NEW YORK — Former National Security Agency director Bobby Ray Inman lashed out at the Bush administration Monday night over its continued use of warrantless domestic wiretaps, making him one of the highest-ranking former intelligence officials to criticize the program in public, analysts say.
“This activity is not authorized,” Inman said, as part of a panel discussion on eavesdropping that was sponsored by The New York Public Library. The Bush administration “need(s) to get away from the idea that they can continue doing it.”
…In 1978, Inman helped spearhead the effort to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which makes it illegal to eavesdrop on American citizens without court approval. Inman said he wouldn’t have a problem sidestepping that law — as a “limited response to an emergency situation,” like the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But nearly five years since those strikes, the NSA is continuing to track phone calls and e-mails without warrants.
Inman didn’t contest the Bush administration’s claim that the FISA courts can’t keep up with the NSA’s new breed of surveillance. “My problem is not going to Congress to revise the statute to deal with the problems I didn’t think of in ’78,” Inman said. “We can do what the country needs and work within the law.”
Inman put the White House’s reluctance to change the surveillance regulations squarely on the shoulders of Vice President Dick Cheney. He noted that Cheney formerly served as chief of staff to President Gerald Ford, who was in power before the FISA restrictions were put in place. Cheney never really agreed with the controls, Inman asserted. “The ultimate test,” the retired admiral added, will be whether President Bush “walks away from the vice president on this.”
That pretty much dovetails with my feelings on the issue – if the law isn’t sufficient to protect the country then change the law. Republicans would never tolerate a Democrat who unilaterally set aside laws, in fact the freep, a useful barometer of rightwing sentiment in general, practically had a collective stroke over the written aspects of FISA law. Forget about extralegal activities, for them it was nearly unbearable to have a Democrat execute the law as it exists on the books. If the freep and Bush defenders in general think that their party should be able to do things that would have knocked them over dead six years ago then fine, do it above the table and write it into law. Don’t act like some administrations have a right to ignore laws that other administrations do not.
But I get ahead of myself. Inman, who served under Carter, seems doomed to be ignored by wiretapping defenders as a Partisan Activist. That requires one to ignore that he also served under Reagan and that every government official in history has served a president of one party or another, but the will is strong. Prove me wrong, guys, but you will understand if I don’t hold my breath.
Steve
It all comes down to whether you think oversight serves some sort of public good, or whether you’d rather just place your complete trust in whoever won the last election and whoever might work in their administration.
DougJ
Bobby Ray Inman
Sorry, but that name sounds like a serial killer to me.
neil
Does he have a book coming out? He probably has a book coming out.
SeesThroughIt
You beat me to it, Neil.
As Diamond Joe QUimby would say, ducking this issue calls for real leadership!
Ancient Purple
Ha! What good are civil rights if you are dead?!?!?!?
Oh, and Patrick Henry was a commie.
Static Brain
Thank God Bobby Ray Inman spoke out. More people need to do the same. It is a fascist police state tactic to spy on citizens without a warrant.
tBone
It’s just a small step from being a member of the Angry Left to serial killing.
SeesThroughIt
And as we all know, serial killing is just a juvenile form of terrorism. I hope this helps illustrate how the Angry Left is, in fact, a bunch of terrorists.
Punchy
Almost blew out a lung laughing at this. Cheney is to Bush what Sheriff Andy was to Opie. Or Barney. Cheney is Boss Hogg, Bush is Roscoe P. Coltrane….I could go on…
President's Analyst
Bobby,
You know we all got clearances at the phone company for the land line work because of the NSA work there. You knew who to talk to get the land line work done, so don’t tell me those Land lines were’nt tapped and we all know the cell’s and satellites were even easier through the LL switch than the damn land line phones themselves. So, everybody thought the cells and satellites would be easier because those land lines needed warrants. They are and I really liked the movie with the voice and word recognition satellite thing.
Brian
A fart in a tornado, and simply a power struggle between Congress and the CiC, and between the Administration and the Angry Left.
Steve
Brian sure loves that “fart in a tornado” metaphor, doesn’t he? I bet he heard it once and was like “wow, that’s the cleverest thing ever.”
neil
Huh huh, he said fart.
Davebo
Actually it’s a power struggle between the CIC and the constitution.
tBone
You don’t fart in a tornado, you dipshit.
The Other Steve
Not really. Sure, another former government official steps out and says what Bushie is doing is wrong.
But the Kool-Aid swilling Bushie Anger mongerers will just keep claiming these guys are partisans that you can’t trust.
Even when 70% of the nation is against them, you gotta give them credit for having the balls to defend the indefensible.
Steve
Just for the record:
For the record, I do think it’s a pretty adorable turn of phrase.
SeesThroughIt
What’s this about a carton of tomatoes?
JDRhoades
You don’t fart in a tornado, you dipshit.
You may shit yourself, but you don’t fart.
james richardson
I was googling FISA the other day and came across this very thing: right-wingers having a heart attack over Clinton’s expansion of it and Reno and Gorelick’s use of it (I think Waco and Ruby Ridge were mentioned).
You could argue that the GOP (present bloggers excluded) wet their pants like scared little girls on 9/11 and are now willing if not eager to destroy our civil liberties in order to save them, but I believe and have always believed that they just want power, and put keeping that power ahead of any convictions they may have had at election time.
JDRhoades
you gotta give them credit for having the balls to defend the indefensible.
Uhhh…why?
Anne Green
Dear Admirl Inman, Thanks for trying.
srv
Bobby has plenty in his own closet, I’m sure this won’t go very far.
Ancient Purple
Please don’t confuse Brian with facts or civics.
KC
I’m now looking for an excuse to say “fart in a tornado” to someone.
DougJ
Richard Cohen’s next column will be titled “Digital Serial Killers.”
DougJ
Inman sounds an awful lot like “Imam”. Is this cat a Muslim?
Sherard
So what is the point here, there is no longer a threat of a terrorist attack ? Despite the regular warnings from OBL, Zawhari, Zarquai, and others ? I’d say those “emergency conditions” are still in effect. Of course, the real point is the wiretapping is being done as part of a “war”, not a police action.
Steve
Someone doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “emergency.”
Sherard
And if anyone fails to see the distinction between Waco, Ruby Ridge, and foreign terrorists, well, then you’re all dumber than I thought.
DougJ
I’m surprised you’re not upset about Waco and Ruby Ridge. What the fuck kind of rightie are you?
DougJ
Sherard — take your act to Rathergate or Blogs For Bush.
Dave
And flushing our Constitution down the toilet in the name of winning the “war of terror” accomplished what exactly.
Ancient Purple
When will you clowns learn that the U.S. Constitution is a HELPFUL HINTS guide.
The Other Steve
I think Sherard is one of those screwballs from scrutator.
tBone
Save your breath – the lefties are too busy being Angry, coddling terrorists, advancing the Gay Agenda, and smuggling Mexicans across the border to actually learn anything about how our government is supposed to work.
srv
OMG! Check these out! DougJ expands!
Shorter Jeff G
Unscrutator
slickdpdx
Good post. Inman’s perspective is interesting, but (as I’m sure you realize) it is not dispositive.
I can think of a few really significant distinctions between fairly extreme righties concerns about Waco and Ruby Ridge and the Al Qaeda situation. The international aspect of the Al Qaeda threat and the interesting fact that resistance to Al Qaeda related spying seems to have more traction in the mainstream than that same resistance to spying in the Waco and Ruby Ridge type situations had (or would have assuming there was such spying, which I admit I have no idea if there was or not)
Steve
But no one has the slightest problem with spying on al-Qaeda!
Argh!
All anyone is saying is that there needs to be oversight to ensure that the spying is actually directed at al-Qaeda, as opposed to “trust us.”
DaveC
Well, Librarians ARE being persecuted”, only it’s by the tolerant, good guys, so never mind.
DaveC
Hmm, link no good, here is the text:
Accusing Librarian of Sexual Orientation Harassment for suggesting that the university include an anti-gay book in a freshman reading program is “not an act of intellectual oppression.” It doesn’t even “imply judgment,” but merely “notifies the human-resources office that discrimination might have occurred” (“discrimination” here meaning offensive speech). This is especially so because of “a crucial point: the discrimination reports did not focus on the book suggestion so much as the librarian’s unyielding defense of the book, even after the revelation of its bigotry, his disparagement of faculty expertise and his forwarding of others’ e-mails to an outside organization.” That’s what Prof. Christopher Phelps at Ohio State University (Mansfield) continues to insist.
Yup, unyielding defenses of a book recommendation are obviously something that human resources departments should be investigating in “a university that is a beacon of intellectual freedom.” In any case, let me quote Prof. Phelps’ letter so you can see his full argument in context; for my coverage of this issue, see here:
ppGaz
I thought Bobby Ray Inman played the pedal steel. Didn’t he back up some of Neil Young’s rockabilly stuff?
DaveC
But of course it is more important to regulate and investigate what people are allowed to think, than to actually try to track down terrorists.
Steve
DaveC, I’m sort of missing your point here. Is it your contention that the human resources department at The Ohio State University (Mansfield) should be doing more to track down terrorists? No argument here, friend.
Bruce Moomaw
Regardless of how long the War on Terror has to go on and whether or not you define it as a war or as law enforcement (it has and will always have aspects of both, and I think it will be a permanent future of human life from now on), the real issue is the Administration’s furious opposition to placing ANY LIMITS AT ALL on the President’s ability to wiretap any goddamn person he pleases, for as long as pleases, without any limitations or semi-independent judicial monitoring at all.
FISA, as already written, allows the government to wiretap a large number of suspects for 24 hours before even asking for a warrant at all. Sensible measures to loosen up the law further to allow wiretapping of anyone who could by any rational standard be regarded as a possible terrorist collaborator, WITHOUT giving the government carte blanche to wiretap anyone it damn well chooses without any judicial monitoring at all of its actions, have been proposed by such pinkoes as Richard Posner and Adm. Poindexter (he of Iran-Contra fame) — Posner for standard wiretaps, Poindexter for computerized data mining. The Administration refuses to consider them. One does wonder why, doesn’t one? Could it possibly be that they are already using such wiretaps for illegitimate political purposes? Nah. After all, as we remember, the Left’s suspicions that Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover were doing so all turned out to be merely paranoid fantasies. (And — to recycle a line I’ve used on this site before — when one of the three main convicted criminals in Iran-Contra comes across as a concerned civil libertaraian by comparison with the current administration, you KNOW you’ve got trouble.)
DougJ
You know what — even Shorter Jeff G is too long.
chopper
So what is the point here, there is no longer a threat of a terrorist attack ? Despite the regular warnings from OBL, Zawhari, Zarquai, and others ? I’d say those “emergency conditions” are still in effect.
yes, it’s totally still an emergency. that totally explains why we’ve been at ‘red alert’ on the colored danger scale for 4 1/2 years straight.
good call.
OCSteve
Not worth the effort :) I have to suggest that simply based on your selection of categories for this post your mind is made up on this issue and you are not serious about considering alternate viewpoints.
Domestic Affairs and Outrage? No other categories came to mind?
chopper
Inman sounds an awful lot like “Imam”. Is this cat a Muslim?
cat stevens is a muslim.
Faux News
Well my 8 year old and 10 year old nephews LOVE fart jokes and burst out laughing whenever someone farts. I’m sure Brian is emotionally on the same level as my nephews so I will give him a pass on this one.
Git ‘er done! Larry the Cable guy loves fart jokes too!
:cue Beavis and Butthead laughing:
DougJ
Is OBL still around? I know they must have come out with a song or two since “Taking Care Of Business”, but it hardly seems fair to describe these as “threats”.
tBone
Their website allows you to “create your own BTO music mix!”
Frankly I find that almost as frightening as a suitcase nuke.
Mark
Agreed; but forgive me if I think that this same logic also applies to some of the more, shall we say, expansive interpretations of the Constitution.
slickdpdx
Steve: Excellent point. I just got carried away by this whole Ruby Ridge/Clinton side-argument.
DougJ
Frankly I find that almost as frightening as a suitcase nuke.
Current intelligence suggest that there are mobile BTO labs all over Ontario. And they appear to be 3-4 years away from a new album.
Is is time for tactical nukes? I say we keep all of our options on the table.
tBone
Absolutely. Clearly, the first step we need to take is the construction of a wall along the Canadian border. Sorry Krista.
sdstarr
When we win the war on Canadian Rock could we please have a photo op of the president on an aircraft carrier with a banner in the backround that reads “TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS”?
VidaLoca
We also need to coin the term “canuckofascists” and start throwing it around wildly.
Karl
Inman knows a lot about the mechanics of surveillance, but (like the rest of us) doesn’t know the details of this program. Inman may have pushed for passage of the FISA, but is not a lawyer. Thus, he is expressing a legal opinion without knowledge of the facts or relevant case law. If we are going to operate on that basis, I could point you to the Clinton appointees who think the program is legal.
Indeed, as the Wired article notes: “When asked whether the president had the legal authority to order the surveillance, Inman replied in December, ‘Someone else would have to give you the good answer.'”
Then (as I don’t want to disappoint Tim) there is the matter of Inman’s resume. For example, the part where Inman went ballistic over the possibility that the US may have helped Israel take out the Iraqi nuclear reactor. And Inman served on the “shadow board” of a company — International Signal and Control — that exported classified weapons tech to Iraq via South Africa, in violation of US and UN sanctions. And then wrote a letter praising ISC CEO James Guerin to the court that sentenced Guerin on a fraud conviction.
Inman was nominated by Pres. Clinton to replace Les Aspin as SecDef, but Inman withdrew once it became obvious that the Senate was going to ask him about these issues. In his press conference announcing that withdrawal, he implied he was the victim of a Zionist conspiracy. The performance was such that it got mocked by David Letterman (which tells you how high-profile it was).
In pointing this out, I’m not attacking Inman as a partisan; by all accounts, he isn’t. Nor do I question his character. His record, however, raises questions about his judgment. And the fact that he was agnostic on the matter as recently as last December should raise an eyebrow.
chopper
Current intelligence suggest that there are mobile BTO labs all over Ontario. And they appear to be 3-4 years away from a new album.
We know where they are. They’re in the area around Ontario and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Pb
Rightwing Nuthouse liked Inman well enough back in July of 2005… when he was apparently talking about politically motivated intelligence leaks coming from the CIA. In fact, they liked that so much, they favorably quoted it again recently. I haven’t seen them comment on this yet, though.
Darrell
Exactly right. That fact didn’t raise an eyebrow from Tim F or any of the lefties on this site.. which tells you everything you need to know about the ‘reality based’ community.
Inman made a very public statement regarding a secret program he had no real knowledge of.
tBone
Did you bother to read this thread, Darrell? 90% of it is people talking about farts in tornadoes and making fun of Inman’s name and/or Bachman Turner Overdrive.
Where are these mythical lefties sticking up for Inman?
DougJ
We also need to coin the term “canuckofascists” and start throwing it around wildly.
In my opinion, the Canadian government has given BTO safe haven for too long. I don’t buy the line about how BTO has been operating in the semi-autonomous region of Quebec. And what about the secret meetings with Nickleback in Ottawa?
Darrell
In the very first post of this thread, you have Steve assuming without basis that the Bush admin is trying to do whatever they want outside the law with regards to the NSA program, when in fact the program has not been demonstrated to be illegal or unconstitutional
Davebo’s post echoed pretty much the same thing, claiming Bush is acting outside the constitution. And of course, Tim F. mocks Repub opponents of Inman, predicting they would try and smear him as ‘partisan’… never once considering that Inman had no knowledge of the secret program before making his flamethrowing accusations.
Are those enough lefty examples for you? Or do you want to continue and pretend that the lefties here didn’t really swallow Inman’s words hook, line and sinker without bothering to consider the very obvious fact that Inman was not privy to any details of the secret program he was criticizing?
tBone
Neither Steve nor Davebo said anything about Inman; they were talking about the underlying issue of the wiretapping.
Oh, but wait! Static Brain said something supportive about Inman, and thus the entire Angry Left must feel the same way.
tBone
If BTO is attempting to smuggle in shitty guitar riffs from Nickleback, we need to send in a former ambassador with a CIA wife to investigate. We don’t want the smoking gun to be a pot cloud.
Darrell
In a post about Inman’s criticism of a Bush admin NSA program, they made unsubstantiated claims that that program was unconstitutional.
Tim F. was quite explicit
Ah yes, unilaterally setting aside laws.. All of them ignoring the obvious fact that Inman was criticizing a program which he had no real knowledge of. But they ‘wanted’ so badly for it to be true.. therefore all obvious facts to the contrary must be overlooked and trampled to keep with the narrative of Bush ‘shredding’ the constitution
Parahalo
Congress and everybody else uses the intelligence. That is why he is in trouble for going after the issue. Plame infiltrated and they gave her own retired CIA agents domestic political groups. The Congressman is just a tool of a mad Plame.
tBone
Be vewwy, vewwy qwuiet . . . Dawwell’s hunting jackawopes.
canuckofascist
Screw you, eh? Nickelback ROCKS!
srv
You don’t have to know the mechanics. The Administration has as much admitted they’re performing warrantless searches that include domestic targets, under the guise that they’re all talking to terrorists (whatever that definition is) and they aren’t bound by FISA.
What else do you need to know except that the Admin says they’re not bound by that law (or any other law, for that matter)? Inman was there when FISA came into being. He should know how it’s applicable to domestic survelience.
If the president starts having American citizens shot, and says it’s not illegal because Article II powers give him a pass, I don’t need to know the mechanics of the execution to know his interpretation of the constitution is nothing short of bizarre.
sdstarr
Darrel, what are the “obvious facts to the contrary”? I suppose since you’re using the word “facts” you must have access to some details of the warrentless wiretapping program that I’m unaware of. Either that or you’re trotting out your opnions and dolling them up with the word “fact.”
Darrell
I have heard the exact opposite.. that the only time domestic communications could be intercepted without warrant under that program, is when someone in the US tries to communicate with an overseas ‘target’.. The target being a suspected foreign enemy overseas
Do you have any links which show that this program is ‘targetting’ domestic communications for warrantless surveilance?
Davebo
Darrell you ignorant slut..
I don’t believe I implied that the survellience is unconstitutional. I said it was illegal which is a very different thing.
Now, read the FISA statute and show me the loophole that makes it legal if you can. Gonzales couldn’t and didn’t even bother trying. Instead he claimed that in a time of war the CinC can break laws that he feels restricts his ability to defend America.
ppGaz
Well, that’s all fine, but Darrell has the final say.
Darrell is the The Decider around here.
Andrew
I will do my part by infiltrating Nelly Furtado.
Darrell
Show me where FISA applies to the monitoring of suspected foreign enemies overseas. If a suspected terrorist sitting in Libya (the target) receives a phone call or email from Oklahoma City, does FISA require the NSA to run and get a warrant each time?
Steve
Let’s read the very first post of this thread.
Show me in that post where I assume “that the Bush admin is trying to do whatever they want outside the law with regards to the NSA program.”
Without oversight, we have no idea if the Bush administration is “trying to do whatever they want outside the law,” unless someone leaks of course. And that’s the entire point of having oversight!
Pb
Hey Darrell, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is for once. I’ll tell you what: if it turns out that the NSA spying program was indeed illegal, how about you never post here again. And if it turns out that it was indeed totally legal, well, you pick someone to never post here again. I’m willing to be that someone.
Darrell
Btw, if it turns out the Bush admin is targetting domestic communications for warrantless monitoring of communications rather than the target being an foreign enemy overseas.. that would likely be a horrible overreach IF (key word) that was the case
Davebo
No, they have 72 hours before they must apply for a warrant or end the surveillance.
As to the international aspect of it, bear in mind that Gonzales testified to congress that he believed the president also had the right to conduct warrantless surveillance on purely domestic calls between two US citizens.
Then again he’s pretty much claimed Bush can break any law he chooses so that’s not exactly suprising.
Davebo
I think that’s what Hoover said about Dillenger.
“No he’s definately over reaching..”
Darrell
Like most lefties, you’re not too bright. The point is, we DON’T KNOW whether the program is illegal or unconstitutional. There have been good arguments made on both sides given the limitations of info released on the program. But it is anything but clear whether or not the program is illegal or unconstitutional. From a layman’s perspective, it makes sense that if the President has authority to monitor foreign terrorists overseas without warrant.. Whether you admit it or not, it makes sense that authority should not suddenly end just because the overseas suspect receives communications from someone in the US
Yet your side is the one screaming without basis that Bush is shredding the constitution with this NSA program.
tBone
Sorry, we already have an agent on that assignment. You’ll be receiving a dossier on Celine Dion shortly.
ppGaz
Here we are in 2006, and this is the state of your righty “representation” here.
Amazing, isn’t it?
srv
And here you are speaking about details that nobody knows about. Semantics of who or what the “target” is or what “suspected” means don’t matter. It only matters that one of the people on that line could well be an American citizen, based domestically.
Enemy combatant can be applied to any American citizen now, upon any whim. The administration identifies no policies or procedures. See Padilla. This administrations logic is so queer that anyone who calls France is probably calling a potential ‘target’. Because there are terrorists in France.
Of course, we can’t prove the gov’t is doing this, but even if they are, it would still be legal under Article II, right?
NSA routers in SF
And of course, the real crime here is that somebody is talking about it.
tBone
You know why you moonbats can’t win elections? Because you insist on chasing jackalopes instead of focusing on the real threats to our country: bad Canadian music.
Why don’t you kooks just move to Quebec and join Alanis Morrisette’s fan club?
srv
So many musicians, so little talent:
The List
I hear Darrell is a big Paul Anka fan.
Pb
Darrell,
I’ll take that as a no, then.
Fuck off.
demimondian
Well, I’m a least as bright as Jeff Goldstein or you, anyway.
Oh, right. Yeah. You’re right, Darrell — like most lefties, I’m not very bright. In fact, given what I chose to compare myself to, I must be pretty dull, indeed.
ppGaz
Yeah. Because John Cole won’t vote for our side.
Andrew
Darrell is objectively pro-Avril Lavigne.
Darrell
There is in point of fact, oversight on the NSA program. You can argue whether or not the oversight is adequate, but there is oversight
ppGaz
This is a little bit like the “you can’t prove that steroids helped anyone hit home runs” argument we saw yesterday.
If there is “oversight,” but it’s ineffective, or if it’s defeated by some scheme, or it it doesn’t see everything that should be overseen, or if the overseen agency hides something or skips the steps or ignores the process …. there’s still “oversight” and you can’t claim that there is no “oversight.”
So you see, if there’s “oversight” then nothing is wrong.
Get it?
You can’t take these things at face value. Only very smart people like Darrell can decide of there’s anything wrong or not.
Darrell
That is some funny shit. Can we start by deporting Celine Dion?
Steve
Well, ok, let’s not play word games. I’m talking about oversight that would give somebody outside the administration – doesn’t have to be me! – a way to verify that the only spying activities taking place are what the administration says they are. Giving a briefing to a few congressional leaders without any mechanism for them to verify what is being said isn’t oversight.
Also, Darrell, you neglected to apologize for completely mischaracterizing my first post on this thread.
tBone
Deportation? Hell no. She’s going to Gitmo.
Universee
They just integrated CIA:
DoDIIS conference
Pb
Steve,
Welcome to Balloon Juice.
Darrell
I apologize, although the distinction is not as great as you say. True, you didn’t say what the Bush admin was doing was outside the law (others did) as I had stated, but according to you, it was an unchecked power grab. In past administrations, has the warrantless monitoring of foreign enemies overseas received more or less oversight than it is now?
Darrell
Where unfounded accusations of Bush “unilaterally” flaunting the law abounds. Check your logic and honesty at the door before entering
Perry Como
There is oversight of the hen house. You can argue whether or not having a fox overseeing the hen house is adequate, but there is oversight.
ppGaz
That’s right, upward of 150-200 stories on Google News on the subject worldwide, but Balloon-Juice is the problem.
Let’s go looking for “warrantless woretap” stories ….
Darrell, Shut. The.Fuck.Up.
srv
There is no controlling logical or ethical authority, just like there is no controlling legal authority for the Admins actions.
ppGaz
Apparently almost two thirds of Americans say it is either clear that Bush broke the law, or not clear whether he did (of that two thirds, “clear that he broke the law” leads by a 2-1 margin)
But Darrell would have you believe that it’s just a few “lefties” at Balloon-Juice who have these opinions.
This is the same Darrell who claims it is okay to block gays from scouting because “most parents” don’t think it would be safe to send kids camping with a gay scout leader.
So bigotry is okay as long as “most” people agree with Darrell, but judging the president is wrong even if almost all the people think he is a liar, a lawbreaker, and a failure as president.
But remember, Darrell is the decider here, and it’s his call whether polls can be used to defend a position, or not.
Paul Wartenberg
If it’s just the whack jobs and the moonbats screaming about all this, that means 65 percent of the nation is made up of whack jobs and moonbats. We’re in the majority, people! Woo-hoo! Maybe we should form a Moonbat Party.
ppGaz
Exactly, Paul. I think it’s time for whack jobs to say, hey, we won, get over it. Clearly, the non-whack-jobs have totally fucked up everything. They’ve squandered the public’s trust in them, built a mountain of debt, tried to screw the separation of powers built into the Constitution, failed at protecting the public from disasters, abused the intelligence community, created a safe haven for all manner of scandalous and illegal behavior among its pols, even managed to piss off the radical religious right that got them elected.
Whack jobs may have their shortcomings, but c’mon, they can run the country better than this.
Andrew
America-hating liberals strike again:
Pb
Darrell,
I thought that was The New York Times. Or is that only for the ‘founded’ accusations?
We wish you wouldn’t.
ppGaz
You’re going to have to get a better looking girl at the logic-honesty check counter, Darrell. Something about the face of Bay Buchanan isn’t winning me over.
Darrell
Yes, because with 150-200 stories on Google News, it just has to be true
Pb
Yes, Congressman.
Darrell
There have been secret government programs involving national security since the founding of our country. Not every program is, or should be open to public scrutiny, which is what many on the left, out of stupidity seem to believe.
To so many on the left, the Senate Select committee on intelligence = fox guarding henhouse. Please make sure you scream those opinions as loud as possible before elections in November
SeesThroughIt
That’s just plain cold.
So is that. I mean, couldn’t you call him a baby-eater or a puppy-rapist or something? Objectively pro-Avril Lavigne? That’s just wrong.
ppGaz
Apparently you think we’ll believe it isn’t true, as long you say so.
The world seems to think it’s true. The preponderance of news and stories seem to support the idea that it’s true. The majority of Americans seem to think there’s a problem.
So, what are you offering here? That we should back off, because you don’t think it’s a problem?
You? The guy who just makes shit up every day here, grabs the cloak of “most people” whenever you are caught with some stupid or embarassing opinion, but ignores “most people” when they seem to go against your views? You, the homophobe who doesn’t have the guts to just come out admit that you’re a homophobe? You, the guy who paints “you lefties are poopyheads” on every thread you touch?
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that since we “can’t be sure” about the law here, we should just give Bush a pass? You know, because he’s been so straight with us in the past up to now? Or ….? What, exactly? What exactly are you saying? Other than “lefties are dumb,” what the hell are you ever saying?
ppGaz
Congressional and judicial oversight have never meant “public scrutiny.” Have they?
How fast can you cook up a new strawman when you need one? This last one took you most of an hour.
Darrell
Yes, of course, that’s exactly what I’ve been arguing ppgaz.
The Other Steve
Stupidity?
For the past couple months there’s been these revelations of hookers and bribery by guys trying to get their hands on that money because there is no oversight.
You’re calling me stupid because I don’t want you spending my tax dollars on booze and women? Seriously? That’s your fucking argument.
Incredible.
ppGaz
I dare you to state unambiguously what your position is, without mentioning “lefties” or “the left” in your post.
Clear, unambiguous, and complete. What is your position on the domestic spying issue?
Darrell
Yes OSteve, that was exactly my argument. You guys are sooo sharp.. such good readers.
The Other Steve
I will go on record right now as being pro-Avilee.
It does not matter that I do not understand French, for she speaks the international language.
The Other Steve
Right, because having oversight on how the Government spends money on booze and women is a bad thing.
Huh?
Darrell
Already stated.. clearly and unabiguously in this very thread
Darrell
No, because oversight on how govt spends money on booze and women is completey unrelated to whether the president has the right to monitor foreign enemies overseas without warrant. How intelligent of you to connect the two.
The Other Steve
Right. Kind of like how Robbing a Liquor Store is completely unrelated to Butchering people with a chainsaw.
Other than, well, you know, they are both against the law.
ppGaz
Can you point me to the post number or timestamp, please?
Darrell
2:18 pm, for one
ppGaz
I take it you mean this, above.
Fine. Can you explain how following the intent of FISA interferes with what you see as the “authority ….to monitor foreign terrorists overseas?” I reversed the order of your words only to make my question more practical, I don’t think I changed your meaning.
Since FISA gives great latitude in terms of filings and documentation, why would simply following the law preclude the monitoring you are talking about?
ppGaz
Minor mistake in my post … I edited it while writing and did not in fact change the order of your words. Sorry for the confusion.
Bone-In RibEye
Sounds like a ‘most people’ defense again.
This is argument? Things make sense so therefore are true, take that?
ppGaz
Well, you have to admit, it makes sense.
When most people think something, and it makes sense, then it’s true.
Unless most people think something unpleasant, then it’s not true. Like most people thinking that the war was a mistake, or that Bush is not doing a good job. Those things are wrong. But when it makes sense and most people are bigots, then it’s okay to be a bigot.
Your problem is that you don’t understand this kind of subtle, critical thinking.
Bone-In RibEye
I can’t refute that. Based on what I posted it make sense that you think I don’t understand subtle, critical thinking so therfore, ergo, ipso facto, it must be true. Well played.
ppGaz
I’m just saying what makes sense. What most people would say. That’s the best we can do here.
Sojourner
Serious question: Why do some people support the lawless activities of this administration?
Are they really that frightened of terrorists?
Is it a pathological version of supporting a favorite team, no matter what?
Is it an attraction to a bunch of people who are so hungry for power they’ll do anything? Including trashing the Constitution.
Jonathan Turley’s segment on Olbermann tonight was pretty frightening. The number of people hired by this administration AFTER they had been convicted of crimes.
Promotions to those who support torture and spying on the American people.
Bush’s signing statements that define those parts of the law he doesn’t feel the need to follow.
Breathtaking.
ppGaz
That’s pretty close. It has more to do with defeating a hated team. Any team that beats the hated team is the favorite team. They could be cannibals, the librul-haters would still root for them.
Sojourner
Best explanation I’ve heard, ppGaz. Ugh.
ppGaz
If you read carefully the blatherings of the Darrells, the spoofs, the Macs and the Defense Goys and Tall Daves, you’ll see that I’m right. It’s not that they are into apologizing for the worst government in history. They really don’t care. The worst government in history is a small price to pay for keeping the Dems down. They’d vote for Saddam Hussein for president if he’d bash the liberals. They’d root for Charles Manson to be Attorney General, if he’d screw the Democrats. Trust me, they are that fucking crazy.
srv
What does the NSA do when the DOJ wants to investigate warrantless eavesdropping?
You can’t investigate if they won’t give you clearances:
Ha Ha
Steve
Well, like Darrell says, nothing has been proven yet. No one knows the details. You’d have to be a Bush-hating moonbat to think that they’re acting like they have something to hide.
Pb
Yeah, no one knows anything except Darrell. Oh, and please ignore the heavy breathing on your phone…
rbl
Darrell says:
Ok, is this close enough? Is it problematic? It’s not warrentless surveilance, at least not that we know of, but well, ya know, it’s kind of icky.
VidaLoca
Darrell says:
Here’s another. Money quote:
radioleft
And now the man who ran the secret spy program is nominated to run the CIA. But he says he’s ok with oversight. Oh, please. The Republicans are self-destructing with Bush leading the collapse.
http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/11/1949309.html
Darrell
Given that the topic of this thread is criticism of Bush’s NSA program, has that program been declared “illegal” by any judicial authority? No? Well then, isn’t it a weee bit dishonest to refer to it as a “lawless activity”?.. but hey, why bother with facts, when you’ve got so much righteous anger which needs expressing?
Sojourner
Bush has already admitted to allowing warrantless spying, which is against FISA. I guess I didn’t realize that some laws don’t need to be followed.
Can you share with us other laws that don’t need to be followed?
Darrell
FISA does not apply to warrantless monitoring of suspected foreign enemies who are outside the US. If you think differently, cite the FISA section.
But hey, don’t let those facts stop you from screaming till snot comes out your nose that “Bush is a war criminal!”
Perry Como
Here you go Darrell: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/11/1216245&from=rss
Domestic spying done by the NSA. Have fun justifying it.
Darrell
Perry, Sojourner claimed Bush was breaking FISA laws. I asked him to cite the FISA section which forbids the Prez from monitoring foreign enemies overseas without warrant. He hasn’t been able to do so, and your link does no such thing. Furthermore, your link makes an unsubstantiated allegation with no backup details that the NSA is trying to create a database of EVERY CALL placed in the US. I call bullshit.
But you ‘feel’ it must true, so that’s all that matters
Pb
Heh, I totally called it.
Yeah, no one knows anything except Darrell.
Me, USA Today, and at least 75% of America. But of course, we aren’t Darrell.
Steve
Atrios:
It’s really amazing, isn’t it? I remember when the last NSA scandal broke, every righty on the Internet knew within hours that the reason they weren’t getting warrants was because it’s just too much paperwork. Seriously, I gotta get on that email list.
TallDave
It’s not significant.
As with the much-paraded “Generals Who Don’t Like Rumsfeld,” the left likes to adduce support for its position by trumpeting the minority who agree with them, while ignoring the fact they are, in fact, a distinct minority and out of power.
To understand how galling this is to people who try to have rational opinions, consider it’s the same tactic some conservatives do on global warming.
TallDave
every righty on the Internet knew within hours that the reason they weren’t getting warrants was because it’s just too much paperwork.
Well, simple. Someone interviewed the DOJ, which apparently the MSM couldn’t be bothered to do while flailing its arms about and screaming our national secrets to the world. There were interviews on Fox News and in the Weekly Standard where it was patiently explained that the process is lengthy, manpower- and paper-intensive, and not conducive to monitoring terrorists. So when the President was given Article II powers under which he didn’t need warrants by the AUMF, he said “Don’t use the lengthy, manpower- and paper-intensive, not conducive to monitoring terrorists FISA system, because they’ve just killed 3000 Americans and we’d like to prevent that from happening again if at all possible.” And we haven’t been attacked in five years, which is a better job than anyone expected.
Me, I expect anti-Bushism bordering on treason from the media, and I never expect them to ask any meaningful exculpatory questions in the course of inventing a scandal. I’m just pleased they didn’t include any forged 1972 memos this time (my expectations are fairly low at this point).