standard practice”.
And let me, at last, as one citizen of this nation, go on record saying that spying on suspected domestic terrorists is OKEE DOKEE by me. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to come up with something the government could do to “susptected terrorists” that I would not be in favor of, by default.
Prove to me they are abusing it and then we’ll talk, thanks.
Al Maviva
The Executive Branch, specifically the Attorney General, according to FISA, promulgates the minimization procedures. Changes may be made by the Attorney General (for whom the FBI works), and need only be reported subsequently to the House & Senate Intelligence Committees. If that was done then it appears to be within the rulemaking authority of the Attorney General to make such a change. The language of 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(c.), suggests that an “informal rulemaking” process or perhaps merely a change in policy, with congressional notice sufficient.
I believe also that this coordination may be authorized by 50 USC 1806(k), which states
I read this to mean that as long as the material is legally collected (which even U.S. person materials are, within the timeframe of the evaluation period/minimization procedure), then it seems to be share-able, subject to data retention standards and other legal constraints. Personally, I’d prefer it if the NSA includes the FBI as part of the minimization procedure. I want the FBI to run a records check on people who call or are emailed by Al Qaida’s foreign personnel, and I want them to think hard about whether it is evidence of an ongoing or planned crime. If no such evidence is forthcoming other than the mere communication itself, then expunge the record. But I believe that the national security and law enforcement community need to check every single lead.
I’m not the only one. You will recall, I hope, the 9/11 Commission. We were all outraged when it took the Administration several months to implement the Commission’s recommendations, and not all of them were implemented, something we’re still pissed about, right? One of the things the Commissioners were adamant about was improving law enforcement/intelligence information sharing. What do you think that referred to? The Commission as a whole was adamant that the wall between law enforcement and intelligence was one of the causative factors in the 9/11 attacks. Fine, don’t retain data if it isn’t productive, but please, track down every single lead. I don’t think it’s throwing the 9/11 attacks in your face, Tim, if I remind you of the certainty that many people have that 9/11 could have been prevented had the FBI and others followed such a diligent approach.
Lexis tells me that 1806(k) was added October 26, 2001 (which I think makes it part of the PATRIOT Act), and that the language allowing intelligence information sharing with the states and localities was added on November 25, 2002, which would probably make that amendment part of the Homeland Security Act.
Other relevant statutes are at 50 USC 1801(h), defining minimization procedures and the rulemaking process; and 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(c), et seq. discussing, among other things, Feel free to read the whole thing, as Slide will surely point out that my failure to include Chapter 50 of the United States Code, in its entirety, is just more Bush fellating charry picking.
Finally, I’d be a poor conservative if I failed to kick the Times. It’s funny how the Times has gone from outrage at Congress’ and the Administration’s sluggishness at implementing the Commission’s recommendations, to outrage upon finding out that Congress and the Administration are a couple steps ahead of the Commission on implementing this particular measure.
Tim F.
Weakest argument yet. If she knowingly broke the law then she’d be a pretty crappy defender of the constitution.
Pooh
You know, I think I’m with p.luk and Al on this one. If I’m the boss of the NSA at 10 am on 9/11 I’m like “Fuck it, get me EVERYTHING”. And I feel given the 15 day ‘war windown’ of FISA that is certainly within the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Now an ad infinitum extension of said policy for 4+ years? Not so much…
TM Lutas
Can anybody please point to bill numbers for the legislation that Pelosi and Rockefeller or any of the other Dems that got notified about this submitted? They are legislators. Their job is to write and pass legislation. As part of the minority, they don’t succeed at it a lot of the time but they still submit bills in order to make a point and put language out there to hopefully get through anyhow.
So did they submit legislation? What was their solution to the problem. I would seriously like to know. If they did not submit legislation, they objectively did *not* think there was a problem rising to the level of needing to do something about it when it is just for the country and not for the cameras.
So where are the bill numbers?
demimondian
Woohoo! New talking point! “where’s the legislation?”.
Golly, it’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, TM — you know, the thing which was passed back in ’74? I don’t see how Pelosi’s name could be on that one, as she wasn’t even old enough to serve in the House.
Paddy O'Shea
Bush Touts Poll That Supports Domestic Spying
Apparently Snoop Georgie George is now reading polls. As always reality is a moving target at the Bush White House.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0104wiretap-poll04.html
demimondian
For what it’s worth, I’m largely of Al and Pooh’s opinion on this. On Sept 12, 2001, legal or illegal, I say “give me everything, and we’ll sort it out in the courts afterwards. For now, let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again.” I genuinely think that’s where we are in “ticking bomb” territory, not to mention almost certainly at war.
What concerns me is the behavior a year out. I am not yet convinced that minimization procedures were in place. I’ll give deference to the Executive to track back a narrow way from know foreign agents, but I want to know that there’s a limitation on how far back they’ll go, and that the databases were designed to allow purging of material.
Paddy O'Shea
Demi: More reason to get Hayden under oath and before the Senate panel investigating this mess. Cut him some slack with immunity, but with the understanding that he’d need to answer all the questions.
p.lukasiak
If that was done then it appears to be within the rulemaking authority of the Attorney General to make such a change.
nice try Al. But next time, don’t leave out key provisions of the law…like this one…
This is the famous “72 hour rule”. Its says that regardless of what you do in terms of “minimalization” rules, you can’t tape someone’s phone for more than 72 hours without a warrant.
If you want to argue that the AUMF made FISA null and void, or that the President can ignore the laws of the US when acting as commander-in-chief, its one thing.
But there is not a single reputable lawyer who will tell you that what Bush did is legal under FISA. Its not. All you can say is that Bush doesn’t have to follow the provisions of FISA, and therefore what he did is not illegal.
demimondian
Paul — legal or illegal, you’re not going to get a jury to convict for actions immediately after the attacks.
You’re also not being fair here. Al talked about minimization, and I think we have relatively broad consensus that failure to minimize within the 72 hour window once the immediate aftermath of the attack is over would be troubling, and probably illegal. (Exactly how would depend on the exact evidence which showed up.)
Let’s find out what minimization procedures were before we spout off, OK? If there were none, then we’re *all* all over this. If there were reasonable ones which didn’t guarantee 72 hours, but made a best effort and eventuall worked — well, it’s illegal, and you should have gotten the law changed, but…ok, we’ll let it slide.
p.lukasiak
What concerns me is the behavior a year out. I am not yet convinced that minimization procedures were in place.
“minimization” is a red herring in this instance. It refers to procedures pursuant to information collected through a search authorized by a warrant.
The law states quite clearly that all information that is collected during the 72 hour “emergency wiretap” rule has to literally be thrown out unless a warrant is subsequently issued (or “the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.” Note the words “information indicates a threat” — in other words, the information can’t be evidence that ties together some larger conspiracy, but has to specifically say or suggest that there is, in fact, “a threat.”)
Darrell
Just to be clear, getting cooperation from phone/cellular companies to help hunt terrorists is, according to Tim F is using the word patriotism to “beat their enemies”. Incredible. Since when is it a bad thing to legally pressure companies to help track enemies of our country? Please explain
Regarding criminal wiretaps here in the US, if local law enforcement or the FBI obtain a warrant to wiretap a mobster or drug dealer, do they have to throw away all mobster/drug dealer communication if the mobster communicates with someone who was not a suspect? Of course not. So why should Bush have his hands tied differently when hunting terrorists?
demimondian
No, Paul. It refers to any data collected on US persons without a warrant. The government can retain any information it gathers with a warrant.
p.lukasiak
Paul—legal or illegal, you’re not going to get a jury to convict for actions immediately after the attacks.
Demi, in my very first post in this thread, I made it clear that actions taken in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 were of no concern to me.
You’re also not being fair here. Al talked about minimization, and I think we have relatively broad consensus that failure to minimize within the 72 hour window once the immediate aftermath of the attack is over would be troubling, and probably illegal. (Exactly how would depend on the exact evidence which showed up.)
as I noted above “minimization” is a red herring, and refers to procedures regarding the dissemination of information acquired through lawfully authorized wiretaps.
As to whether I’m being fair or not, the “minimization” stuff that Al referred to were subsections (1), (2), and (3) of section (h) of 50 USC 1801. The “72 hour rule” is subsection (4) of section (h) of 50 USC 1801. Or to put in in plain english — AL DELIBERATELY IGNORED THE VERY NEXT SECTION OF THE LAW WHICH MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE IS FULL OF SHIT. When Al wants to stop taking specifically sections of the law out of context, I’ll start worrying about being fair to “Al”.
Darrell
Al, NSA’s does a lot of data mining on information which may have originally been thought to be harmless. A strange word or phrase spoken during a conversation between a foreign terrorist and his cousin in Atlanta is later discovered to be a code phrase for terrorist activity. Data-mining of previously archived conversations can reveal patterns.
LITBMueller
Don’t forget, as part of the discussion here, that Ashcroft got all he wanted back on November 18, 2002 from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. This decision knocked down the “wall” between intelligence officials and law enforcement officers in the Executive.
When you consider this ruling, the breadth of the Patriot Act (and its very public passage), it sure makes you wonder “why did Bush go double super secret on this?”
I suspect what we really need to know is the full size of the program – how it worked, what it did, and how effective was it really? – before we can make pronouncements on its legality and importance.
Paddy O'Shea
Poor righties, they are in the kind of denial parents of the lad caught fucking sheep might experience.
Between this, Abramoff, Plame, Iraq plus all the other things that have been simmering these last few years, it can’t be easy being a Bushie right now.
Grouped all together into one hot steaming pile it makes Watergate look like a littering infraction.
p.lukasiak
No, Paul. It refers to any data collected on US persons without a warrant.
no it does NOT. You are confusing the fact that searches under warrant inevitably collect information on individuals who are NOT the target of the warrant, with information collected through warrantless searches.
If you are a target of a warranted search, and you call me and we discuss where to go to dinner, the NSA has information about BOTH of us. The minimination rules concern how both classes of information can be used, to whom it can be disseminated, how long it can be retained, etc.
Mike S
I read last week that the deputy AG refused to back the changes. So they went to Ashcroft right after he was out of surgery and even he was reluctant.
My CPU is acting up so I can’t search for the link.
Richard Bottoms
But remember. The Democrats are worse.
Pooh
P.luk and Dem, I don’t think you are neccesarily disagreeing here. P.luk, FWIW
Now yes, I agree, no declaration of war until at least the 14th, and AUMF as a DoW, not a slam dunk. But, BUT, as I said earlier this is clear benefit of the doubt territory. Also as I said earlier 4 years is not such territory.
p.lukasiak
I read last week that the deputy AG refused to back the changes. So they went to Ashcroft right after he was out of surgery and even he was reluctant.
I don’t think it had anything to do with “minimization” rules as such, because we are talking about warrantless wiretaps, and minimization is about information gathered through court authorized wiretaps.
Al is throwing up a smokescreen here. Information can and will be collected on you without you being a TARGET of a warrant if you communicate with someone who is a TARGET. The law requires that because the information on you was collected without a warrant specifically targetting YOU, that its use and dissemination be “minimized”.
Perry Como
To do so would compromise a very effective program that has already nabbed terrorists that planned on attacking the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches.
LITBMueller
Problem is, we don’t know for sure this is a “very effective program” at all, unless we just take the Administration’s word for it.
The Brooklyn Bridge Blowtorcher Case is a great example. Ignoring the fact that it would be impossible to take down the Brooklyn Bridge without (a) lots and lots and lots of blowtorches, or (b) somebody noticing that someone was climbing the bridge and taking a blowtorch to it, if the arrest warrant or another search warrant, etc., was based on information obtained via a warrantless NSA wiretap, then the whole case gets thrown out.
Which leads us to another question: how “smart” is this program? If it does “spy” on Americans, then, what can the government legally do with the information gathered? It can’t be used in a court of law, because it was illegally obtained if no warrant was pursued.
So, the end results of this “very effective program” may be either illegal arrest warrants, or conviction overturned on appeal. Unless, of course, there is some sort of illegal program to arrest and illegally detain people caught up in the eavesdropping! (tin foil hat time! :) )
And, one last point: any terrorist actually capable of doing damage to the United States is well aware that their communications can (and probably will) be monitored.
Darrell
Classic example of the left minimizing terrorist threats. They would never attmept to kill Americans, right? It’s only the Bush admin blowing out of proportion the terrorist threat as an excuse to trample the constitution.
After a Vx or similar attack though, the lefties who are now minimizing the terrorist threat will be the first ones screaming “Do something!” after the fact
Steve
Darrell, will you be terribly disappointed if that attack never materializes and you never get to prove the liberals wrong? You certainly seem to give the impression that you’re salivating for another attack just to prove the threat is real.
Darrell
Steve, I’m not the one minimizing terrorist threats. What did I post which “gave the impression” that I’m salivating for another attack… or did you pull that out of your ass as usual?
Pooh
Darrell, don’t say salivating.
Steve, don’t describe Darrell as salivating.
It’s almost lunch time here people, I can’t handle that.
Gratefulcub
What couldn’t they do without a warrant? And after 4 years, they have had plenty of time to change the law if necessary. Instead they declared the president above the law due to the unending war on terror. And then he defends himself by saying (and I am paraphrasing like a smart ass) “Why didn’t I get a warrant? Liberals and democrats don’t want me to keep america safe. They don’t want me to listen to terrorists.”
Yes we do dumb ass. We just want you to have a warrant because we don’t trust you anymore than you would trust Russ Feingold with the unchecked power to spy on Americans.
CadillaqJaq
While it may seem like some are “salivating” as they await another attack, I’d like anyone’s best guess as to how many attacks were thwarted because of NSA’s actions. No one seems to give a fat shit about that, as if the terrorists hit WTC and the Pentagon and sat back, belched and contentedly picked their teeth.
Somewhere, at some time, someone must have done something right, even if it was under GWB’s watch.
Paddy O'Shea
Darrell: I’m certain that President Bush’s principled 42% vacation rate during the first 9 months of 2001 can in no way serve as an example of someone minimizing the terrorist threat.
And even if we have spent half a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq while suffering thousands of casualties with no appreciable signs of progress outside of helping the folks there elect an Islamist pro-Tehran (and therefore pro-terrorist) parliament while still keeping their militias on the streets is in no way an indication of the quality of work this administration has been putting out in regard to this threat that has us all so terribly frightened.
No, I’d say the real problem is the kinds of things people are saying on blogs. This is where the real war is being fought, and we must be ever vigilant in maing sure those who do not share your opinions are called out and exposed for what they really are.
Darrell
GC, if the FBI gets a warrant to wiretap a mobster, does the FBI have to discard the conversations he has with those who are not suspects and not under warrant? Of course not. Why then is it illegal or morally wrong for the President to do the same when monitoring foreign terrorists?
Why do you want to tie the President’s hands in a way that other law enforcement organizations are not tied when conducting criminal investigations?
Darrell
Newsflash – there are phones in Crawford. Internet too! Just thought you might want to know
Mike S
Oy. I haven’t seen a single person say that terrorists don’t want to kill murkans. I have seen them laugh at the sheer terror that so many people in bumfuck middle America seem to have.
And while the MOE is higher than I usually like it appears from this Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll that 65% of the country prefers to keep their civil liberties as well.
Richard Bottoms
You love your lying sack of shit president so what difference does any revelation make?
He could be caught backing out of a bank, cash in one hand, gun in the other and the only thing that would be upsetting to you is the shrillness of the Democrats criticism.
Paddy O'Shea
Darrell: And brush that needs cutting, too! And God knows our President has been merciless on those buggers.
Face it, this guy has failed miserably. Let’s impeach his ass and get someone in there who knows what he is doing.
Pooh
Cadillac,
Not so fast. Remember there was 8 years between the first WTC incident and 9/11. Nothing special seems to have been done to ‘prevent’ another attack. (Yes, BC gets a fair bit of the blame for OBL. Duh.) Second, London, Amman, etc., etc.
Third, you are engaging in what we like to call the false dichotomy: either you’re for the NSA program or against doing anything against the terrorists. Which is an absurd way to frame the choice. Yes, spy on terrorists (or just shoot them in the head, like I give a crap?) but make sure they are terrorists (preferably before you shoot them in the head. If you don’t like the law, get a better law passed, don’t just pretend it doesn’t exist.
“But then the terrorists will know we are spying on them.” Well first of all, they know it already. At least the competent ones, the jackasses who try to bring down a bridge with blowtorches might not, but really how dangerous are they? Second, if it means they stop talking to each other, is that a bad thing? How can they plan if they can’t communicate without a cruise missle in the ass?
Pooh
What the fuck does this mean? Normal law enforcement is, wait for it, SUBJECT TO FISA.
CadillaqJaq
And while that Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll says that 65% of the country prefer to keep their civil liberties as well, the same Constitution that guarantees them those rights also names the president as the Commander in Chief, which means that as chief executive, he represents an equal branch of our government. If anyone wants to change that; amend the Constitution. Simply passing legistation in an attempt to limit his authority doesn’t work.
LITBMueller
That’s the key: “the FBI gets a warrant.” But, there were no warrants issued under the program (that’s the only thing we know for sure about it!).
What would be illegal and morally wrong is if the NSA began eavesdropping on phone calls made by Suspected Terrorist A abroad to the United States, began listening in to phone what United States Citizen B said to ST-A, got an arrest warrant based on the information learned (without disclosing that the information was learned via warrantless wiretap), arrested USC-B, and convicted him.
It’s not tat I (or anyone else) wants to “coddle terrorists,” but there are rules, laws, and Constitution in place that is designed to prevent a situation like this. It’s in everyone’s interests to make sure they are followed, whether we are at war or not.
Besides, a warrant could have been obtained in the above situation, and there would have been no problem at all.
Gratefulcub
Missing my point. I am not commenting on what the NSA or FbI should or should not be able to do. That is for another time, another debate.
Whatever the president IS allowed to do, it can’t be unchecked. If we lived in a utopian fairy tale, where everyone in government was honest and reliable, it wouldn’t matter. But we don’t and it does.
These laws were put in place because people like Nixon were caught spying on americans, political enemies, peace activists, etc. They are now saying that these laws don’t relate to them and they aren’t bound by them, meaning they now have the ability to do the same thing.
Did they? Who knows because they didn’t get warrants and there was no check on their power.
CadillaqJaq
Paddy says: “Face it, this guy has failed miserably. Let’s impeach his ass and get someone in there who knows what he is doing.”
Hello, President Cheney? LMAO!
Gratefulcub
Will they please stop with all the Commander in Chief bullshit. He isn’t my Commander in Chief, he is my president, a civilian. He is the commander in chief of the military.
They use the phrase so much, I started believing he takes that damned jet to work every morning, and home every night (I mean early afternoon…..to bed by nine)
Krista
From the frying pan…
Perry Como
LITBMueller Says:
Of course it has been successful, just like every other program President Bush has implemented. The US has not been the victim of a terrorist attack since 9/11/2001. For over four years Americans have been safe. Now the NY Times is trying to undermine the safety of all Americans in order to sell a book.
It’s extremely smart. It doesn’t matter if the NSA gathers information from a terrorist, because we aren’t going to try that terrorist in a court of law. Terrorists are enemy combatants and do not deserve the rights granted by the Constitution. The President has full authority to detain an illegal combatant and hold him until the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism is over.
No trial needed, no conviction to overturn. The President has the authority to detain enemy combatants and that authority has been thoroughly reviewed by the DoJ and the AG.
Paddy O'Shea
Actually I was talking about the guy in charge. And after we get rid of Cheney we can get somebody else to not only fight terrorism more effectively, but also send Shrub out on photo ops that are infinitely more entertaining than the ones he’s been doing lately.
Trips to the circus would be a nice start.
Mike S
Name the three branches of Government. It may give you a hint about why your comment is so stupid.
Gratefulcub
Perry Como, DougJ,
In your satire, you make an excellent point. The president now says he has the constitutional authority to spy on an american citizen without a warrant, then use that information (that is inadmissable in a court of law) to declare that person an enemy combatant, and then lock him up without even making it public, without the enemy combatant even having legal recourse to prove innocence. Legally disappeared. Paging Presidente Pinochet
Darrell
‘Utopian fairy tale’extremist hyperbole not withstanding, we are most definitely talking about the President’s authorization of the NSA to do essentially the same surveillance of foreign terrorists as allowed in criminal investigations of mobsters who are wiretapped.
He was not ‘unchecked’, that is a false statement. The President and other legal experts including an asst. AG under clinton feel that Bush was acting fully within his constitutional powers
More importantly (to me at least), how is this program which the President ordered substantially different from how criminal wiretaps are conducted?.. in that during the course of criminal wiretaps, conversations between the suspect and non-suspects are not thrown away just because only 1 side is wiretapped under warrant. Basically the same thing with what Bush has ordered from what I can see
t. jasper parnell
The president does not gain super special powers because of his separate status as commander in chief. Indeed, it has long been held (see quote below) the his status as commander in chief is and must be subordinate to his responsibilities as president. We may now, or some idiots, may now wish to give the president the super secrete special power to violate the law and act as he lists, but at present ordering governmental entities and organs to violate the written law in the alleged service of national security is both illegal and, in my considered opinion, unammerican.
From Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown:
Darrell
I believe you are completely mistaken on that point. If dirt on an American citizen in the US is uncovered during warrantless surveillance of a foreign terrorist, it’s my understanding that information CANNOT be used against the American
Tim F.
I don’t usually give you enough credit, Darrell, but that was pretty funny.
LITBMueller
Perry, I guarantee you, if it turns out that the NSA program has lead to a number of American citizens (the more, the worse) being swept up, off the streets, declared enemy combatants, and shipped off to a secret detainment camp, the President would very very quickly see his power to detain “enemy combatants,” even if they are US citizens (as in the Hamdi case) rapidly disappear.
Even the Supreme Court in the Hamdi case was extremely uncomfortable with the power the Executive was asserting in that case:
“A state of war is not a blank check for the President.” Such powers “would turn our system of checks and balances on its head.” – Sandra Day O’Connor
“If civil rights are to be curtailed during wartime, it must be done openly and democratically, as the Constitution requires, rather than by silent erosion.” – Antonin Scalia
Darrell
Tim F, stopping by for snark with no substance as usual
Gratefulcub
CANNOT be used in the court of law. That no longer matters. Enemy combatant Bitch. Gitmo. Get in your corner because I say so, and I am Commander in Chief. No legal recourse to prove that the NSA made a mistake (their Arabic is shaky at best).
Padilla. He may be the world’s most guilty man. But, he was held for three years and an EC, and now they are having a hard time bringing any charges.
I don’t trust them.
What happened to the libertarian wing of the GOP? Those that didn’t trust government?
Give me Liberty or Give me Death. Oh, I’ll settle for a taste of liberty if you’ll promise to protect me.
Darrell
Again you are mistaken. American citizens in the US cannot be taken to Gitmo. Try reading more
Padilla was not sent to Gitmo as you suggest, and he was not a victim of the President’s NSA program to my knowledge. Correct me if I am wrong on that point. Padilla was captured on an inbound flight from Pakistan. The US is having a ‘hard time’ bringing charges due to the possible compromising of intelligence sources, a point of nuance you lefties routinely ignore. Padilla is a difficult case that I don’t completely agree with, but nothing to do with the President’s NSA program which is the topic of discussion
Mike S
That’s been changed by Coryn to Civil Liberties don’t matter when you’re dead. Next he’s changing “Remember the Alamo” to “Run Away! Run Away!”
Mike S
No one disgusts me more than that lefty named Luttig.
Darrell
It’s hilarious listengin to lefties crying ‘give me liberty or give me death’ after decades of leftist nanny state programs being foisted upon us, or attempted to foist upon us by leftists. Yeah, real defenders of freedom
Perry Como
I’m sure you Liberals would like to have the President present a list of enemy combatants that have been detained so you can pass it on to your friends at al Qaeda. Luckily the President won’t give into the Democrat terrorist sympathizers. Unfortunately one of the names slipped when the case was accidently printed on a SCOTUS docket. So the terrorists only know that there is one enemy combatant that was caught on US soil that wasn’t widely covered like Padilla.
Be assured that President Bush is doing everything in his Article II powers to keep America safe. Warrantless spying, detaining enemey combatants indefinetly and aggressive interrogation (McCain can bugger off) are the things we know about. Imagine what the President is doing to keep us safe that we don’t know! I tingle just thinking about capturing the bad guys. I hope the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism never ends.
Gratefulcub
Read again. I never said Padilla was at Gitmo, or had anything to do with the NSA program. He was an EC. An American citizen that could be locked up for three years without charges.
Now that we have the NSA program and the EC issue, they can come together. Padilla was an example of EC, not NSA.
Birkel
Dear Lefties,
Please be on notice that most of the sane middle recognizes you would rather let a major terrorist attack happen than violate FISA rules. (as if FISA was incorporated into the Constitution in Area 51 Amendment 37)
Please note that you should do a better job of not revealing this fact as you’ll continue to lose elections. See, e.g. 2002 and 2004.
Gratefulcub
Yes, making you pay more taxes to provide the poor with food stamps is the same limitation on civil liberties as locking up citizens without charges.
Mike S
I do believe that Darrell has lost it. That comment is a good indication of just what happens when you have been exposed to the GOP message machine for too long without questioning it.
You start digging deep for the correct talking point and just can’t quite find it. And when you see that a big member of your party, the party that claims fealty to the founders, say something that would make the founders roll over in their graves it must be that much more difficult.
Gratefulcub
We leftist don’t lose, we don’t even have anyone running. The spineless, finger in the air, scared to death to take a stand Democrats keep losing elections.
I’m willing to lose on principle, I just hate losing without principle, e.g. 2002 and 2004.
Darrell
Actually it’s a lot more than that, as the left wants the govt to infringe on private property rights, dictate to us who gets jobs or admitted to universities based on skin color, have govt control health care choice, and a whole host of other leftist initiatives
As for US citizens locked up without charges, I see you have abandoned your initial fact-challenged allegations regarding the NSA program and are now trying to change the subject.
Other than Padilla, who is an Al Queda member, how many other US citizens are being held without charges? Since you made the allegation, I’m sure you can support it, right?
Mike S
I have yet to see a single comment by this child that is anything less than mind numbingly stupid. I can only pray that he is the best the GOP will have to offer in the future.
Recess is over little one. Get back to class.
John S.
Dear Birkel-
Please be aware that the majority of Americans would rather the Constitution not get shit all over in exchange for a little protection from Uncle Sam.
Please note that Patrick Henry didn’t say “take away my liberty to protect me from death” and neither did Benjamin Franklin say “those that would trade their liberty for a little safety deserve both”.
You would be wise to conceal your utter disdain for the intentions of our founding fathers while simultaneously posing as some sort of ‘true American patriot’.
tbrosz
“Our source says”
How much more of our national policy is going to be run by anonymous sources, whose motivations are as unknown as their names?
Darrell
Which party/ideology pushes cradle to grave welfare? Which one advocates raced based hiring and university admission? Govt rights to confiscate private property? An honest answer to those questions tells a lot about which of us has ‘lost it’
LITBMueller
Perry, that was the best one yet!!!! :)
Birkel, personally, what I would really like to see is a RATIONAL counterterrorism policy. You know, the one that works within the framework of existing law, anticipates how international terrorists might be able to do real damage, and then closes the gaping loop holes.
Unfortunately, we just are not doing that, as the 9/11 Commission recently just pointed out.
Here is a helpful list of things that might be helpful:
1) Effective and well-trained airport security, screening personell, and TSA Air Marshalls.
2) Full screening of incoming cargo (because, remember, before terrorists can use a WMD here, they have to get the damn thing in).
3) More and better border security.
4) More and better efforts to secure WMD stockpiles abroad (such as all those chemicals in rusty warehouses in Russia).
But, we don’t get these sorts of things, do we? Instead, we get revelations about domestic spying, debates on torture, and court cases about detaining American citizens as enemy combatants.
I’m as sure as you are that the Sane Middle is also smart enough to realize that the four things listed above are better ways to secure our country than listening in to hundered (thousands? millions?) of phone calls for a needle in a haystack, poking a suspected terrorist’s eye out with a hot poker, or putting suspected enemies in the dock and throwing away the key.
Mike S
All of which came from laws past and then tested in the courts. You are advocating the breaking of laws and the ability of the President to decide which laws apply to him and his ability to break them at will. You are advocating the making of secret laws. And you are advocating the dismissal of the 4th Amendment by Presidential fiat.
Will you advocate the dismissal of the 2nd Amernment if an anti gun nut gets elected because they think they need to do that to protect us in the WOT?
Darrell
When the facts aren’t on your side, feel free to continue just making sh*t up if that’s what floats your boat.
It has not demonstrated by a long shot that the President broke any laws, no matter how many times you stamp your foot while holding your breath
Gratefulcub
No idea what I backed off from, if you will remind me, I am sure I will defend my point.
Who the hell knows, they don’t have to tell us. The point was never that they have locked up anyone, it is that they have made it legal to lock up anyone they want and call him an EC, without giving that individual any legal recourse. I don’t trust the office of the president that much to allow that kind of power. Same with the wiretaps.
I believe in beauracracy, red tape, all of those nasty things. They usually aren’t efficient, but I like my checks and balances, they keep me warm at night.
I believe in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Food Stamps, WIC, and other programs for the poor. We will always have poor people (so says Jesus), so we need to do more than leave them on the street. I believe welfare needs to be reformed.
I totally disagree with race based hiring, but I do think that race based, or socio economic based university admission. We are only a generation removed from legal segregation in the south, i like the idea of giving the children and grandchildren of people that feared being lynched for voting a step up.
I seldomly support the right of government to take private lands. The latest examples of taking homes to open business districts is uncalled for. i haven’t researched it, so I can be persuaded, but something like the TVA was probably justified.
just honest answers, for the record. Let me know if I have lost it.
Darrell
It’s not feasible to check every single box within every container on each ship. Do you have any practical suggestions for improvement in that regard? or do you only parrot what the lefty sites tell you to say and think without having the first clue what you are talking about?
Mike S
My mistake. When he said that he did not get warrents and would continue to do so his position as supreme being in the US made FISA laws a moot point.
LITBMueller
Damn Lefties…always tryin’ to control our lives….next thing ya know, they’ll be tryin’ to:
1) Use Congress to interfere in family matters, like whether a brain-dead woman should be removed from life support.
2) Pay commentators to write news editorials that support their Lefty ideals and programs.
3) Limit our free speech by outlawing certain forms of symbolic speech, like flag burning.
4) Force public schools to teach their Lefty religious beliefs, and call it science, like that Intelligent Design stuff.
5) Declare everyone who doesn’t tow the Lefty Line as unpatriotic.
6) Send the FBI into libraries to check our reading habits.
7) Start all kinds of nation-building (man, that nation-building sucks…).
8) Change the Constitution so they can tell us all who can and can’t get married.
Darn Lefties…. ;)
Darrell
Missed this one earlier. Quite an emotional reaction there
If during a criminal investigation a police warrant is obtained to wiretap a mobster, the police can use ALL the mobster’s conversations, including those conversations with non-suspects without getting a separate warrant to listen in whenever the mobster communicates with non-suspects
Since the President has the power to wiretap suspected foreign terrorists (analogous to wiretapping a mobster) without warrant, why then should we have to get a separate warrant whenever those terrorists communicate with US citizens in America, especially if information on the US citizens cannot be used against them? It makes no sense
Darrell
What about when able bodied citizens receive Food stamps and other programs for years and years? Lefties NEVER voice concern over that. Only the cold-hearted conservatives would dare question the ‘right’ to unfettered welfare
Actually it would be the grandchildren and great grandchildren of those who may have feared being lynched. And your suggested “step up” means that that the son of black doctor or lawyer gets preferential treatment over the daughter of a coal miner just because she happens to be white. How noble of you
Mike S
Well, this seems interesting. After hearing that the White House has been trying to get the media to not write certain stories, and succeeding for some time, I can’t help but wonder if they did the same thing here.
That sound you just heard was Richard M. Nixon chuckeling from his grave.
Mike S
Bad bolding. The part about Christian Amanpour is what is now missing.
LITBMueller
Classic, dude! I never said “check every single box.” I said “effective.” And then you follow that brilliant bit of
re-framing with a personal attack!!! Nicely done!
Now, if you really are interested in the topic, I suggest you take a look here:
This report is from May 2005. I hope that there has been an improvement, but don’t you think that it would be a good idea to inspect more than just 17.5% of high-risk cargo? that would certainly seem like a good, common sense, practical suggestion for improvement right there.
Gratefulcub
Semantics. Late 60’s.
Anecdotal. Plus, that is why i said, socioeconomic over race.
The difference between me and a conservative:
I am willing to pay for food stamps for 9 kids that don’t need them so that we provide food stamps to the one kid that does. Conservatives don’t want to provide food stamps for 9 kids that need them if one kid is going to receive them without needing them.
I am all for making common sense changes to the programs, but I am unashamed of the fact that I think most are not robust enough. Starting with healthcare.
Darrell
I don’t know and you don’t either. How much improvement was done in the identification and isolation of what is ‘high risk’ cargo? You haven’t a clue
Does that 17.5% include US inspections of cargo before leaving the foreign port? Do you know? Were those shippers certified as having a good inspection program themselves above and beyond US govt inspection? You don’t know. I don’t either.
But you make claims as if you have some understanding about what you’re talking about and you don’t
Darrell
Typical leftist Mike S, post an unproven allegation and make a stink over it as if it’s true. Just like the left’s WP allegations, like their bullsh*t allegations over Valerie Plame, and their wrongheaded declarations of Bush’s “illegal” wiretapping with the NSA now
Gratefulcub
But he did link, and the GAO thinks it is inadequate.
Gratefulcub
Darrell,
How can you claim that the outrage over the NSA is coming solely from typical leftists? There are plenty of GOP senators, congressmen, and conservative pundits and think tankers that have big problems with what they know so far. You may be right in the end, but to act like it is coming entirely from micheal moore kooks is very disengenuous.
Pooh
Darrell, Do you honestly think that drawing an analogy to surveilance of mobsters with a warrant (wait, let’s try that again) with a warrant helps your argument?
Imperviousness to facts is the new black.
Doug, are you SURE he isn’t you?
Darrell
As there are defenders of Bush like liberal Cass Sunstein and former Clinton Asst. AG John Schmidt (who may not be a liberal). But by and large, virtually all of the over-the-top “illegal wiretap” criticsim is coming from the left. The GOP senators, congressmen and conservative pundits you refer to are pretty much all just asking to look into it further. It’s the left who is throwing out baseless accussations (as usual) before the facts come in
Gratefulcub
We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment
They act like laws are optional.
searp
The administration theory is that Article 2 gives the president the power, in wartime, to ignore any statute that gets in the way of his plans for defending us. There is simply no other way to understand the statements of the administration.
Bush himself is associated with this legal theory.
I think it is a dangerous and pernicious theory, and it would amaze me if it survived a serious examination by the courts or the Congress.
Pass the popcorn.
LITBMueller
Darrell, seriously, buddy…take a big Chill Pill. Your posts here are full of all kinds of statements about law and what the NSA does (sans links), and no one (to my knowledge) has questioned your “expertise.”
I provided a link and a suggestion. Do what you will with it, but I would suggest the fact that there is a group called the Coalition for Secure Ports, and they have a whole web page listing things that need to be improved, and that the members of the Coalition are groups like the NY Shipping Association, Port of Seattle, and many others, suggests that…yeah, there are shortcomings!
But don’t just assume I don’t know what I’m talking about, and I won’t do it to you….mmmmm’Kay???
Darrell
Yes, I think it’s an entirely valid analogy. Do the police have to obtain separate warrants each time a mobster under wiretap communicates with a non-suspect who is not under warrant? Of course not. Then why should the President have to obtain separate warrants each time a terrorist communicates with US citizens? It makes no sense
If you disagree, tell us why?
Mike S
Do they make special T-shirts for you when you join the cult of Bush? I used to be under the assumption that you were an intelligent, though wrong, man.
Let’s look at labels for a moment. Usually I ignore your pathetic use of phrases like “leftist” “loony” and the rest of the imagined pajoritives that you use because they come from propagandists in the decades old GOP message machine. I don’t think I will anymore.
I think I’ll use the logical extention of the right the same way you and Hewy Hewitt use the extentions of the left.
So from here on out I will be using phrases like “Typical fascist reaction…” And it sort of has an ounce of truth to it because what you are advocating is letting the President choose what laws to follow and it doesn’t get much more totalitarian/Fascist than that.
Darrell
Mike, you made a huge post over an unproven accusation. That is what you did. That type of behavior is typical of the left – scream and accuse first before the facts come in. See White Phosphorous, Plame, etc for examples of this tendency
Darrell
Verbatim from the web page you linked to:
and this
LITBMueller
Exactly, Darrell…a work in progress. And if the Administration would be smart to keep working on it!
Darrell
LIT, you called for “full screening” of all cargo. Not at all feasible. I see no signs that the Administration has stopped working on it
Perry Como
Mike S says:
What proof do you have that Christiane Amanpour is NOT and al Qaeda associate? That’s what I thought.
LITBMueller
Darrell, I stand corrected. “Full” should read “effective.”
As for your second point, I sincerely hope you’re right. But, the concerns do exist, and it should be all of our priorities to make sure that we “get ‘er done!”
My overall point was simply that – that we should be concentrating more on making sure that the more obvious steps that can be taken to make America safer from international terrorism are completed, before we start allowing the Administration some sort of Article II-related carte blanche to bypass certain laws if they deem it necessary.
If we are truly hit by some WMD that a terrorist smuggled into the US, it is much more likely going to be due to some sort of border security, cargo screening, or beauracratic failure by BCIS (formerly known as the INS) rather than some failure to wiretap.
John S.
Oh the irony.
Darrell makes a post with an unproven accusation (the lefties do “X”) while chiding someone for – lo and behold! – making a post over an unproven accusation. Then, as if the irony wasn’t delicious enough, his proof of the unfounded accusation (that lefties do “X”) is – lo and behold! – the very same unfounded accusation (we hold these unfounded accusations to be self-evident?).
I swear, the man has DougJ looking like an amateur.
Pooh
Well, Darrell, is it glaringly obvious to state that the existance of a warrant is a difference in kind to a situation with no warrant?
And yes, you can use what you hear on one tap to get another warrant for another target. But you can only do that if the original tap was legal, that is WARRANTED in the context of domestic surveillance.
Thus by analogy, if they heard something using a tap that didn’t need a warrant, (a foreign call) and they wanted to spread to something that would, (a domestic call) they can use the first intercept as the basis for Probable Cause to get a warrant for the second (after the fact, I might add). Basic, BASIC 4th amendment law. Fruit of the Poisonous tree, etc. Go watch some Law & Order, learn a few things about criminal procedure, and come back to us. Or just fling more monkey-poo.
Sometimes I feel like I’m talking with Lenny from Memento.
Perry Como
McCoy: Are you lying then or are you lying now?
Liberal: Both!
Perry Como
Meh, s/Are/Were/
Even with the filter enabled, the Darrell to others ratio is too large to ignore. We need a new NSA thread.
Mike S
Typical facsistic response. Still using the big lie on Plame I see. Keep ignoring Fitz’s statement that the obstruction made proving the underlying crime.
But which post are you talking about? The one where Bush admitted circumventing FISA and will continue to do so? Or the one about NBC scrubbing the transcript?
Neither is untrue. And unlike you I plainly label my opinion for all to see.
Keep at the script. And read this piece while you’re at it.
link
Darrell
Precisely my point as no one disputes the legality of wiretapping and monitoring foreign terrorists without a warrant. If the warrantless wiretapping of foreign terrorists is legal, just like the wiretapping of a mobster with a warrant, then why should a warrant have to be obtained each time a non-suspect has communication with the targeted suspect?
As you’ve acknowledged, authorities don’t have to get a separate warrant each time a targeted mobster under wiretap comes into communication with non-suspects. Same thing with Bush monitoring terrorists. If he has full authority to monitor suspected terrorists, why should he have to get a warrant each time the terrorist calls the US?
No need to watch Law & Order for more details as former Clinton Asst. AG John Schmidt, who has experience with the legal aspects of national security issues, fully agrees that Bush has full authority to do exactly that and has laid out the case support the President.
Perhaps as a self proclaimed constitutional scholar (and NSA surveillance expert too?) you know better than the former asst AG, right?
Darrell
Not at all, as a warrant is usually required to wiretap a suspect in a criminal case, but never required for military surveillance of foreign suspects in non-criminal cases.. which is the full extent of Bush’s program.
If you’re a lawyer, you’re not a very smart one
Pooh
I’d play count the logical fallacies with you, but you’d run out of fingers first. And in answer to your nice little ad hominem
I’ll paraphrase that great civil libertarian Jay-Z and say “I’ve passed the bar and I know a little bit/ enough that you won’t illegally search my shit.”
Perry for the love of god post the script again…
demimondian
Pooh — I pointed to the scripts in the Alito thread.
Jim Rockford
Here’s my take: Beslan, around 400 dead, mostly kids. Bali, both strikes, about 200 dead. Jakarta, around 56 dead. Istanbul, about 60 dead. Amman, around 40 dead. Sharm el Sheik, one dead. Tunisia, around 70 dead. Madrid, about 350 dead. London, both strikes, about 50 dead. Southern Thailand, around 1000 dead. Bangladesh, about 300 dead. New Delhi, around 400 dead.
Contrast to the US post 9/11, despite plot after plot after plot: 0 DEAD. ZILCH NADA NO ONE DEAD.
What’s the difference? The Indians, Thais, Jordanians, Brits, Spaniards, Turks had no clue about how to fight terrorists? No willpower? No unfettered secret police? No. It’s that we used technology on a massive scale, and the influence of the NSA to make telcos route as MUCH international traffic through their switches to find out who was talking to whom; and stop plots before they got started.
What this site is arguing is that thousands of commuters on the Brooklyn Bridge should have been slaughtered instead of listening in to US Citizen Iyman Farris talking with 9/11 Architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed about how to maximize casualties.
Yes good luck with that one. Go ahead, impeach Bush for listening to people talk to known Al Qaeda. Impeach him from gathering packet header data (who is calling whom, or emailing etc) when one end is foreign and Al Qaeda. Please argue that people’s lives are less important post-9/11 than civil liberties of terrorists.
What Bush and the NSA did WORKED. It worked where everyone else in the world FAILED. Argue that an annual report, heavily redacted, should be made publicly about any possible abuses by an independent IG. Argue that both freedom of the executive is needed and after-the-fact oversight to remedy abuses.
But don’t argue that simply rolling back to 9/10 way of doing things won’t cost hundreds, perhaps thousands, or even millions of lives. Not when Al Qaeda has launched successfully more than 14 major terrorist operations and won against some of the best.
LBT: given that Farris was talking to the man who brought down the WTC (and the Uncle of 1993 Bomber Ramzi Yusef), I’d say the danger was very real. Please tell everyone who travelled that bridge that you’re OK with them being murdered because blowtorches wouldn’t do the job. Easy to pontificate if your life won’t be lost. Or your family’s.
I can guarantee you these things are true. Islamic terror attacks are conducted by Muslims. Failure of the Gov’t to take reasonable measures to stop terror attacks because of PC Multi-culti, civil liberties absolutes, and a Beslan or Moscow Theatre or worse yet nuclear attack and you’ll get people acting on their own. If they’re left on their own they’ll act on their own. It’s absolutely true that if there are no Muslims in the US there will be no Islamic terror attacks within the US.
The choice is 9/10 policies (Dems/Libs) and inevitably successful mass casualty attacks (ask the folks in Beslan or Amman or Istanbul) and just as inevitably Mob Action to make the US “Muslim Free”; or freedom of the President to Act but also RESPONSIBILITY to report yearly on his actions. The current legal framework is simply not adequate to deal with bin Laden’s latest Fatwa justifying a nuclear attack on the US.
[If Amanpour is talking to Al Qaeda, you better believe she should have been eavesdropped on. “Which city are you going to attack now?” “Oh, I think DC. Just in time for the next elections. Nerve Gas in the subways sounds good to me.”]
demimondian
Rockford — Here’s a better reason we haven’t been attacked.
We have historically treated minority populations well.
Wow. What a concept — welcome strangers, treat them well, let them integrate into your society…no terror. Oppress them…terror.
Want evidence? One word: Canada. More secular than we are, less religious, every bit as democratic, with a well established base of people who have staged a violent uprising in the last thirty five years…nary an act of “Islamic terror”.
Mike S
Shorter Rockford. “Bush is the bestest ever.”
You may want to ask yourself why we didn’t have a domestic attack from the first WTC one until 9/11. I know it hurts like hell to give Clinton credit for anything but even a cultist like you can recognise that Clinton did it by staying within the rules.
ImJohnGalt
Um, I may have been too quick on the draw, Demi. Antitroll2 that you linked to in the Alito thread appears to be broken. I’ve installed Antitroll (1, I presume), and it doesn’t appear to have any effect on my blood pressure in this thread. It is enabled, yet his babbling has still managed to penetrate the shields. Any further advice?
ImJohnGalt
I sit corrected. Shields are up, and smooth sailing to the end of the Universe.
Thanks again.
Pooh
My frickin hero Demi. (Hint, you will be able to tell I’m posting from work if I respond to certain folks…)
demimondian
For relatively obvious reasons, everyone at my office uses IE in some form or another at work.
John S.
Cheney trots out the “new” rationale
See, if you damn libruls let us ignore the laws of the land, we could have saved you from 9/11!
Did I mention 9/11? 9/11, mushroom cloud!
Check out the full comedy.
LITBMueller
Rockford, if you can provide any links/proof of your claim that it was listening in to communications that prevented any further attacks on US soil, I will believe you.
Unfortunately, I have not seen that. Personally, I believe that this “we caught Farris cuz of the NSA program” is a nice bit of revisionist history by the Administration. Fortunately for them, most Americans have very short memories. Luckily for us, we have Google, because a quick search turns up articles from the time of his arrest, like this one, which report that Farris and other plots were discovered from the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Which, of course, creates an interesting question: if they learned about Farris from KSM, and then decided to wiretap Farris for evidence gathering purposes, wouldn’t they have needed a warrant because Farris is a naturalized citizen?
Why I also don’t think that NSA program, or wiretapping and monitoring communications in general, is something that is saving us from the Terrorist Army gathering on our shores (as some would like to believe): it is damn hard to break the codes.
To see what I mean, check out this article, regarding encryption of email messages, and even phone conversations:
That is the key: once you break whatever encryption is being used, you are then left with completely innocuous words, or quotes from the Koran, which have no meaning to anyone except the recipient. In the time it takes to break all of these codes, the plot may take place.
Then there is another problem:
That’s right: the NSA is looking for that proverbial needle in a haystack.
This is not a new problem for the NSA. Code breaking and increasingly secure communications are things they have been struggling with since the Cold War.
So, to think that this NSA program is the thing that is saving us from further terrorist attacks really just doesn’t comport with the reality of modern day communications, and simple common sense.
Nor does it comport with our track record:
And, as far as gathering all of these communications (with or without a warrant) and then using them in court, the recent decision in the Al Arian case shows that, 20,000 thousands hours of taped conversations do not guarantee a conviction. (Note, too, that Al Arian’s defense rested without calling single witness – that’s how weak the case was!).
skip
“thousands slaughtered on the Brookland Bridge”
That’s a lot of angry blow torches in one place.
skip
The right’s argument is just a variant on the old grade school elephant (or tiger) repellent joke. “But there are none around here!” “See, it’s working.” ha ha.
Or, to reward Demi’s unrelenting vigilance, it’s still more a variant on the Israeli security fence joke. To wit:
In a case of Palestinian attack: “See, we need the wall.”
In case of no Palestinian attack’ See, the wall is working.”
demimondian
The wall does work, and the right of the Nation of Israel to construct such a wall is unquestioned. The reasonable question is whether they have the right to run it where it is currently planned. The answer to that question seems to me to be “no”.
Darrell
Isnt’ the wall going to run along the 1967 border lines? Israel is ceding a lot of real estate with this wall, so why is the placement of the wall so unreasonable?
demimondian
No, Darrell, the wall does not run along the 67 border. In fact, the wall runs well outside the 67 borders in a number of places.