• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

When I was faster i was always behind.

This blog will pay for itself.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Warrantless Wiretaps [Did Not] Extend Before 9/11

Warrantless Wiretaps [Did Not] Extend Before 9/11

by Tim F|  January 13, 200612:47 pm| 192 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Outrage

FacebookTweetEmail

UPDATE 2: Or not. In the post I said that this particular revelation made very little sense. That’s because it was bogus, as this diary finally convinced me. I’m sorry if definitive takedowns have appeared elsewhere before that, or even in the comments section, I haven’t been online much since Friday. Kudos to everybody who took the time to read the document, and wet raspberries (not the beer kind) to me for not doing so.

Many folks predicated their response to the NSA wiretap story on the assumption that it started as an overzealous but understandable reaction to the 9/11 terror attacks. It simply made no sense that the program would predate the terror attacks, since if anything that period was typified by a complete inattention to the problem of international terrorism, and it wasn’t happening before 2001.

For that reason at least it’s a little baffling to find out that the president approved the warrantless spying program shortly after he took office:

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA’s vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its “Transition 2001” report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that “American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist.”

“Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws,” the document says.

However, it adds that “senior leadership must understand that the NSA’s mission will demand a ‘powerful, permanent presence’ on global telecommunications networks that host both ‘protected’ communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target.”

… What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that’s not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

James Risen, author of the book State of War and credited with first breaking the story about the NSA’s domestic surveillance operations, said President Bush personally authorized a change in the agency’s long-standing policies shortly after he was sworn in in 2001.

“The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA’s domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions,” Risen wrote in the book. “Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders” and “the most ambitious got the message.”

The NSA doesn’t just run off the reservation on its own, and it looks like Bush approved this program more or less after-the-fact. So if the president didn’t shepherd this program into being, who did?

***Update 1***

Or, maybe, never mind. I’ve looked through the document and found less meat than was advertised. We’ll see whether James Risen’s quote comes from proper context.

If it’s bogus, that’ll teach me to run with info from a dodgy site. I’ll update when we know more.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Shoot the Bastard
Next Post: Commenter Pet Blogging »

Reader Interactions

192Comments

  1. 1.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 12:56 pm

    They are restoring executive power that has been restricted for decades. It has nothing to do with 9/11 and Clinton didn’t do it too. 9/11 is a convenient excuse to do what they were planning the whole time. Saddam was gone regardless what happened on 9/11.

  2. 2.

    Ozymandius

    January 13, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    It was Jimmy Carter’s fault.

  3. 3.

    Nikki

    January 13, 2006 at 1:01 pm

    We all know this came from Cheney. And didn’t he say that if we had this program in place before 9/11, 9/11 would never have happened? Hmmmmm…

  4. 4.

    Mr Furious

    January 13, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    So if the president didn’t shepherd this program into being, who did?

    Go F–k yourself.

  5. 5.

    Lines

    January 13, 2006 at 1:06 pm

    Can we just say … Oh my god, look over there, its a woman wearing office pants! Yoink! (runs away)

  6. 6.

    Mr Furious

    January 13, 2006 at 1:12 pm

    Oh my god, look over there, its a woman wearing office pants!

    And she’s crying!

  7. 7.

    Mr Furious

    January 13, 2006 at 1:13 pm

    Tim F-

    Update/supplement this as soon as you find or are pointed to a source other than truthout.org. I believe it, but I have more integrity than your average media whore, I want some confirmation…

  8. 8.

    LITBMueller

    January 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    I think it would be hard to place blame on NSA or anyone else in current or past White Houses for the existence of the program itself. Keeping up with technology is the whole point of the NSA!

    What everyone, and the Old Media, to need to focus on is how the technology used/how the program is carried out. The interception of communications, and the existence of the technology making such activities possible, are not illegal. It is when the NSA goes beyond the law, or when the President sanctions/authorizes the NSA and other agencies to go beyond/around/violate the law and the Constitution that we have a big big problem.

  9. 9.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    And didn’t he say that if we had this program in place before 9/11, 9/11 would never have happened?

    Yeah, but he’ll just go on Timmy’s show and say he wasn’t in the loop. Or he didn’t really say it, just like he did about Atta. It’s so hard to follow all of their lies – they don’t even make an effort to stay consistent.

    Back to the Iran war drumming. LOOK OVER HERE!!!!

  10. 10.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    They are restoring executive power that has been restricted for decades. It has nothing to do with 9/11 and Clinton didn’t do it too. 9/11 is a convenient excuse to do what they were planning the whole time. Saddam was gone regardless what happened on 9/11.

    The only thing missing from this story is the reason why executive power was restricted for decades in the first place. It ends in “gate.”

  11. 11.

    Tim F.

    January 13, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    Update/supplement this as soon as you find or are pointed to a source other than truthout.org. I believe it, but I have more integrity than your average media whore, I want some confirmation…

    The truthout piece is based on two things that I find fairly credible: a FOIA’d document and the NYT’s James Risen. As of right now Risen has about the same credibility as Seymour Hersh in my mind. That is, believe until proven otherwise.

  12. 12.

    Jorge

    January 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Tim,
    Why do you hate freedom?

  13. 13.

    Charlie (Colorado)

    January 13, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    The Clinton Administration at least.

  14. 14.

    neil

    January 13, 2006 at 1:31 pm

    The FOIA’d document does not appear to directly back the claim that Bush approved the program early in his administration, does it? Or did I miss that part?

  15. 15.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    January 13, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    It is when the NSA goes beyond the law, or when the President sanctions/authorizes the NSA and other agencies to go beyond/around/violate the law and the Constitution that we have a big big problem.

    Uhh that already happened. Aren’t you familiar with the 4th Amendment?

  16. 16.

    The Other Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    What everyone, and the Old Media, to need to focus on is how the technology used/how the program is carried out.

    The primary issue here is why they did not go for warrants like the law required.

    Granted, if we find out they were spying on John Kerry’s campaign(Like Nixon did), then it’s a new ball game.

    (*) Odd thing about my ‘Like Nixon did’ comment is that he did spy on John Kerry. :-)

  17. 17.

    Ozymandius

    January 13, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    Uhh that already happened. Aren’t you familiar with the 4th Amendment?

    Oh shush. It’s not like that’s part of the Constitution or anything.

  18. 18.

    Zerthimon

    January 13, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    Am I missing something? I’m looking at the actual PDF document on the Truthout website, and I can’t find where warrantless wiretaps are issued. Can someone copy and paste the releveant section that says warrantless wiretaps would be used?

  19. 19.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 13, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    God I hate Republicans.

  20. 20.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    Has Clinton made any statements about FISA? I know some of the gov’t lawyers from that time have refuted GW’s FISA claims already. So in wingnut world, they’re all lying, and they can trust Karl to not release any docs showing that…

    So it all makes sense now:

    If we’d had it before 9/11, it wouldn’t have happened.
    9/11 was all Clintons fault
    Bush did this because of 9/11
    The AUMF gave Bush the authority to do this
    It was Clintons program all along

    Taking revisionism to new dimensions.

    Think about how many “technical” violations they must have with Echelon. Now they can have a dog and pony show of all of those under Clinton, and obfiscate exactly what they were up to. That should stall up the works for awhile.

  21. 21.

    PotVsKtl

    January 13, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    Dick Cheney. 9/11.

  22. 22.

    Otto Man

    January 13, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    So if the president didn’t shepherd this program into being, who did?

    Homer: “Do I know what rhetorical means?”

  23. 23.

    Ben

    January 13, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    Has Clinton made any statements about FISA?

    Here ya go.

    Former President Clinton said Thursday that he never ordered wiretaps of American citizens without obtaining a court order, as President Bush has acknowledged he has done.
    Clinton, in an interview broadcast Thursday on the ABC News program ”Nightline,” said his administration either received court approval before authorizing a wiretap or went to court within three days after to get permission, as required by law.

    ”We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it,” Clinton told ABC.

    Link

  24. 24.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Guess they’ve found one of echelons technical means:

    WMF bug a backdoor?

  25. 25.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    Surge in Sale of Disposable Cell Phones May Have Terror Link

    Can we now at least agree that disclosure of the program most likely did in fact harm national security?

    The first bulk purchase came 3 days after the NYT story ran.

    This would be the response to Atrios’s challenge: “Can anyone – anywhere – explain, just a little bit – just one time – how national security has been damaged”

    The revelation of the plan may have caused terrorist cells already in the country to begin using a new communication strategy. Get a bunch of disposable cell phones. Use one once or twice and throw it. Kind of hard to track or monitor that.

  26. 26.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    Drug dealers have been using disposable phones for years. Any terrorists who happened to be fans of HBO’s The Wire will have known about the value of disposable phones and they have the bankroll to act on it.

    The run on cell phones happened after the article but is there any linkage that one caused the other? Are the cell phones being sanpped up by terrorists or maybe members of the media and non respublican politicians?

  27. 27.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    Can we now at least agree that disclosure of the program most likely did in fact harm national security?

    Uhm. No. Correlation, causation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Etc.

    Unless the body armor story is also conclusive proof that Bush hates the troops.

  28. 28.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    also, what JG said (I was about to make a reference to The Wire as well…)

  29. 29.

    LITBMueller

    January 13, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    Disenfranchised & Other Steve,

    You guys are both right. I suppose what I meant by my comment is that I can see exactly where the debate over the program will go (and is going): Bush didn’t start it all – Clinton/some other president did.

    But, really, who started what doesn’t mean a damn thing. What matters was how the technology was used, and all indications are that NSA avoided the FISA regime and violated the 4th Amendment.

    I read the NSA document, and all it says to me is that the NSA a) reported that it has the technology to monitor incoming calls into the US from abroad and b) recognizes that any such program must be regulated by applicable law and the Constitution.

    But, the fact still remains: the President, at the very least, sanctioned an NSA program that operated outside of existing law. I say “at least” because we don’t know the exact wording of the Presidential order/memo – it could also be true that he ORDERED NSA to do it.

    THAT is THE issue here – a Presidentially sanctioned (or ordered) violation of the law which may have caused the violation of US citizen’s constitutional rights.

  30. 30.

    Jim Allen

    January 13, 2006 at 2:57 pm

    The NYT hates freedom because more people are buying disposable cell phones?

  31. 31.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    The Midland police report, dated Dec. 18 and obtained by ABC News, states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.

    “Upon the arrival of officers, suspects were observed moving away from the registers — appearing to evade detection while ridding themselves of the merchandise.”

    “Upon conclusion of the initial investigation, three of the suspects were taken into custody on immigration violations, with one individual arrested for possession of marijuana — the drug having been discovered during the search of the group’s vehicle. Also found within the green 2002 Kia van were additional cell phones, the total believed to be approximately 60.”

    FBI officials told ABC News that while the cases may wind up in the hands of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the FBI would benefit from any intelligence gleaned and would take the lead if a solid terrorist connection emerged.

    To the extent there’s any actual terrorism connection here, I’d say if the NYT story played any role in smoking these people out that’s a definite benefit to national security, not a detriment.

    Again, for anyone who hasn’t been paying attention or likes to engage in wilful ignorance, the NYT story didn’t tell anyone “hey, your phone might be tapped.” It said “hey, your phone might be tapped without a secret warrant, whereas previously we thought it could only be tapped with a secret warrant.” Other than the fact that spying takes place without a secret warrant rather than with one, show me one thing in the NYT article that’s new information.

  32. 32.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    …approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said
    …

    “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

    Pure coincidence it happened a few days after the story ran. Maybe they were buying them for Christmas gifts.

  33. 33.

    Krista

    January 13, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    The revelation of the plan may have caused terrorist cells already in the country to begin using a new communication strategy. Get a bunch of disposable cell phones. Use one once or twice and throw it. Kind of hard to track or monitor that.

    I live in a no-stoplight fishing village in Canada and I knew that disposable phones were the communication option of choice for those who do not want to be tracked. So I think we can probably assume that terrorists knew it too.

  34. 34.

    docG

    January 13, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    OCSteve:
    The article you linked to specifically identified a whopping 210 phones sold. It also stated that the Madrid bombers used disposable phones, so the tactic was known to and being used by terrorists before disclosure of the program you referenced.
    The article further stated:

    Law enforcement sources say it is possible some large purchases that have been identified as being sent to the Middle East could have been sent for resale in a sellers’ market for handsets, or simply given to friends and relatives. Officials are also investigating these possibilities.

    Not all Middle Eastern people are terrorists. Law enforcement does not know if the few purchasers are threatening in any manner. Nothing you provided allows me, or any thinking person, to respond in the affirmative to your question, “Can we now at least agree that disclosure of the program most likely did in fact harm national security?”
    Terrorism is a serious problem, but for those of us old enough to remember, terrorists as a replacement boogyman for communists is beginning to wear quite thin.

  35. 35.

    Dennis

    January 13, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    The real question is when did they stop going to FISA. Clinton has stated clearly that they always went to FISA. The real problems associated with not going to FISA are:
    1. Even if you overheard guilty people planning an attack, you can’t prosecute them using an illegal wire tap. The information is inadmissible in court. Nobody talks about this.
    2. Why not use FISA. The process is obviously simple enough, fast enough, and not a barrier to starting a wire tap for expediency. Unless you were doing something illegal or planned to. I am willing to bet this was abused.
    3. When the court supervises wire taps, communication unrelated to the criminal matter is protected and disposed of properly. Who can say what information has been intercepted and who is responsible for its disposition in illegal wire tapping.
    4. How much money has been wasted looking at non-involved people who happen to be associated with possible subjects, what about their rights and the security of their information.
    5. Has anyone been caught as a direct result of this program. I doubt it.

  36. 36.

    LITBMueller

    January 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    with one individual arrested for possession of marijuana — the drug having been discovered during the search of the group’s vehicle.

    Well, the presence of doobage indicates to me that at least one of the guys wasn’t exactly a religious zealout!!! Devout Muslims don’t even drink alcohol.

    Its amazing how US culture has become so conditioned that we immediately link this sort of activity by Muslims with terrorism. But, it is just as possible that these phones were being bought for sale on the black market. Certainly, the demand for such phones from the Muslim community would have gone up after the NSA revelation. It could be that people are trying to cash in.

  37. 37.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    It also stated that the Madrid bombers used disposable phones

    For trigger devices. This is way too many for that (one hopes). If you assume 4 people in a cell, 60 phones let’s all 4 change to a new phone every week for almost 4 months.

    Other than the fact that spying takes place without a secret warrant rather than with one, show me one thing in the NYT article that’s new information.

    That one is enough. Prior to that, you would assume that you would first have to come under suspicion some other way before the government gets a warrant and taps your phone. If you are a sleeper, living a normal life, keeping your nose squeaky clean – why would you have cause to think you might be under suspicion?

    The revelation that the NSA was listening domestically based on other criteria would certainly ruin your day.

    3 days later? I’m sorry but it seems way too coincidental to me.

  38. 38.

    Laura

    January 13, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Pure coincidence it happened a few days after the story ran. Maybe they were buying them for Christmas gifts.

    Hell, if I were Middle Eastern and learned that the US was likely monitoring my calls to relatives overseas, you bet I’d go buy disposable phones for everybody I knew. Not wanting to be spied on doesn’t require guilt. It merely means you’re a typical American. Real terrorists, on the other hand, are probably smart enough to not buy in bulk. And as has already been pointed out, the idea of using disposable cell phones is likely something they thought of long before the NYT article.

  39. 39.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Pure coincidence it happened a few days after the story ran. Maybe they were buying them for Christmas gifts.

    I’ll grant that maybe these guys learned of it though the NYT article if you’ll grant that that makes it pretty likely they weren’t terrorists because terrorists aren’t idiots and would already be using untraceable cell phones.

    Maybe they want to recieve phone calls from back home and just learned that Bush listens to every incoming phone call from certain nations? Do you have to be guilty to want privacy?

  40. 40.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    I’ll grant that maybe these guys learned of it though the NYT article if you’ll grant that that makes it pretty likely they weren’t terrorists because terrorists aren’t idiots and would already be using untraceable cell phones.

    I’m not saying they were terrorists because they were Middle Eastern. The article says that the FBI says they are linked to suspected terrorist cells.

    “Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation,” the report said. “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

  41. 41.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

    Prediction: there won’t be any followup on that, and the wingnuts will take that as gospel. If the feds are advertising they know they’re linked to suspected terror cells, there would have already been a round up. This is just going to be another one of those over-hyped Patriot Act successes.

  42. 42.

    Perry Como

    January 13, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    If you are a sleeper, living a normal life, keeping your nose squeaky clean – why would you have cause to think you might be under suspicion?

    How would a squeaky clean sleeper get tapped by the NSA in the first place? I thought President Bush was only tapping known associates of terrorists?

  43. 43.

    fwiffo

    January 13, 2006 at 3:59 pm

    Prior to that, you would assume that you would first have to come under suspicion some other way before the government gets a warrant and taps your phone. If you are a sleeper, living a normal life, keeping your nose squeaky clean – why would you have cause to think you might be under suspicion?

    A) Bush has said that this program has only been used on people with known terrorist ties; I’m not inclined to take him at his word, but there you have it…

    B) If a person has done nothing to warrant suspicion, how does the government know that they should be targeted? Or is ethnicity reason enough to violate a person’s constitutional protection against unreasonable searches?

    If you’re right, and this has been used to spy on people who haven’t even done anything suspicious, then that makes breaking this story all the more important.

  44. 44.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    because terrorists aren’t idiots

    I’ll grant you that is true about the planners – the guys higher up who are in no hurry to get their 72 virgins. But the cannon fodder?

    Again – if they were sleepers and clean they would have no reason to believe they had done anything to justify suspicion leading to a warrant and a wiretap. That certainly changed on Dec. 15th.

  45. 45.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Show me a Mosque in the Metroplex, and I’ll show you a “suspected” terror cell.

    Remember, Jose Padilla, that high-school drop out gang member, was really a brilliant nuclear weapons designer.

  46. 46.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    Maybe they were terrorists. I don’t know. The point you’re trying to make is that the NYT articles is making terrorists use untraceble means of communicating. This article leads you to that conclusion. But maybe they’ve been doing this the whole time? They may have been esending runners all over the east coast buying up cell phones in bulk since way before the NYT article. Since thats possible, and likely, then the article isn’t demonstrating the cause and effect you’re trying to point out. It’s just an account of something that occurred.

  47. 47.

    dorkafork

    January 13, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    Risen’s quote comes from page 32 of the document, page 38 of the pdf. Pages 37, 14, and 20 of the pdf also look relevant.

  48. 48.

    srv

    January 13, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    Oh, and for the conspiracy folks. What makes any of you think that disposable cell phones aren’t already registered and monitored under another “special” program? You think the phone companies don’t give the gov’t these IDs?

  49. 49.

    Laura

    January 13, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Prior to that, you would assume that you would first have to come under suspicion some other way before the government gets a warrant and taps your phone.

    After 9/11, some Arab Americans were rounded up for questioning. They were often held for months and then just suddenly released, no apology, no explanation. Here in Sacramento, the FBI spent a lot of time with local Muslim and Middle Eastern leaders, trying to convince them that they weren’t being targeted merely because of their religion and ethnicity. I don’t think they were all convinced. And it doesn’t help that just last month, a local high school kid was picked up by FBI for writing “PLO” on his binder (two years ago). If law-abiding citizens are being targeted, don’t you think real “sleepers” would assume they’re being watched as well? The bar was pretty low to legally spy on someone. I can’t imagine that learning the Bush Administration was doing so illegally changed how terrorists communicated.

  50. 50.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    Again – if they were sleepers and clean they would have no reason to believe they had done anything to justify suspicion leading to a warrant and a wiretap. That certainly changed on Dec. 15th.

    just because you don’t think you’ve done anything to draw heat doesn’t mean you don’t stay on the down low. You would still want to use untraceable means so you don’t attract heat. Just because you don’t have an FBI tail on you doesn’t mean you won’t use a secure means to talk with your handlers. The NYT putting this story out in no ways will drive terrorist further underground. You’re being naive.

  51. 51.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    That one is enough. Prior to that, you would assume that you would first have to come under suspicion some other way before the government gets a warrant and taps your phone. If you are a sleeper, living a normal life, keeping your nose squeaky clean – why would you have cause to think you might be under suspicion?

    The revelation that the NSA was listening domestically based on other criteria would certainly ruin your day.

    You cannot possibly be serious.

    Your contention is that the people being wiretapped have done nothing to come under suspicion?

  52. 52.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    They may have been esending runners all over the east coast buying up cell phones in bulk since way before the NYT article.

    Doesn’t seem likely as store employees reported these 2 within 2 weeks. Seems like we would have heard something about it before.

    Since thats possible, and likely, then the article isn’t demonstrating the cause and effect you’re trying to point out. It’s just an account of something that occurred.

    As they say – I question the timing. Entirely too coincidental for my taste. I’ll be interested to read any follow up that comes out.

  53. 53.

    chopper

    January 13, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    …approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said
    …

    “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

    so if it weren’t for the NYT story, these guys wouldn’t have been caught. way to go, times!

  54. 54.

    Confederate Yankee

    January 13, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Okay, I haven’t made it past the cover page of the the Super Secret document, and I think it conclusively proves that Bush was not behind this program.

    As yourself three simple questions:

    When was this document prepared?
    December, 2000, but deriving from NSA Manual 123 Dated February 24, 1996 or 1998 (last number in date unclear).

    Who was President during these dates?
    William Jefferson Clinton. (January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001)

    When was Bush inaugurated?
    January 20, 2001.

    Without going past the cover sheet, it appears that the NSA programs convered by this document date to Bill Clinton’s second term, from 3-5 years before Bush was elected.

    Nice try.

  55. 55.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    They may have been esending runners all over the east coast buying up cell phones in bulk since way before the NYT article.

    Doesn’t seem likely as store employees reported these 2 within 2 weeks. Seems like we would have heard something about it before.

    You got me. If they had been buying cell phones all over the east coast the guys working in this store would have known about it. May be this store has sold bulk cell phones in the past but now only notice it because of the NYT article? Maybe this is the only time they noticed middle easterners doing it?

    I question the timing.

    So do I but I also see many reasons to disregard this as just a coincidence. Not a cause and effect in that terrorists who previously thought they were free and clear to chat away on open phone lines have learned from their partners at the NYT that they now need to go deeper to evade detection.

  56. 56.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 4:39 pm

    Okay, I haven’t made it past the cover page of the the Super Secret document, and I think it conclusively proves that Bush was not behind this program.

    Hold on. I thought the right wing message was that these are powers Bush has restored to the executive because 9/11 changed everything? Now not only did it have nothing to do with 9/11, it wasn’t even Bush who restored the powers? How am I supposed to know the story if the wingnuts keep changing their defense? Their defense keeps hopping back and forth over a line in the sand depending on what ‘facts’ have been dug up. They don’t even wait for the new ‘facts’ to be debunked, they roll with them and adjust as it goes. Frustrating as hell. Creating new realities while we sit and wonder what happened.

  57. 57.

    Confederate Yankee

    January 13, 2006 at 4:41 pm

    This document would seem to relate to a Clinton era program, not bush’s post 9/11 program. It may come as a shock, but the NSA does have more than one program…

  58. 58.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    Fuckin’ bunch of bullshit. What, the terrorists didn’t know their phones could be tapped until they read about it in the NYT? Are you joking?

  59. 59.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    At the risk of being thrown into the same hopper with Paddy, here’s a story about yet another way the Bush administration has figgered a way to mess up lives, maybe even kill people, so as to pay their debts to their corporate sponsors

    Worst. Government. Ever. Ask any senior citizen who has tried to decipher this clusterfuck drug plan.

  60. 60.

    radish

    January 13, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    Well we all see things through the filter that we’ve built up from our previous experiences don’t we? And therein lies the problem.

    If every last goddam thing this administration has said for the past five years hadn’t been riddled with obvious and bald-faced lies then I would consider the ABC story a plausible example of potential terrorists using public knowledge to adjust their strategy. And I wouldn’t assume that it was bullshit when it disappeared into the memory hole either, because this is exactly the sort of situation where — assuming there really was some sort of threat — you would want to give yourself an opportunity to infiltrate and/or roll up the rest of the network.

    sigh…

    As it is, this administration has so effectively muddied the water with respect to who is and isn’t a “terrorist,” and has so plainly shown that it has no respect for the Constitution, that we can no longer reasonably assume that these folks are hostile, or even that they are not otherwise-law-abiding folks (except for the dope part of course) who are merely (and justifiably) frightened that they will either be strung up from lampposts or rounded up and disappeared after the next attack. Whether or not they had anything to do with that attack (cf. Iraq, invasion of, and Murrah Bldg, immediate reaction to bombing of).

    Or perhaps people have been buying cell phones in bulk anyway since they’ve been available, and what’s actually changed after the NYT piece is the suspiciousness of the people who are selling the phones, no? Or maybe they’re just drug dealers. In that case, we’re diverting resources from real counterterror to chase phantoms and simultaneously pissing off American Muslims even further, making them even less likely to turn against mujahedeen when they do run into them. As srv points out, every mosque is a “suspected terror cell” now, and I assure you that this puts us all in more danger, not less.

    BTW pot definitely does not rule these folks out as jihadis — there’s no proscription on pot or opium in Islam, only alcohol.

  61. 61.

    Laura

    January 13, 2006 at 5:40 pm

    This document would seem to relate to a Clinton era program, not bush’s post 9/11 program.

    It’s an update of a 1998 report, but since it’s dated December 2000, titled “Transition 2001,” and talks about their 2002-03 Business Plan, I would assume it was created for the incoming administration, not the outgoing one. I don’t see anything about authorization, though. It looks kind of like an orientation of the agency, with the mission statement, manpower and budget needs. It’s the kind of report you create to increase your piece of the pie. They do make a point to state, “Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws.” We know that didn’t happen under Bush. However, there’s been no report that Clinton ignored FISA. And if he did, that doesn’t exonerate Bush. It just means they’re both bastards. But considering what Cheney has said, I assume he thinks Clinton didn’t violate FISA. I’m pretending to work while I read this, but so far, I don’t think this report reveals anything new.

  62. 62.

    Laura

    January 13, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    Great post radish. I don’t think any more needs to be said.

  63. 63.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    What, the terrorists didn’t know their phones could be tapped until they read about it in the NYT?

    Terrorist1: Americans are listening in to phone calls! I read it in New Work Times!

    Terrorist2: Allah akbar! Those clever infidels!

    etc.

  64. 64.

    Gabriel Chapman

    January 13, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    Note the discussion about the outsourcing of NSA IT Services under Section U (Groundbreaker) which relates to January 2000. Nearly all of the discussion within this document pertains to pre-Bush era.

    Whats most amazing is that the NSA had a 3 1/2 day network outage. Could you imaging a private company with the NSA’s budget experiencing such an attrocity.

  65. 65.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 13, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    ppGaz: I’ve never considered for a moment that anyone should hesistate to say whatever they want on these threads. This shit just ain’t that serious. Too many witless blowhards improvising from their vast store of ignorance.

    Besides, what other topics are available to us today? Obese cats and boutique booze.

    Looks like those vicious hags Georgina Bush, Karlita Rove and their Swift Boat Bitches are proving to be their usual ruthlessly unforgiving selves. This from Huffington:

    Smear of the day: Radical Right Attack’s Murtha’s Vietnam War Medals.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/13/smear-of-the-day-radical_n_13767.html

    These truly are the creepiest people on the face of the Earth.

  66. 66.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    These truly are the creepiest people on the face of the Earth.

    You are preaching to the choir, compadre.

  67. 67.

    Otto Man

    January 13, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Terrorist1: Americans are listening in to phone calls! I read it in New Work Times!

    Terrorist2: Allah akbar! Those clever infidels!

    Well, that would make for a better ad for the Times than that one with the lady who loves to snuggle up with the crossword.

  68. 68.

    a guy called larry

    January 13, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    Murrah Bldg, immediate reaction to bombing of

    Why are you beating up that dead horse? Everybody knows that didn’t have anything to do with terrorism. You can’t can’t be a great commander in chief when good ol’ American white guys destroy buildings, can you? No. Just forget about it, like everyone else.

  69. 69.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Smear of the day: Radical Right Attack’s Murtha’s Vietnam War Medals.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/13/smear-of-the-day-radical_n_13767.html

    These truly are the creepiest people on the face of the Earth.

    From the link

    A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha’s former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

    You dumbasses throw out accusations without even attempting to understand what actually happened. That “Radical Right” smear on Murtha came from his fellow Dem

  70. 70.

    Mike

    January 13, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    I hope you republemmings are happy when Bush manages to defy Congress on an explicit law that was passed to prevent abuses of power and then he decides that the 22nd amendment doesn’t mean anything and cancels the 08 elections due to the war on terra.

    Enjoy!!!

  71. 71.

    jg

    January 13, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    and then he decides that the 22nd amendment doesn’t mean anything and cancels the 08 elections due to the war on terra.

    Wouldn’t surprise me. I even said as much after the last election.

    Darrell, its a smear. When you look into someones background for bad things to say about him after he stands up to your leader its a smear. Don’t look at who said what. Look at who’s bringing it up and why.

  72. 72.

    Specter

    January 13, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    So why haven’t you answered Yankee Confederate’s questions? Some secret document. You should try reading before your yell, “AHA!!!!” Just makes you look….well I won’t say it.

  73. 73.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Heh, a smear on Murtha by a guy who ran against him in a primary comes from a “fellow Dem.” Only in the land of Darrell.

  74. 74.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 13, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    Poor Darrell. I’ll bet he actually believes that the “Cybercast News Network” is a source for news of the most pristine purity rather than what it really is: A cistern for the vast flow of reactionary sewage that is so much a part of the average wingnut’s daily information diet.

  75. 75.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    Paddy O’Shea Says:

    Poor Darrell. I’ll bet he actually believes that the “Cybercast News Network” is a source for news of the most pristine purity rather than what it really is: A cistern for the vast flow of reactionary sewage that is so much a part of the average wingnut’s daily information diet.

    Then why did you link to a Cybercast news network story? It was your link. I only quoted from it

  76. 76.

    Skip

    January 13, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    “”Note the discussion about the outsourcing of NSA IT Services under Section U (Groundbreaker) which relates to January 2000.”

    And therewith evade the proscriptions in US law. I point again to the radomes at Bad Aibling–and the news that Germany was secretly providing intel in Iraq.

  77. 77.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 13, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    Darrell: The link was to Ariana Huffington’s blog and an article entitled “Smear of the Day.” The link is not to the “Cybercast News Network.” This article discusses the sources for this loathesome smear in the same way most decent people would discuss a wife beater or a rapist.

    Go back and see if you can’t get a sense of this readily apparent context.

    Getting high a little early this Friday, Darrell?

    For the sake of the children in your neighborhood, please flush your car keys down the toilet.

  78. 78.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    You dumbasses throw out accusations without even attempting to understand what actually happened. That “Radical Right” smear on Murtha came from his fellow Dem

    Whatever. Pretend it’s fact if you want. Personally, I think you’re a fool for believing anything you read on a trash site like that.

  79. 79.

    Davebo

    January 13, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Then why did you link to a Cybercast news network story? It was your link. I only quoted from it

    Get the net Paddy!

    These Coho’s ain’t too bright but they’re good with capers and boiled egg!

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    Paddy O’Shea Says:

    Darrell: The link was to Ariana Huffington’s blog and an article entitled “Smear of the Day.” The link is not to the “Cybercast News Network.”

    If you go to Huffington’s blog using the link you posted, below the headline is a button which says “read whole story”.. which links to the Cybercast News Network article. Stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life Paddy

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    Whatever. Pretend it’s fact if you want. Personally, I think you’re a fool for believing anything you read on a trash site like that.

    Trash site, being HuffingtonPost.com which hosted the link

  82. 82.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    Trash site, being HuffingtonPost.com which hosted the
    link

    You posted this like 3 minutes ago:

    below the headline is a button which says “read whole story”.. which links to the Cybercast News Network article.

  83. 83.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    You posted this like 3 minutes ago:

    below the headline is a button which says “read whole story”.. which links to the Cybercast News Network article.

    No wonder so many of you are Democrats.. you’re stupid as hell. You really are. Huffingtonpost.com hosted the link to Cybercast news network

  84. 84.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    No wonder so many of you are Democrats.. you’re stupid as hell.

    Fuck you.

    You really are. Huffingtonpost.com hosted the link to Cybercast news network

    Go, man, go. Work yourself into a lather over this one. It’s a Cybercast News Network story. They’re a trash site and not to be trusted to state facts honestly.

  85. 85.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 7:22 pm

    Let’s take this slowly, since Darrell is projecting again. HuffPost, which is mostly a leftwing site, links to a smear of John Murtha at CNSnews.com, a right-wing site, and calls it their “smear of the day.” That hardly means HuffPost was endorsing the truth of the “smear” found at that link – indeed, the fact that they called it a smear suggests that they believe just the opposite.

  86. 86.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    Huffingtonpost.com hosted the link to Cybercast news network

    This is your fucking contribution to this thread? Arguing over the taxonomy of a url?

  87. 87.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    Back on track to the topic of this post, this 1993 NSA directive indicates that such collection of data involving US persons communicating with suspected foreign terrorists has been going on for quite a while now. From section 6:

    Foreign communications of or concerning United States persons acquired by the NSA in the course of electronic surveillance subject to these procedures may be retained only:

    (1) if necessary for the maintenance of technical data bases. Retention for this purpose is permitted for a period sufficient to allow a thorough exploitation and to permit access to data that are, or are reasonably believed likely to become, relevant to a current or future foreign intelligence requirement. Sufficient duration may vary with the nature of the exploitation.

    So they can retain records of communications obrtained through warrantless surveillance involving US persons for as long as they “reasonably” believe such information to be relevant to a current or future foreign intelligence requirement. Pretty broad authority. But Bush is ‘trampling’ the constitution, right kooks?

  88. 88.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    Steve Says:

    Let’s take this slowly, since Darrell is projecting again. HuffPost, which is mostly a leftwing site, links to a smear of John Murtha at CNSnews.com, a right-wing site, and calls it their “smear of the day.” That hardly means HuffPost was endorsing the truth of the “smear” found at that link – indeed, the fact that they called it a smear suggests that they believe just the opposite.

    According to the CNSnews.com article highlighted and hosted by HuffingtonPost, a “fellow Democrat” was the one who raised this issue regarding Murtha’s purple hearts, not the ‘right wing’.

  89. 89.

    OCSteve

    January 13, 2006 at 7:29 pm

    Terrorist1: Americans are listening in to phone calls! I read it in New Work Times!
    Terrorist2: Allah akbar! Those clever infidels!

    Disregard the 5-6 times where I stated if you are a sleeper and have not done anything suspicious, you know (think) it takes a warrant to tap your phone. That would tend to make you lax. This leak cured that – no?

    Besides, what other topics are available to us today? Obese cats and boutique booze

    LOL. Too True.

  90. 90.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    Section 6 is nothing but the retention policy. Section 4 sets out which communications can be intercepted in the first place. Nothing in Section 4 bears any resemblance to Bush’s surveillance program.

  91. 91.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    According to the CNSnews.com article highlighted and hosted by HuffingtonPost, a “fellow Democrat” was the one who raised this issue regarding Murtha’s purple hearts, not the ‘right wing’.

    Come on. You can’t expect to take this crap at face value. CNS is garbage. Get some trustworthy independant confirmation of this or stop citing it.

  92. 92.

    Richard Bottoms

    January 13, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    Fuckin’ bunch of bullshit. What, the terrorists didn’t know their phones could be tapped until they read about it in the NYT? Are you joking?

    Please. Terrorists don’t watch Law & Order, Mission Impossible, or even Kim Possible.

    They are totally clueless about the ways to intercept technology unless the New York Times tells them.

    Why does the NYT hate America?

  93. 93.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:36 pm

    Section 4 sets out which communications can be intercepted in the first place.

    Reading is fundamental. Section 4 states

    (3) Domestic communications that are incidentally acquired during collection against residential premises shall be handled under Section 5 of these procedures

    And per section 5 as I quoted above, such communication can be kept as long as is “reasonable”

  94. 94.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:38 pm

    Come on. You can’t expect to take this crap at face value. CNS is garbage. Get some trustworthy independant confirmation of this or stop citing it.

    You truly are dumb as dirt. The CNS article was first cited by Paddy, not me, through a HuffingtonPost link which highlighted it. I am the one who called him on it

  95. 95.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    Darrell, you truly have the least cognitive ability of anyone I’ve ever encountered on the net. Congratulations.

  96. 96.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    You truly are dumb as dirt.

    Thanks! Up yours very much.

    The CNS article was first cited by Paddy, not me, through a HuffingtonPost link which highlighted it. I am the one who called him on it

    I don’t give a shit who “first cited” it. You’re citing it and I say it’s crap. Get some trustworthy independant confirmation or stop saying it.

  97. 97.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    Also from Section 4 of the NSA directive:

    Communications which are known to be to, from or about U.S. PERSONS

    b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

    (1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
    (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
    (b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]

    ..(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and

    (3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information

    The AG (without FISA ok) can approve on his own the warrantless surveillance of a US person if the person if the purpose of the collection is to aquire foreign intelligence info. Bush’s program targets collection of such foreign intelligence.

    This is nothing new people. Just the bitter left flailing about

  98. 98.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    Pooh Says:

    Darrell, you truly have the least cognitive ability of anyone I’ve ever encountered on the net. Congratulations.

    Coming from a half-wit like you I take that as a compliment

  99. 99.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 7:50 pm

    (2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and

    See, you need to satisfy (1), (2) AND (3).

    Statutory interpretation: It’s fundamental.

  100. 100.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 7:53 pm

    Should I wait for you to finish going line by line through the linked text, claiming that every sentence fragment that sounds vaguely supportive proves that Clinton did it too, or can I respond now?

    The first bit of language you cited refers to “incidental” collection of communications involving US persons. That means that you didn’t intend to acquire this communication anyway, but now that you have it and you reasonably believe it contains foreign intelligence information, you’re allowed to keep it. In this case, we are not talking about “accidental” gathering of domestic conversations, we are talking about a list of US citizens whom the NSA intentionally monitors.

    The second bit you quoted is virtually straight out of the FISA language itself. Under FISA, one of the situations where you don’t need a warrant is where the person under surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. So, as long as you can get a certification from the AG that you’re eavesdropping on the agent of a foreign power, you don’t need a FISA warrant. This is all completely in accordance with the FISA statute.

  101. 101.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 7:56 pm

    See, you need to satisfy (1), (2) AND (3).

    Read again. Only need to satify (1) by itself, or (2) and (3)
    Quoting from (1)

    (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
    (b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]
    (c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).

    Note the difference in meaning between “Or” and the word “And”

  102. 102.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    In this case, we are not talking about “accidental” gathering of domestic conversations, we are talking about a list of US citizens whom the NSA intentionally monitors.

    We are talking precisely about “accidental” gathering of domestic conversations or other communications when the target of the surveillance is a suspected foreign enemy or agent of foreign power. Bush’s program is targeted at communications of suspected foreign enemies. In fact, if any incriminating evidence on the US citizen is obtained during such warrantless surveillance, said evidence cannot be used to prosecute the US citizen

  103. 103.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    If you tap my phone because you think a bad person may be calling me, I may not be the target of the investigation, but I’m certainly the target of the surveillance. The fact that you acquire my phone conversations after tapping my phone is certainly not an “incidental” gathering of information. You’re simply playing fast and loose with the statutory definitions.

    As for Pooh’s point, he doesn’t need me to back him up, but the quoted language says:

    b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

    (1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:

    (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or

    (b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]

    (c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).

    (2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and

    (3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.

    I hope it’s clear that, as Pooh said, you need to satisfy (1), (2), and (3).

  104. 104.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    Darrell, you are wrong

    With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

    (1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
    (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
    (b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]

    (c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).

    (2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER, and

    (3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information.

    notice that the (a) is a subsection of the (1), so the “or” refers to other subsections of (1).

    So, you need (1) – satisfied by (a) or (b) and/or (c). the last bit is unclear because of the redaction.

    You need (2) AND

    You need (3). Now if the guideline read (1); (2) or (3) it would be less clear whether the ; should be read as an “and” or as an “or”. But it doesn’t it reads (1) (2) AND (3), which makes it conjunctive, not disjunctive.

  105. 105.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 8:07 pm

    Under FISA, one of the situations where you don’t need a warrant is where the person under surveillance is an agent of a foreign power

    From the NSA directive cited above, a “Agent of a Foreign Power” is defined as:

    b. Any person, including a U.S. PERSON, who:

    (1) Knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for, or on behalf of, a FOREIGN POWER, which activities involve, or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the UNITED STATES; or

    (2) Pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a FOREIGN POWER, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for, or on behalf of, such FOREIGN POWER, which activities involve or are about to involve, a violation of the criminal statutes of the UNITED STATES; or

    (3) Knowingly engages in sabotage or INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for, or on behalf of, a FOREIGN POWER; or

    (4) Knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in paragraphs 9.1.b.(1) through (3) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities.

  106. 106.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    Recent posts:

    Total = 38

    Darrell = 14

    That’s 37% of all posts.

    Again Darrell holds to his previously established rate on threads which point to the NSA topic. Darrell has established, and we have apparently consented, that this topic cannot be discussed unless Darrell reacts to every utterance on the subject.

    That appears to be the rule. And based on what we saw yesterday, Darrell is free to say anything or do anything around here without rebuke from the proprietors. Something that most of us who are hardass lefties here cannot say.

    Myself, DougJ, Andrei, Lines, Paddy …. is there a hard lefty here who hasn’t been slapped by management?

    Why does Darrell get away with this shit?

  107. 107.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    Absolutely correct (although I’m speaking in shorthand, and it’s not enough that you’re spying on an agent of a foreign power, you need to meet all 3 requirements (1) (2) and (3).

    But once again, no one has alleged that the U.S. targets of Bush’s program are agents of a foreign power.

  108. 108.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 8:13 pm

    For the record, I don’t recall ever being “slapped by management,” although it sounds like it could be fun under the correct circumstances.

  109. 109.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 8:14 pm

    Myself, DougJ, Andrei, Lines, Paddy …. is there a hard lefty here who hasn’t been slapped by management?

    Well, me, unless you count John threatening to ban me for speaking ill of Bill Mazeroski…(do I count as a hard lefty?)

  110. 110.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    I hope it’s clear that, as Pooh said, you need to satisfy (1), (2), and (3).

    I stand corrected on that point. But it does not change the scope of FISA’s power to regulate:

    1.1 (U) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (the Act) governs the conduct of certain electronic surveillance activities within the United States to collect foreign intelligence information. A complete copy of the Act is found at Annex B to NSA/CSS Directive 10-30. The Act covers the intentional collection of the communications of a particular, known U.S. person who is in the United States, all wiretaps in the United States, the acquisition of certain radio communications where all parties to that communication are located in the United States, and the monitoring of information in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Act requires that all such surveillances be directed only at foreign powers and their agents as defined by the Act and that all such surveillances be authorized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or in certain limited circumstances, by the Attorney General.

    If a foreign enemy is the target of surveillance, then by definition any collection of information on the US citizen not targeted would be ‘unintentional’, no?

  111. 111.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    You’re not flaming enough, Pooh. I, on the other hand, get my talking points straight from Ward Churchill every morning.

    After the Alito discussion, it has become clear to me that ppGaz is a Rovian plant, and thus should not be counted for statistical purposes either.

  112. 112.

    Darrell

    January 13, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    But once again, no one has alleged that the U.S. targets of Bush’s program are agents of a foreign power.

    It’s my understanding that the entire program revolves around warrantless surveillance when the target is a suspected foreign enemy or a an agent of a foreign power

  113. 113.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    Well, me, unless you count John threatening to ban me for speaking ill of Bill Mazeroski…(do I count as a hard lefty?)

    You WHAT? Have you ever been to Pittsburgh? You can defame Jesus and get away with it more readily than you can speak ill of the Maz. And I might say, rightly so. How many home runs in the history of the game have been immortalized into the pavement even after a ballpark was torn down? One, that I know of. You know the one, I presume.

    Also, I don’t consider you a hard lefty. But we can take that up another day.

    After the Alito discussion, it has become clear to me that ppGaz is a Rovian plant, and thus should not be counted for statistical purposes either.

    Chuckle.

  114. 114.

    Steve

    January 13, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    If a foreign enemy is the target of surveillance, then by definition any collection of information on the US citizen not targeted would be ‘unintentional’, no?

    It works like this. If I’m listening in on the calls of Ahmed al-Agentofforeignpower, and he happens to call John Cole, no one questions that my taping of John Cole was “incidental.” If the tape has foreign intelligence information, I can keep it.

    But if I then take down John Cole’s number, and decide to listen in on all HIS calls just to see if Ahmed or anyone else calls him again, now it’s John who is the “target” of my surveillance. It makes no difference if I don’t really care about John – he’s still the “target” of the surveillance if I start tapping his phone.

    Mind you, if the conversation between Ahmed and John gives solid reason to believe that John himself is involved in terrorism, or if the contacts are repeated and significant, it’s hard to believe that it wouldn’t be a slam dunk for me to get a FISA warrant based on that evidence. This is why it’s so hard for me to believe that Bush’s program was really limited to “people who have phone conversations with al-Qaeda.”

  115. 115.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    pp, I LOVE Pittsburgh, go there for the 4th of July every year, and check out PNC if they are playing there. I merely questioned whether Maz was objectively HOF worthy…

    Also, I don’t consider you a hard lefty. But we can take that up another day.

    Nah, let’s do it now, I have 2 hours to kill before I go to the Beer & Barley Wine Festival!

  116. 116.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    Ahmed al-Agentofforeignpower

    Wasn’t he the Jack of Spades in the deck of cards?

  117. 117.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    merely questioned whether Maz was objectively HOF worthy…

    Ah, well, that’s a tough one. Lifetime .260 hitter and all that. But great with the leather. I am one who agrees that defense should count as much as offense when it comes to HOF qualification. Mainly because a lot of not that great defensive players have gone into the Hall on the strength of their lumber. So it’s about balance.

    Besides, that home run is one of my personal Greatest Moments in Baseball history. (My Number One is the home run hit by Matt Williams in Game Two of the 2001 World Series, which I happened to see in person. I swear to all that’s holy, I get goosebumps to this day just writing about it. Baseball, as you know, is a game that breaks your heart. Well, that one moment made up for every broken heart I’ve suffered in 50 years of being a baseball fan, instantly and forever).

    Hard lefty topic? Didn’t I see on your blogsite a statement to the effect that the Iraq war was okay with you under the “World better off without Saddam” clause?

  118. 118.

    radish

    January 13, 2006 at 8:36 pm

    Hey is it okay to call people sniveling antiamerican cowards around here? I guess I’ll find out, since these comments seem to be moderated. If so, I’d like to start (tentatively of course) with OCSteve, pending some explanation of why he thinks that Hillary Clinton won’t abuse the unfettered privileges he wants to heap onto Dubya. Here in the US, you need probable cause. Your suggestion that a citizen (or a US person for that matter) can be surveilled without probable cause, just in case they are part of a sleeper cell makes it pretty clear that you come from whatever other country it is that keeps sending people like you to undermine our freedom.

    Y’know if you really feel strongly about this and are looking forward to the day when the President can lock you up whenever she feels like it, why don’t you go ahead and sign your Posner Waiver and send it in now? Maybe if you give up your own (and your children’s) freedom, then all those swarthy warriors with handlebar moustaches that you just know are itching to bomb your suburban neighborhood* will give up and move to Canada.

    May your chains rest lightly upon you my friend, and may posterity forget that you were my countryman.

    * note that many of them are indeed itching to do just that, most likely because we have just recently been bombing the shit out of their families

  119. 119.

    Pb

    January 13, 2006 at 8:44 pm

    ppGaz, that’s because Darrell is a tiresome, misguided, woefully incorrect partisan pedant. He’s generally not worth addressing at all, even when he’s not on your side. When he is, I’d guess you just have to hunker down and hope that having him on your side (and tolerating his blathering) doesn’t make you look too stupid.

  120. 120.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 8:47 pm

    guess you just have to hunker down and hope that having him on your side (and tolerating his blathering) doesn’t make you look too stupid.

    Hope is the operative word there, I’d say.

    You need to see what he posted yesterday. Check his 1:13 pm post to the Hacktacular thread.

  121. 121.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    Hard lefty topic? Didn’t I see on your blogsite a statement to the effect that the Iraq war was okay with you under the “World better off without Saddam” clause?

    Did I say that? I think, in context (or at least my true opinion on the subject) is that I was fine with getting rid of Saddam in principle, but that with these idiots running the show, it would turn into a clusterfuck. Though to be honest, at the time I was mostly pissed because they started the war on the first day of the NCAA tournament.

  122. 122.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    Did I say that?

    I thought you did. If not, I retract the complaint.

    I think, in context (or at least my true opinion on the subject) is that I was fine with getting rid of Saddam in principle, but that with these idiots running the show, it would turn into a clusterfuck. Though to be honest, at the time I was mostly pissed because they started the war on the first day of the NCAA tournament.

    That was their Shock and Aw-Shit strategy ;-)

  123. 123.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 9:01 pm

    No worries. Given what I thought I knew at the time, I think my ordered preferences were in this order:

    1. Do it right. (I was skpetical of the admin’s WMD case, but not sufficiently so it appears. I’d prefer to err on the side of caution on such things.)
    2. Don’t do it at all.
    741. Half-ass it.

    I began to think that 741 was more likely than 1 as soon as Shineski (sp?) got the boot for not being sufficiently “optimistic”.

  124. 124.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 9:06 pm

    Other than probably reversing your 1 and 2, I think we were probably thinking along the same lines.

  125. 125.

    Pooh

    January 13, 2006 at 9:17 pm

    I think the positions upon which I differ most from Hard Left orthodoxy tend to be in terms of application of force. Maybe I read too much Tom Clancy as a child, but it seems to me that there are Bad People, and sometimes they have to go. It’s frustrating to me, but the more I want to subscribe to Liberalism as a world-view, the Realism of life just smacks me in the face.

    (For example, in principle, I’m pro death penalty. But considering the lunacy of how it is enforced in this country, why bother? The manner in which it is carried out largely eliminates any deterrent effect. It is massively weighted against the economic and racial underclasses, and its hugely costly, even relative to the expense of life inprisonment. Not to mention the soft costs of so much of modern criminal jurisprudence being focused on death cases rather than clarifying and refining more common scenarios.

    I also don’t think assasination is a per se bad thing. I don’t think it’s a good thing, but one bullet, certain bastard, 1936 = more living relatives for Pooh, if that makes sense.)

  126. 126.

    Krista

    January 13, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    Maybe if you give up your own (and your children’s) freedom, then all those swarthy warriors with handlebar moustaches that you just know are itching to bomb your suburban neighborhood* will give up and move to Canada.

    Here, now. There’ll be none of that. We’ve got enough of our own problems to deal with right now.

  127. 127.

    Krista

    January 13, 2006 at 9:42 pm

    Damn, forgot to blockquote that first paragraph.

    Pooh, ppGaz – am I Hard Left?

  128. 128.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 9:49 pm

    also don’t think assasination is a per se bad thing. I don’t think it’s a good thing, but one bullet, certain bastard, 1936 = more living relatives for Pooh, if that makes sense.)

    The Favorable Assassination is kind of like the Benevolent King. I mean, if you could pick a form of government that is just easy to put up with, it would be Benevolent King.

    But the thing is, where are you going to find a good Benevolent King that will serve for 40 or 80 years and stay benevolent and competant all that time?

    So anyway, you end up back with self-government, and then you get Republicans, or some other cobbywobble thing that throws you into a ditch. Or you get a two party system where the two parties and the press are all in love with their power perks and don’t really give a crap about the people (that’s where we are now).

    And as for having the bad people move to Canada, Krista?

    No. We have Florida for storage of lunatics. It’s kind of like our Australia.

  129. 129.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2006 at 9:58 pm

    We have Florida for storage of lunatics.

    Hey! I resemble that remark!

  130. 130.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 10:01 pm

    Hey! I resemble that remark!

    Are you down there? You must be one of the keepers :-)

  131. 131.

    Zifnab

    January 13, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    Maybe I read too much Tom Clancy as a child, but it seems to me that there are Bad People, and sometimes they have to go. It’s frustrating to me, but the more I want to subscribe to Liberalism as a world-view, the Realism of life just smacks me in the face.

    I used to agree with that. Liberalism was all about saving the whales and the trees and the poor people and the minorities and people in other countries without running water and whatever other pet project someone might fall in love with. So you build this giant government beaurocracy and spend billions of dollars and feel really good about yourselves until you realize many of your pet projects are failing due to neglect or were doomed to failure from the start and you’re not getting the results you were looking for.

    So you turn to Bush Realism. Look out for #1. Defend America. Every man for himself. Kill the badguys. Live tough and to hell with government handouts. God, Glory, and Gold.

    So you bomb a couple third-world nations and you cut taxes like your in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and you put a bounty out for Osama, dead or alive, and you say screw civil rights and environmental protections – we’re all smart people so the market will make everything right. And you find yourself in the exact same shithole the Liberals except you can’t even make the claim that at least you saved a few whales along the way.

    So I don’t see either of these ideaologies as doing anyone much good.

  132. 132.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    Pooh, ppGaz – am I Hard Left?

    I’d say “Left” but I don’t know about the “hard” part. More of a “gentle left.”

  133. 133.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 10:08 pm

    So I don’t see either of these ideaologies as doing anyone much good.

    Ideologies are containers for coalition-building. Forces for manipulation.

    I’m a process guy, myself. I tend to put a lot of stock in process. I’m convinced that good processes produce good results more often than bad processes do.

  134. 134.

    Krista

    January 13, 2006 at 10:13 pm

    I’d say “Left” but I don’t know about the “hard” part. More of a “gentle left.”

    Did that just sound kind of pervy, or is it just cause I’m watching HBO right now?

  135. 135.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    Are you down there? You must be one of the keepers :-)

    No, I’m more of an escapee. I taught at Florida Atlantic for a while.

    (The first precinct that reported trouble with the ballots during the 2000 election? That was mine…)

  136. 136.

    Pb

    January 13, 2006 at 10:17 pm

    ppGaz,

    Darrell just got pissy because you didn’t like his sign. The only remaining question is, was that him personally holding it dressed like a ninja, (err… anarchist) or was it another Horowitz lackey.

    P.S. Seriously, folks, it makes as much sense as anything else, and more than anything Darrell has said yet. Who’s to say it wasn’t a gimmick from some lone nut[s], some young Republican astroturfer group like Protest Warrior or Communists for Kerry or something. That is to say, people just like Darrell. Hence, its promotion by Horowitz’ site, and Darrell’s breathless admiration for it–it’s so cute to watch them try to be like the big boys. You know the old phrase, “if there wasn’t one already, you’d have to invent one”? They do that all the time.

  137. 137.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 13, 2006 at 10:18 pm

    Damn. I take my kids to karate and look at all the edifying Darrell posts I miss!

    Did you guys know that Darrell once had his picture taken with President George W. Bush?

    Just so happens I have a link to it right here:

    http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/dog-shit/ds_bushdog.jpg

  138. 138.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Ideologies are containers for coalition-building. Forces for manipulation.

    Ideologies are rationalizations for killing people.

    I don’t care why you do something, I want to know what problem you’re trying to fix, and I want a measurable process for determining success or failure.

  139. 139.

    demimondian

    January 13, 2006 at 10:21 pm

    I missed out on this fine exchange with Darrell. I was off on a day trip giving a conference talk.

    The talk didn’t go so well, but, you know, I’m thinking I was having more fun, anyway…

  140. 140.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    I want a measurable process for determining success or failure

    Right. Measurable is good. Repeatable is also good. Anything that smacks of integrity is good.

    “We can spread freedom in the Middle East by starting a war in Iraq” is not good. That’s wishful thinking, and AFAIC about one notch short of sociopathic. Or maybe not a notch short. I have said here before that the idea that we’d set up shop and a killing machine in Iraq so as to “flypaper” terrorists there and keep them away from here is absolutely a sociopathic idea. If I were an Iraqi, that nutty fucking idea by itself would turn me into an insurgent.

  141. 141.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Did that just sound kind of pervy, or is it just cause I’m watching HBO right now?

    I don’t know!

  142. 142.

    Adigal

    January 13, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Democrats: Give me liberty or give me death!!!

    Republicans-Wuss Party – Take my liberty, just promise me I will never have to face death!!

    And I am a woman who thought my husband, a NYC fireman, was dead all day on September 11th. So don’t lecture me about terrorism. Coward republicans.

  143. 143.

    Krista

    January 13, 2006 at 10:50 pm

    ppGaz – sorry, hon. Didn’t mean to fluster you. :)

    Adigail – well put. Thank you. Hope your husband is well. You’re a strong woman to be married to a man with such a dangerous job…stronger than I would be.

  144. 144.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 13, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    Every once in a while I like to take the opportunity and write down these words:

    “George W. Bush and his patrons initiated the war in Iraq because they believed the end result would be our installing a passive govt there that would allow us complete access to their vast oil fields.”

    I call it the forbidden truth. I know we’re not supposed to talk about it, but there it is.

  145. 145.

    Jess

    January 13, 2006 at 11:22 pm

    Did that just sound kind of pervy, or is it just cause I’m watching HBO right now?

    Are you still on those groovy drugs, Krista?

    I lost track of who said that ideologies are just excuses for killing people, but I heartily agree. From my view here in West-Coast academia, I have to say that the radical left and radical right have far more in common with each other than either do with the moderate humanitarians I prefer. I think it’s hugely inaccurate to try to divide us all up into left and right, but I suppose that’s all about turning politics into a sport instead of the basis for governing.

    I keep hoping we can spend more time discussing what it means to be a moderate and how to find some common ground instead of constantly playing gotcha. Maybe we can push John and Tim to have a regular forum for that, along with the beer and kitties.

  146. 146.

    ppGaz

    January 13, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    Every once in a while I like to take the opportunity and write down these words:

    “George W. Bush and his patrons initiated the war in Iraq because they believed the end result would be our installing a passive govt there that would allow us complete access to their vast oil fields.”

    I call it the forbidden truth. I know we’re not supposed to talk about it, but there it is.

    Well, it’s worse than that. Bush’s father gave us Gulf War One for essentially the same reason. Even Chris Matthews, who is not exactly a rabid lefty, said TODAY on Hardball that if Iraq were some little country in Africa or South America, we’d never have given a damn about it. We only obsessed over it because of the oil.

    It’s not a forbidden truth, I am in favor of talking about it every day. The Matthews Rule applies to any region with oil, of course.

    I get physically ill whenever I see the kneejerk righties here start talking about Iraq being better off without Saddam. None of them would give a flying fig about Iraq if it weren’t for the oil; none of them give a fig about any of the many countries in the world under one or another form of oppressive regime. And this country would never support a war in any of those places whose aim was to “liberate” those poor souls from whatever asshole government they are suffering under.

    Nigerian war of liberation, anyone? North Korean war of liberation, anyone? Yeah, right.

  147. 147.

    tb

    January 13, 2006 at 11:35 pm

    Coward republicans.

    You can say that again. Just dangle an orange alert in front of them and watch them crumble. Never mind that living in BF, Oklahoma there is zero chance they will ever be subjected to a foreign terrorist attack. They’re in ***zero*** personal danger, but they’re sucking up this police-state garbage like they’re in some kind of really bad porno movie. They can’t wait to give it up. It’s disgusting.

  148. 148.

    Mr Furious

    January 14, 2006 at 12:02 am

    is there a hard lefty here who hasn’t been slapped by management?

    I’d call myself hard left, and I can’t recall running afoul of John… He got pissy at me once (recently), but that’s about the worst of it.

  149. 149.

    Sock Puppet

    January 14, 2006 at 12:52 am

    Although I have no perceptible ideological philosophy, I have been both slapped by the management and maligned by the tenants.

    The only thing I can figure is that a large portion of the individuals posting here are sockist.

  150. 150.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 12:54 am

    I’d call myself hard left, and I can’t recall running afoul of John… He got pissy at me once (recently), but that’s about the worst of it.

    Right. The point I was making is that if we are confrontational lefties, we get yelled at. But you can be a Darrell, who can’t post an article with two sentences in it unless there’s a verbal insult at every liberal on earth, who lies and spams and argues incessantly even when he’s been proven wrong …. but never gets called into the principal’s office.

    It’s Friday, it’s beer and cats, and I am fed up with Darrell, so there you are. Back to your regularly scheduled program ….

  151. 151.

    Sock Puppet

    January 14, 2006 at 1:04 am

    Beer and cats. Sounds fattening.

    But tomorrow we also get a large dollop of football.

    Fortunately the Colts’ll turn the Steelers into squealers, and then we can get back tackling some really important question, such as:

    Does anybody here know if Bush-era body armor can protect you from Willy Pete?

  152. 152.

    Pb

    January 14, 2006 at 1:07 am

    ppGaz, Paddy O’Shea:

    Continuing on, there are some who believe we may have been lied into war before, or that we were trying this before then even, etc., etc. Same dirty tricks, same tired justifications, same players…

  153. 153.

    Pooh

    January 14, 2006 at 3:30 am

    Well, it’s worse than that. Bush’s father gave us Gulf War One for essentially the same reason. Even Chris Matthews, who is not exactly a rabid lefty, said TODAY on Hardball that if Iraq were some little country in Africa or South America, we’d never have given a damn about it. We only obsessed over it because of the oil.

    Yes. And? Seriously oil is a strategic resource, because it allows strategy. I see nothing wrong with taking that resource into account. Oil uber alles, however…

    Zifnab

    So you turn to Bush Realism. Look out for #1. Defend America. Every man for himself. Kill the badguys. Live tough and to hell with government handouts. God, Glory, and Gold.

    Neocons are not ‘Realists’. A couple weeks ago, I described them as subscribing to ‘Bizzaro-World Pseudo-Messianic Neo-Liberalism;. I stand by that. Pissing off all our alies? not realism. Failing to plan for postwar Iraq because we will be greeted with flowers and cheers? Puh-lease. I think Niccolo M. would have a few choice words for our would-be prince…

  154. 154.

    RonB

    January 14, 2006 at 9:11 am

    I described them as subscribing to ‘Bizzaro-World Pseudo-Messianic Neo-Liberalism

    Yup, George Packer in the “Assasin’s Gate” has traced neocon roots back to a schism in the radical left after Vietnam. They drew a different set of conclusions from its outcome than “holy shit, let’s not do THAT again”.

    I bet it would really chap the asses of neocon cheerleaders that the origins of their strain of political thought come from their bete noire-Liberals.

    I dont even know why they are neo-conservatives anyway. What do they have in common with conservatism? Eh, whatever, all these labels are so misleading.

  155. 155.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 9:32 am

    Yes. And? Seriously oil is a strategic resource, because it allows strategy. I see nothing wrong with taking that resource into account. Oil uber alles, however…

    Alright, I don’t agree with that, but the fact that I won’t support a war for oil is not really the important aspect of the oil issue for me.

    What’s important to me is the disconnect between what the government says it is doing, and what it is actually doing. According to my theory, that disconnect spells the destruction of the American experiment. If self government is going to work, then the people given the reins to the thing have to tell the citizens the truth about what they are doing. Otherwise, you don’t have self government, you have Bizarroland, or what we have now, which is dysfunctional and doomed.

    Therefore, if you want a war based on where the oil is, fine. Put that proposition before the people and let them decide. Don’t lie to them and tell them that the war is about some big threat which turns out later was not really there at all. Don’t patronize them later, when the threat is found to be imaginary, and say, well, we deposed a really bad guy, so that’s why we had the war — unless we find the threat (WMDs) in which case, THAT’S why we had the war.

    Because if you pull that kind of crap, what you get is a country divided over the war, and a citizenry that no longer trusts its government … you get what you have today. And what you have today is not acceptable, and it is not morally defensible.

    Is war for oil acceptable? Not to me, no. But what’s more important is that the country was not given the opportunity to make that decision. We were treated like children. We were disrespected. And it continues today.

  156. 156.

    skip

    January 14, 2006 at 9:48 am

    Demi said “ideologies are rationalizations for killing people.” Is she referring to quakers–or zionists?

    Max Stirner: “Ich habe meine Sache auf nichts gestellt.”

  157. 157.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 9:57 am

    Fortunately the Colts’ll turn the Steelers into squealers, and then we can get back tackling some really important question, such as:

    Tough call on that game. Will Indy choke again? Is their defense up to the challenge? Are the Steelers going to be the team that played last week? Can they get to the big dance on the road?

    Before I plunk down my jewelry at the pawnshop and make a big bet like this … gotta figger it out. Here’s how I figger it: The Steelers aren’t going to the Super Bowl, so somebody is going to beat them. Will that be tomorrow, or next week?

    (sound of coin spinning down on floor)

    Tomorrow. Colts win.

  158. 158.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 9:58 am

    Correction: “this weekend” because I don’t know when they play.

  159. 159.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 10:06 am

    Again doing my Paddy imitation … this from WaMo explaining a little more about how completely corrupt your government is right now …

    These turds are the people I should listen to, and trust, wrt to GWOT and the Middle East?

    Um, no. But thanks for playing.

  160. 160.

    Sojourner

    January 14, 2006 at 10:23 am

    Right. The point I was making is that if we are confrontational lefties, we get yelled at.

    Add me to the list. Darrell and Stormy can say the most obscene things but John will slap down anyone who gets in their face about it.

    Some people will claim that the comments are overwhelmed with lefties. My impression is that there are fewer and fewer people willing to defend this administration and the current Republican party. I guess John has to allow the most repulsive rightists in order to have some semblance of “balance.”

  161. 161.

    Jason

    January 14, 2006 at 10:58 am

    Some people will claim that the comments are overwhelmed with lefties. My impression is that there are fewer and fewer people willing to defend this administration and the current Republican party. I guess John has to allow the most repulsive rightists in order to have some semblance of “balance.”

    Your impression is off. Speaking as one of many who was a frequent visitor and occasional commenter on this site for at least a couple of years before the Schaivo brouhaha brought in an infestation of new left-leaning commenters, I think most of us just threw up our hands and left after awhile. What’s the point of engaging you guys in a discussion when it quickly devolves into name-calling and accusations of lying? I’m more than willing to defend the administration on certain things, and I’m not shy about pointing out their mistakes, either. But I’m not willing to subject myself to ridicule because I don’t adhere to the 99% lockstep view around these comment areas.

    I’ve had plenty of good, engaging discussions of current events with left-leaning friends in the real world. We agree some and disagree plenty, but we have enough mutual respect for each other to disagree amicably. I haven’t seen much of that here since last March, so I rarely offer my opinion around here. The cacophony drowns it out pretty easily.

    Reminds me of something my grandfather once told me: “Don’t bother trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

  162. 162.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Some people will claim that the comments are overwhelmed with lefties. My impression is that there are fewer and fewer people willing to defend this administration and the current Republican party. I guess John has to allow the most repulsive rightists in order to have some semblance of “balance.”

    I agree, and it’s unfortunate that a Darrell has to basically represent the “other side” of the aisle. Because he’s a disaster.

    If I’m John, I’m frustrated that my RINO position hasn’t sold well to the righties in my audience, but has only attracted lefties who came for the RINO sighting but stayed because from a poster’s point of view, this is by far the most congenial and fair place out there to hang around.

    But again on the RINO thing, if I’m looking to reform my party and I’m a RINO, it’s frustrating because Dems are circling as vultures, not as angels coming over the help out the opposition.

    There, I just labeled us vultures.

  163. 163.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 11:05 am

    But I’m not willing to subject myself to ridicule because I don’t adhere to the 99% lockstep view around these comment areas.

    Well, seriously, if you want to “defend” the administration (I borrowed Sojourner’s language there) you have a problem. Now hold on before you get your shorts in a bunch. This administration has squandered the trust of the people that it had a few years ago. Confidence in what they say and do has gone pretty steadily down.

    How do you defend them without (a) repeating their talking points, which IS going to get you catcalls, and (b) dissembling? Seriously, I am not being sarcastic or looking for rhetorical advantage. This admiistration is a disaster! Look at how many ways it has snatched defeat or ignominy from the jaws of victory and approval.

    I ask as a serious question, how does one defend this gang? Because every approach taken in my view, in here, appears to be based on either a ton of packaged spin-o-rama, or grotesque twists of logic and reason that leave one gasping for a breath of air.

    I have a hard time defending the DC Democrats, and they aren’t nearly as fucked up as the GOP is right now. How one can defend that other bunch is something I can’t fathom.

    If my word for it is not convincing, and I can’t blame you if it is not because I am not exactly user-friendly to righties, then ask John Cole. I am not really saying anything that different from what he is saying.

  164. 164.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Let me add, just for color or interest or whatever, that I am actually a borderline Goldwaterite by tradition. I’m a Democrat in Arizona who could have voted for Barry under certain circumstances … and more so as time went on.

    So I am not exactly a glassy-eyed Bolshevik here.

  165. 165.

    Otto Man

    January 14, 2006 at 11:13 am

    is there a hard lefty here who hasn’t been slapped by management?

    I’m pretty hard left, and one time John told me to … embed a link. It was absolutely horrible. He was more animal than man!

    Seriously, I get your point, ppgaz, that only lefties crossing the line get slapped down while the righties generally get a blind eye. But that may be that John considers the presence of so many lefties here punishment enough for the Darrells of the world.

  166. 166.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 11:16 am

    may be that John considers the presence of so many lefties here punishment enough for the Darrells of the world.

    Good point.

    “More animal than man” was hilarious. Truth is we all think John is great or we wouldn’t hang here.

  167. 167.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 11:19 am

    I should clarify: I think I mean “confrontational left” rather than “hard left.” Referring to style, more than to substance.

  168. 168.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 14, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Jason: Have you ever considered that the reason you find defending this administration to be so unpleasant a chore these days is because so many of the things they are responsible for are just not all that defensible?

    And here is another question: Why do conservatives feel compelled to defend this president and his patrons? Near-exponential debt growth, nation building, record government expansion, increasing foreign domination of American markets, invasive snooping and other violations of the Constitution, none of these things strike me as being particularly conservative.

    Rather than being conservative, I would describe the Bush administration as being the political version of a “Girls Gone Wild” video.

  169. 169.

    CaseyL

    January 14, 2006 at 11:24 am

    To wander back onto topic for a mo’, has the story about Bush ordering widescale surveillance the minute he took office been debunked, or hasn’t it?

    I’m trying to get an honest handle on WTF was going on.

    Because I wonder, if Bush and the NSA really were wiretapping everyone and their dog from early 2001 on, how the hell they still managed to miss the 9/11 attacks. Who the hell were they eavesdropping on?

  170. 170.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 11:26 am

    Because I wonder, if Bush and the NSA really were wiretapping everyone and their dog from early 2001 on, how the hell they still managed to miss the 9/11 attacks. Who the hell were they eavesdropping on?

    Fabulous question.

  171. 171.

    Paddy O'Shea

    January 14, 2006 at 11:30 am

    Casy: Nothing has been debunked. We’re still in the silly season here, the time when those attempting to spin this one way or the other have their say. Little of any real substance has been decided.

    Things change when the investigations get under way.

  172. 172.

    Krista

    January 14, 2006 at 11:41 am

    Jason – as I mentioned to another lurker not long ago, for the most part, if you treat the “lefties” with respect, and argue your point rationally and without using personal insults, you’ll receive similar treatment. If you feel “ganged up on” when you make a point about defending this administration, it’s probably just because we feel that this administration is indefensible. I can only speak for myself here, but if you explain to me why you still have some faith in Bush, I many not agree with you, but I’ll respect your opinion. However, you will definitely receive some vehement debate. Personally, I find vehement, intelligent debate quite refreshing. Name-calling, talking points, and the “Clinton did it, too!” argument? Not so refreshing.

    So, to any “righties” lurking out there who don’t want to comment because they feel it’s an echo chamber in here — the only way you can change that is by speaking up, arguing your point, and enjoying some fierce, scrappy debates.

  173. 173.

    Krista

    January 14, 2006 at 11:42 am

    but if you explain to me why you still have some faith in Bush, I many not agree with you

    many may…sorry.

  174. 174.

    Otto Man

    January 14, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    What Krista said. I’ve had some nice reasoned debates with well-mannered conservatives (Defense Guy comes to mind, though he’s been AWOL lately) but when the Darrells of the world get rude, I tend to respond in kind.

    So, to any “righties” lurking out there who don’t want to comment because they feel it’s an echo chamber in here—the only way you can change that is by speaking up, arguing your point, and enjoying some fierce, scrappy debates.

    Megadittoes, Krista. Megadittoes.

  175. 175.

    John

    January 14, 2006 at 12:31 pm

    For all of you foaming over the NYT/Cell Phone Purchase’s link, it’s not exactly as ABC new says

    ABC’s Thursday story also asserted a link between a suspected terrorist cell and the men attempting to purchase cell phones in Midland.

    According to an MPD incident report quoted in an ABC online report paralleling Thursday’s televised Nightly News story, “it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

    However Vanderland said Thursday after the ABC report aired that assertions of a connection between a terror cell and the men who attempted to purchase cell phones from a Midland Wal-Mart were invalid.

    “There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link at this point between the people here and any terror cell,” he said.”

    Which doesn’t mean, of course, that the attempted mass cell phone purchase wasn’t suspicious.

    http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/cellphones-of-mass-destruction-can-you.html

  176. 176.

    The Other Steve

    January 14, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    There’s a funny post over at dKos titled ‘How Conservatives argue’.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/13/141448/171

    With a bit of tweaking, such as adding some crap about how the Bill of Rights allows terrorists to win, it’d make a fantastic email campaign. :-)

    The gist of it…

    Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: No, it doesn’t.

    Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?

    Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?

    Liberal: Yes.

    Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.

    Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.

  177. 177.

    Zifnab

    January 14, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    “There is no known link or demonstrated link or any other kind of link at this point between the people here and any terror cell,” he said.”

    Which doesn’t mean, of course, that the attempted mass cell phone purchase wasn’t suspicious.

    I read about this over at Crooks ‘n’ Liars. And to be fair, a bunch of Middle Eastern guys waltzing into a Walmart in Midland and buying up 60 one-use cellphones does, in fact, raise a few red flags. It’s good that an incident like this was followed. It’s bad that this has somehow become the new poster child of “Terrorists In Our Midst!” (TM)

    Wouldn’t it be absolutely splendid if the right wing blogsphere or the MSM actually investigated the claims fully before smearing them over national television and the internet. I’m really getting sick of these “Possibility of…” stories. Either they’re a bunch of sleeper cell agents (in which case, kudos to the Walmart guy who’s apparently been doing a better job of defending our country than a national Department of Homeland Security) or they’re just a bunch of Muslim guys who wanted to buy cellphones (in which case, I honestly don’t need to hear about Abullah and company doing some early Ramadan shopping).

    Why is this hard? Get the facts BEFORE you post the story. The art of “Getting the Big Scoop” is modern reporters when they have breaking news that involves “Vague Allegations of Terrorism that Are Floating Around”. Tell me something that matters.

  178. 178.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    And to be fair, a bunch of Middle Eastern guys waltzing into a Walmart in Midland and buying up 60 one-use cellphones does, in fact, raise a few red flags

    Uh.

    There aren’t many stores that even have 60 of them on the shelf at any given time. What’s more, you have to activate them. Wouldn’t the more practical protection be to monitor the activations and profile the activators?

    Uh, are we saying that cells of terrorists’ first exposure of their evil schemes would be to do something AS STUPID AS BUYING OR ACTIVATING 5 DOZEN CEL PHONES AT ONCE?

    Let me say this, I am not going to live in fear of those stupid-assed terrorists, and I am not giving up my liberties in order to possibly catch them. I’ve made it sixty fucking years in a dangerous world without throwing away all my American liberties to be safe, I ain’t starting now.

  179. 179.

    tb

    January 14, 2006 at 2:08 pm

    Rather than being conservative, I would describe the Bush administration as being the political version of a “Girls Gone Wild” video.

    Bill Clinton likened them to a bunch of rich kids who couldn’t squander their inheritance fast enough. He was right. Forget conservatism; “shit on everything” seems to be their motto.

  180. 180.

    OCSteve

    January 14, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    I doubt many are coming back to this old thread – but in the interest of fairness I did want to post this.

    I retract assertions I made yesterday in this thread that the bulk phone purchases where tied to terrorists. ABC is back-peddling and statements have been put out disavowing that info.

    I still think it’s very fishy (and still don’t believe it is a coincidence based on the timing relative to the NYT article) so I hope someone is following up on it.

    But I hereby retract much of what I said here yesterday. After RatherGate, Katrina, etc. you think I would know better than relying on a major network.

  181. 181.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 2:30 pm

    After RatherGate, Katrina, etc. you think I would know better than relying on a major network.

    Absolutely! I’d start with Newsmax.

  182. 182.

    Sojourner

    January 14, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    With a bit of tweaking, such as adding some crap about how the Bill of Rights allows terrorists to win, it’d make a fantastic email campaign.

    Brilliant!

  183. 183.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    With a bit of tweaking, such as adding some crap about how the Bill of Rights allows terrorists to win, it’d make a fantastic email campaign.

    Well, you know, they have been telling us, “They hate us for our freedoms.”

    Another episode of cognitive dissonance …!

    Head explodes!

  184. 184.

    OCSteve

    January 14, 2006 at 3:10 pm

    Absolutely! I’d start with Newsmax.

    I’ll use NewsMax, but only if I can source it some where else. Like you’d let me get away with that…

  185. 185.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 4:46 pm

    Like you’d let me get away with that…

    Hey, I gave it a shot ;-)

  186. 186.

    Pooh

    January 14, 2006 at 5:10 pm

    Sorry was away for so long, ppGaz.

    Back to the ‘war for oil’ point – without oil we lose the capabilities to do Other Good things. That has to figure into the calculus.

    But as to your other point, I wholeheartedly agree. I was reading the archives of a blogger who was anti-this war, and he was making the point in early 2003 that a good idea doesn’t usually need a lot of lies told in its favor to sell.

  187. 187.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Please ignore the two large oil wells in my back yard.

    Ha ha, just kidding.

    Actually, my relatively soft middle class lifestyle probably rests to a large degree on decades of cheap oil and I am quite aware of this.

    I just don’t like the fact that we’ve allied ourselves with Mephistopheles (the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Shah of Iran ….) to get cheap oil and then talk now as if we care about those poor Iraqis under Saddam. We never cared about them, and wouldn’t now if not caring about them meant more cheap oil.

    Well, I’m off to wash my Mustang ……

  188. 188.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    Whoops, cancel that wash job. Looks like we are in for rain tonight, according to WeatherUnderground.

  189. 189.

    demimondian

    January 14, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    Looks like we are in for rain tonight, according to WeatherUnderground.

    Welcome to Seattle.

  190. 190.

    skip

    January 14, 2006 at 8:06 pm

    “What do [neocons] have in common with conservatism? Eh, whatever, all these labels are so misleading.

    Well, they hate deficits. Oops, er no.
    Well, they hate foreign entanglements? Ooops, er no.
    Big government?
    Government intrusions?

    Well, at least they don’t like liberals–or anyone else.

  191. 191.

    ppGaz

    January 14, 2006 at 8:09 pm

    Welcome to Seattle.

    NFC Championship next week. Congrats. Seahawks in the Super Bowl?

  192. 192.

    demimondian

    January 14, 2006 at 11:38 pm

    NFC Championship next week. Congrats. Seahawks in the Super Bowl?

    Stunned I am. Seattle’s teams, win they never do, but, this year, you know, I could see it happening.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Lake Quinault Loop Drive 5
Image by PaulB (5/19/25)

Recent Comments

  • Manyakitty on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:09am)
  • Marc on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:05am)
  • Bupalos on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:03am)
  • bluefoot on Monday Night Open Thread (May 20, 2025 @ 12:02am)
  • Manyakitty on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 11:59pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!