Redstate

It is time for some people to start going to prison for these leaks.

The CINC has spoken!

Let They-Who-Crave-The-Approval-Of-Harold-Pinter-&-The-French at the NYT respond!

I agree completely. They can go to jail right behind Bush for violating the Constitution.

Ok I know whoever is leaking this is clearly anti Bush but is it CIA peopl or FBI people?

At claims of "violating the constitution" from people who have manifestly never read the Constitution. Thanks for the laughs.

Blam.

This time they've alerted the Bad Guys to a secret NSA program that spies on their phone calls.

The NSA has been monitoring bad guys' phone calls since their inception. And the bad guys know it.

What the bad guys now know is that the monitoring can be done without a warrant. I don't see how the bad guys knowing this impacts the War on Terror one way or the other.

Six spades as an opening bid? Bad move.

Blam.

. . .reading over twenty years ago that the NSA monitored all overseas phone calls for threats to national security--this is as much of a "secret" as the fact that the little things on the ends of shoelaces are called "aglets'; in other words, not everyone knows it, but anyone who was curious could find it out with minimal effort.  Of course, the "minimal effort" part would explain why the Democrats in Congress might not have been aware of it.

The MSM has been running stories on NSA intercepts all along. Now the MSM is running stories on warrantless NSA intercepts. The only piece of knowledge the terrorists have gained is that the intercepts are obtained without a warrant.

Also, the law says that warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the monitoring starts. So I don't see this law impedes rapidly developing investigations.

Back in th 80's when I had a security clearance, we had to take a polygraph on a random basis to be sure we had not divulged any classified information.  Have we gotten so politically correct since than, that we don't check up on those with knowledge of our most Secret secrets?  No wonder the likes of Ames and Hansen can go so long undetected.

Heads need to roll over all these recent security leaks, and I don't mean Bush's.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

If this isnt treason by the leakers, what is???  If even the NYT can see the damage able to be cused by it, it has to be really, really harmful to national security.

on the heels of "joking" about impeaching GW?

and let's posthumously impeach Lincoln and FDR, too.

The Far Left has been so blinded with rage the past five years that they stopped looking at the facts a long time ago.  Calling the United States a fascist nation, George W. Bush a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, seemingly calling for armed rebellion against the government, massive daily protests, impeaching Bush/Cheney, wondering if Bush will peacefully leave power in 2009...but there are the posters there prepared to say the American public is too stupid/doesnt care so all of these will come to nothing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/17/113212/10

If you're infantile hapeus corpus rule had any relation to reality, Bush can cite those aspotential acts of rebellion with more authority than you can say acts specifically authorized as legal in the US Code are not legal.  You LLL's give me much good cheer for your buffonery.  Like going to a monkey cage, never know what they're gonna do.

The only piece of knowledge the terrorists have gained is that the intercepts are obtained without a warrant.

Not strictly true. By watching the sparks fly in the vicinity of the revelation, they can estimate the strength of the political opposition to Bush and his policies. These are acts which, in their own countries, would get somebody's head chopped off. Here, major newspapers and political figures rejoice in the leader's embarassment. There is a good lesson they might take away from that, but that's probably not the one they do take away.

The other thing that just happened is that another 73,500 Americans who were on the margin as to just whose side the press and the Democrats are on, made their decision. This was a bad day for the press, and a good day for us.

Ames passed his polygraph tests with flying colors, and ruins perfectly good officers:

Officers will never forget their first post-Ames polygraph. One of the findings of a post-Ames polygraph study was that Ames was able to pass two polygraph exams after he started spying for the Russians, because the polygraph examiners failed to establish the required psychological atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Polygraph examiners overcompensated, making examinations hostile polygraphs, intimidating, threatening, and accusing loyal officers of all kinds of misdeeds and crimes. Gone was the collegial relationship between examiner and examinee where "concerns" were discussed, with the examiner saying, "Gee, you are showing discomfort on that question...can you tell me why?" The post-Ames approach was, "You are lying. I know you are lying. The machine shows you are lying. Admit your guilt now or your career is over." One colleague of mine was so traumatized by the experience that she became completely incapable of undergoing future tests.

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display
;num=1122195854

By watching the sparks fly in the vicinity of the revelation, they can estimate the strength of the political opposition to Bush and his policies.

So, we should somehow conceal the strength/weakness of the Bush's political opposition? How do we do that?

These are acts which, in their own countries, would get somebody's head chopped off.

What's your point? Are the terrorists are just finding out now that we have freedom of the press?

an e-mail today telling him that before he holds any hearings on this NSA international communications intercepts matter, he had better hold hearings on those responsible for leaking classified info to the NY times.  I informed him ,as if he didn't know, that these intercepts were perfectly legal, and in fact, were included as part of the NSA's charter.  Further, I informed him that the Congress had been informed of these intercepts on many occasions and had no complaints at the time- only after the information was published in the NY Times.  Finally, I told him that it is quite possible that one or more of his Senate colleagues is responsible for leaking this classified info and that that is where the focus should be first.  Otherwise, any hearings will be pre-judged, and rightly, as a whitewash.

And I think the Directors of RedState should be working to assemble a statement on this matter and include some boilerplate so that we can all email Spector and our other Senators.  Gentlemen, this is a high-priority item for me, and I'd really appreciate if the Directors would get together and make a statement.

SusanG over at Daily Kos is absolutely right, but for all the wrong reasons, as usual:  This is a line in the sand.  

Here's an idea: Why don't you publish the codes used by our forces in Iraq? Hey, freedom of speech, man. That would be the highest form of patriotism.

Except for Nick's motto, but I saw it put this way somewhere the other day:

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

With a Dem president and a GOP majority in congress so we can see just how phoney these guys are with their staged outrage.  

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) specifically bans federal agents from conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant.  Under the Patriot Act, the feds have almost unlimited ability to conduct surveillance, however, needing only a secret warrant from the notoriously deferential FISA court.  Yet Bush has bypassed even this cursory level of process  based on John Yoo's notion that the president has virtually unlimited powers during wartime.  

And you all are okay with this?

If the President (any president) is allowed to bypass federal law by executive order, that means the activities of the FBI, CIA, NSA, and DOD are limited only by his discretion.  You get this, right?

Would you be okay with it if John Kerry claimed he could overrule federal statutes with the stroke of a pen?  How about Bill Clinton?  I know Red State is not exactly a hotbed for libertarians, but I'm somewhat stunned by the blanket approval for unfettered federal power I'm seeing here.  

I know you want to focus on the leak and the NY Times, but what about the program itself?  Are you all really ready to adopt the Yoo constitutional view for the rest of history?  

After you jump, how much time do you have before you pull the cord?

The rest of your life.

 Regarding the President having virtually unlimited powers during wartime, and given the hyperbole of that statement, my answer would be yes. The enemy we face will do whatever is in his power to destroy as many American lives as he can. If this program even came close to averting another attack on Americans, then it's worth it. Do you agree with that statement?

 Your assertion that the President's power is limited only by his discretion doesn't gibe with President Bush's comments that members of Congress were also aware of this program; their silence is tacit support.

 It wouldn't matter to me who was President. The difference is that this President has repeatedly shown the moral and political courage to do what has to be done to protect American citizens - something that, IMO, very few politicians of either party have shown.

Well after reading all the posts here on RS and in the MSM, I come away with a bunch of questions; was what the President ordered legal, did he go about expanding collection of intelligence in the correct manner, with the correct notification of Congressional oversight?

While the Dems want to make a big deal about this whole thing, ignoring that Civil rights are one of the most important of our liberties, but being alive is the ultimate Civil right, you gotta ask "Where's the Beef"?

Is this more of the Lefties, including fellow travelers from the Republican party, are looking to pick a fight? Bring it on!

President Bush threw down the gauntlet today and good for him. I'm all in favor of oversight, and there is a time and place for review of how our intelligence agencies operate. The Senate and Congressional Intelligence Committees are set up to review what the Executive has done in intelligence matters. These committees are known to be thorough, fair and bi-partisan, unlike Dennis the Menace or Allen Specter. If there are to be hearings, fine, by all means do so and let the Intelligence  committee do it's job and report back to full Congress. President Bush has made the tough choices needed to protect this country, and I'm confident he has done so according to the law.

If the "White Flag" Democrats don't like the answer that comes back from those in Congress who are empowered to review the actions of the President in these matters, tough cookies. If a few NSA or CIA employees or any elected official and or staff are found to be divulging classified information, there is a room reserved for them in Marion Ill.

The instructor told me that, if I did't jump, he was going to __  __ me!

Dad: Well, I assume you jumped.

Son: Yeah, quite a lot at first.

This. Was. Not. Domestic. Surveillance.

This was of calls from inside the US to outside, or vice-versa.

Feel free to retract your ignorant statements any time now.

Why does the President need to spy on American citizens without a judicial warrant?  We don't live in East Germany folks.  Do you want the government listening in on your phone calls and reading your emails without a warrant? If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody.  A frightening thought.

is the idea that someone can think

If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody. A frightening thought.

So your position seems to be that given the choice between terrorist attacks because we didn't do communications intercepts and no terror attacks because we did, you prefer to have American men, women, and children stacked up like cordwood.

I'm assuming that in the aftermath you'd be one of the first to say, "I'm really glad we got attacked because that means my civil liberties are safe."

Thankfully, our government doesn't hold that view.

Lincoln was dealing with a rebellion. I think FDR stepped over the line, however.

let me get this straight. You are unable to make a distinction difference between terrorists and your fellow Americans?

The government is allowed to wiretap suspects immediately but must get a court warrant within 72 hours.  There exists a current secret court that grants warrants on the spot.  Therefore, there is no problem getting an immediate wiretap.  That's not the issue - the issue is whether the government should tap the phones of American citizens without a warrant.  Do you want the government to listen into your conversations without judicial approval?

You seem concerned about your rights, fine so I am I. But the highest right is my book is:

"Life, Liberty...."

The Judicial branch of our government is not the Penultimate Branch of our government; it shares power over the application of the Constitution and protection of your rights with the Legislative and the Executive Branches.

Read what the actual 4th says, the key word is "Unreasonable" searches and seizures. In this case the Executive branch has made a determination of what is reasonable, it has gone to the other two legs of Constitutional power for review of how reasonable the action taken is in light of the overriding objective of preservation of "Life, Liberty". If you don't like who is exercising the Executive side of this decision, elect someone from the "White Flag" Democratic party who does.

4th admendment of the Bill of Rights establishes:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to

be seized

Yeah right - how do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't.  The government has clearly made mistakes in imprisoning innocent individuals before.  What happens if they make a mistake with you?

It never ceases to amaze me at how the Liberal mind works, they are so anti Bush that they use any method to bring him down or to devert away from good news.

We now have Kerry in two weeks saying our troops are "terrorizing" the Iraq people, then following that with the "President should be impeached", yet the Libs will continue to excuse his comments.

I am proud that we have a President that will Protect us from Terrorist and to live a life of Integrity.

the US would have lost WWII.

The media learned from the last two elections in Iraq. It was pretty much known this election would be more successful than the first two, so the media had something (NSA story) ready to divert attention and to make sure Bush got no credit or accolades for the Iraqi election.

It is going to take a few more 9/11s or a nuke going off in the US before these fools realize American lives are more important than their hatred of Bush.

Does anyone doubt that seventy percent of the media wants us to lose in Iraq so that GWBush looks bad?

They would rather see Americans die than to see Bush get credit for anything. When we get hit again there will be a backlash against liberals, it is just a shame that we will have to get hit again.

Liberals are scum.

The Congressional approval Bush cites is a political ploy, not a legal argument.  According to John Yoo's legal theory, Congressional authority is not necessary.  The President is free to act without any contraints in times of war, which only he is fit to define.  Moreover, telling a few select members of Congress is quite different from giving Congress oversight.

You ask: If this program even came close to averting another attack on Americans, then it's worth it?

Without knowing what the program was, it's impossible to say.  If it means replacing our President with a monarch, well, I'd simply answer that many, many soldiers gave their lives during the American Revolution to avoid that fate.

to the DU to read what the masters of intellect were having to say. As usual, once past the four-letter words, expletives, paranoia, and mis-stated facts, all that is left (pun intended) is more four-letter words, expletives, paranoia, and mis-stated facts.

It's fun to go down there as stories like this break. Reminds me of watching chickens at feeding time. Thought you might enjoy a few of their deep thoughts. I tried to leave the fisking on these to the experts like our friend at DUmmies FUnnies. But boy is it hard:

I think Bolton did most of it at the direction of Cheney or Rice or Hadley. Bush might have been sent out to cover for the mess by using his elevated authority as a shield against congressional judgement. It seems to have backfired. We'll have to wait and see how much will Democrats have to collectively force an investigation or rebuke.

I have my "Surveillance Undermines Liberty" button on and will wear it everywhere. I'm going to an anti-war vigil tomorrow but my sign is going to be about our fascist regime. Have to call the senators and reps TODAY. Leave a strong message. If we let this go by like we did everything else, we deserve to live under a dictator

and the concequences of his illegal immoral  war on Iraq- are???? First Degree Murder on how many counts????-

And here's a fella havin' a wonderful joyous Christmas with the family he loves and respects:

Unfortunately, I'm now hosting a family gathering that includes a bunch of Repugs. They are totally supportive of what Bush is doing. They are saying that anything he wants to do to protect the country is fine with them. I can't stand it. Had to leave the room before I created a major family rift. Also drug my daughter with me. We can't understand where these peoples' logic and patriotism actually is.

But I'm sure he didn't mean that he drugged his daughter. Not a Christmas time.

My personal favorite for today:

This has to be the sorriest no goodest low lifest poorest pResident ever.

Several comments above note that the issue here is warrant-less searches.  

The responses I see suggest that it is fine for the President to break the law if he a) tells some members of Congress or b) says he is doing so in the interest of preventing a terrorist attack.  I have yet to see any comment explaining why he needs this power.

Listening phone calls does not bother me that much frankly, but where do we draw the lines here.  Are there any laws too important for the President to break in the name of national security?  

I had thought conservatives were concerned abut government power.

Tom

The NSA would define it as domestic surveillance because they are monitoring the conversations of American citizens inside the U.S.  Christ, even President Bush acknowledges that.

Who do you think you are, Bill Clinton?

Invasion of the Public Safety -- good enough for me!  Terrorists declared war on us.  Attacked the WTC twice (a friend killed there).  Do we want to know what and who their next targets are, or not?

A school bus load of kids, a bridge, a restaurant, a mall?  Do you want a bomb with that Starbucks?  No worry here that agents are  monitoring my calls. Terrorists aren't likely to call me. They'll will call their buddies who plan 24/7 against us.    

Bush is man enough to say "The Buck stops here.  Yeah I did it and I'm glad."

There was oversight every 45 days and Congressmen have been briefed more than a dozen times and are now feigning "shock."  This was classified.  I hope Bush names them and shines a bright light on these "honorable" politicians and what they have been doing in the shadows.

Tom - most of the people are cheerleaders, not conservatives.  If this were President Clinton, they'd be in attack dog mode.

You are comparing publishing the information that government is now executing phone taps without warrants to an act of treason?

Do you believe the press should not report when the government breaks the law?

Tom

conservatives have no fear of gov't power if they think it helps them; gov't power helping others, now that is a high crime.

conservatives have a faith in government that rivals the most ardent liberal.

"You are unable to make a distinction difference between terrorists and your fellow Americans?"

The question more appropriately is whether the government can make that distinction and whether the government will continue to make that distinction if it is politically expedient not to.

Did the government break the law? I can guarantee you that whoever leaked the program to the New York Times broke the law.

http://jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow120905.php3

It is only very rarely that the use of the word "Christ" as an expletive is appropriate. That was not one of them. Don't do that anymore.

The same ones that thought the Plame leak was so bad, need to stand and be counted. This truly is a national security leak that needs prosecuting, followed by lengthy jail time.

It's funnier than all hell to watch those that thought Clinton's secret files on gun owners was OK talk about how bad this is for civil liberties.

It's about the R's playing "nicey-nice" while the D's torture DeLay, Libby, Rove, etc.

Your value added is low. Please correct this. With thanks,

The Management.

Citizenship in the United States of America should not shield a person from scrutiny if they are acting in ways that the goverment believes are hostile to the United States.  

Terrorism is not a crime like rape or murder; these crimes harm the social but not the political fabric of a country. Without the political framework, the country cannot stand, and so acts of war like terrorism must be dealt with differently than domestic crimes.  

Those suspected of terrorism cannot and should not be afforded the same rights as ordinary citizens, because their alleged acts seek to destroy the very nation from which they seek protection.  To allow the laws of a country to protect those who would seek to destroy it is stupidity at its most extreme.

Do you believe that the argument that the President has the right to break laws during the war?

Or do you believe the taps were within existing law?

Do you feel that reporting on such issues is comparable to treason?

Tom

the correct definition of the words:  'surveillance' and 'intercept'; and their respective application to this latest farse.

Observe MSM and Democrat shock and horror at the ostensible 'outing' of the non-agent Valerie Plame(sp?); and the smug ease with which they actually compromise an ongoing highly classified intelligence operation.

Someone needs to go to jail on this one. And sanctions need be taken against the New York Times.

there would be no global war on terror.  Clinton would not have recognized that the Sept. 11th attacks signaled a dramatic escalation in the Islamo-fascists attempts to establish a world-wide caliphate.  He would have asked the U.N. permission to bomb Afghanistan and upped the bounty on Bin Laden's head, and maybe sent a few secret teams into Afghanistan to see if they couldn't find and/or kill Bin Laden......and then continued on again as if nothing happened.

Clinton would not have had sufficient vision to see our enemies for who they are, and so would not have dreamt of taking a few percentage points hit in his popularity in order to keep the country under his care safe.

It would be nice to think that Clinton would have done the right thing (authorize the wiretaps) instead of the popular thing (make a speech at the U.N. agreeing with France that we are the cause of the terror attacks).  But we will all have to deal with what history gave us, not with what we think it ought to have been.

means that a court reviews and agrees that the there is a resonable basis for the search - in the case the monitoring of phone calls.  

You presume that everyone monitored is in fact a terrorist.  That can be very broadly defined.  Its like presuming that anyone arrested is in fact guilty.

If we throw away constitutional protections we have destroyed the very thing we seek to protect.

The wiretapping isn't illegal.

Of course there's no reason for the power. The NSA just wants to find out what kind of bread your wife wants you to bring home and how much you hate your boss. It's all in the file they keep on you.

by that definition - war is a perpetual state of affairs.  No beggining - no end, and it follows from that if constitutional protections can be arbirtarily suspended in this circumstance then they mean nothing.  Guess it is "just a piece of paper" after all?

think you are in the position to decide who or what is conservative.

Consider this a warning. If the best you can do is slinging mud at the other people here then you don't belong here.

If you know you could be wrong, then why believe it? Why not just wait to find out? That's what I'm doing. The one I'm real sure about though, is that the leaker broke the law.

No, I don't like the idea of presidents breaking the law. I have no idea whether the taps were within existing law. He says yes, they say no, it's the usual hoo-hah. Most people will eventually decide this by throwing up their hands on the law part, and decide it based on whether they think spying on terrorists is a good idea. This would be a good issue for Democrats to slink away from.

Treason? Not this one. Outing the CIA's airline might have been.

close to content-free as I've seen.

I can only conclude from reading this that you are trolling because I can't believe you're enough of an idiot to believe this. That said, I examine your sordid posting history and lo and behold I find you have been warned for trolling. Imagine my shock.

So you've worn out your welcome. Go bother someone else.

No, that is not conservatism.  That is libertarianism.

wasted, of course, on anyone who thinks conservatives are monolith who all believe the same things.

in a variety of settings. With probable cause, the police do not need a warrant to search your car or draw your blood (in a serious auto accident.) They can also search the passenger compartment of your car if they have probable cause to arrest ANYONE riding in your car. Various agencies can seize your bank and phone records via their own subpoena power. No judicial action is required.

They can also search your HOME without a warrant if exigent circumstances exist. Immediate threat of death or great bodily harm is an exigency per se, so sayeth the Supreme Court. In each of these situations, you will likely be inconvenienced and complain vociferously.

The interception of a conversation in time of war, in which you are all but anonymous until you mention terrorist activity, does not offend the Constitution. Bear in mind, internment camps were held Constitutional. Unless there is evidence that the practice has been intentionally abused, I expect the conduct to be upheld.

I admit I am tired of the leaks to the press.

If we are going to spend millions investigating the Plame matter, then we should be spending some money investigating these links, and putting people in jail.  But right now, it doesn't even look like we are trying to fire them, much less prosecute them.

makes it perfectly legal

But like most Dim-ocrats, u either dont know the law or are purposely mis-stating it.

When the majority of people find out your lies, they immed move to our side.  You think the "BushLied" BS worked?  It did until Bush started taking it seriously.  Without another side being presented you guys had it all tour way.  But now the Varisty is coming on the field and you lightweights are being ejected.

I am a liberal who reads the arguments here because I learn a lot from the back and forth.  This site usually avoids the hyperbole of the last post.  

"Does anyone doubt that seventy percent of the media  wants us to lose in Iraq so that GWBush looks bad?"

- Losing in Iraq destabilizes the region and makes the entire world less safe, not just Americans.  I have trouble accepting that 70% (Who is the other 30%?  Fox News?) would value upheaval over peace.

"They would rather see Americans die than to see Bush get credit for anything. When we get hit again there will be a backlash against liberals, it is just a shame that we will have to get hit again."

- This is simply ludicrous.  Is this poster claiming that journalists revel in American deaths?  Does the poster picture journalists cheering during 9/11 and drinking shots at the bar during Hurricane Katrina?  All the reports I saw during these events looked really shaken up.

"Liberals are scum."

These types of sweeping generalities weaken your entire argument.  Sure, every single liberal will  be scum if they subscribe to the words that you put in their mouths.

Buffalo wing or hunk of cheese or something stuck in Michael Moore's beard right now that he doesn't even know about.

Because he is so big, fat and nasty and disgusting.

1-- I don't know about 70% but I think you would be very safe in saying that a clear majority of the media, not to mention academics, would see a loss in Iraq and subsequent upheaval as a small price to pay to ensure Bush's legacy was negative. They have invested a lot of credibility in predicting a loss and it is hard to believe that they want to be wrong.

2-- Have you missed the breathless countdowns to 1000, 1500, and 2000 deaths in Iraq? There's no tactical or strategic significance to those numbers. It's pretty hard to draw any otber conclusion from this other than dead troops are a small price to pay to make Bush look bad.

3-- Maybe you're right. All liberals aren't scum.

Do you feel that reporting on such issues is comparable to treason?

I serious doubt that the NSA program broke any laws but I am willing to be convinced.

I know that the b*stards that leaked it and the b*astards that printed it broke the law and quite possibly committed treason. The leaker, the reporter and the editors and publisher of the New York Times should be charged and tried.

We are at war and someone needs to grab these clowns by the scruff of the neck and shake some sense into them.

-----------

* Pardon my French, but I am up to my eyeballs with people who don't, or won't, understand what is going on or put their own opinions, political views and hatreds over the safety and security of my country and my family.

He knew how to beat a poly.  Not everyone does.  And, polygraphers are trained to spot attempts at beating the machine.

Not all leakers are counter intel agents.  Do you think that egotists like Joe Wilson could beat one?  I'd love to find out.

So... let's find out!

If the government has the power to do it to terrorist suspects, it also has the power to do it to anybody. In your contect I asked whether you are unable to make a dictinction between the treatment we should accord terrorists and citizens. I fully expect the government to hunt down and kill terrorists, I doubt that my fellow citizens working for this government intend to do the same to me.

Do you want the government to listen into your conversations without judicial approval?

I asked this question yesterday, and the fact of the matter is, they simply don't care if the government tapes every word they say.

So arguing it is kind of pointless.  It's like arguing the point of quality coffee to someone who doesn't like coffee.

Which is partially why I think that the Democratic party is the best party for both conservatives and liberals at the moment.

Oh...so Joe Lieberman is a welcome member of the "White Flag" Democrats?

Yea...right.

Are we referring to the pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-union, pro-environment Lieberman or another one?

I'm surprised this isn't getting more play.  Well, maybe I'm not. The libs will do anything to try and save whatever weak legacy Clinton has managed to scrape together since he left office.

read a lot of interesting things on this blog. I've read a lot of educational things on this blog. I've read a lot of fatuous things on this blog. I've read a lot of dumb things on this blog (and perhaps written a few); But I've got to that this one transcends everything else; it reaches new heights.

You are to be congratulated for this accomplishment.

Thanks!

Look, I have absolutely no problem, none, with wiretapping everyone who might have terrorist links.  Indeed, the government can already pretty much do that in lickety-split time using a FISA warrant.  But the fact that it's so easy (and quick) to get a FISA warrant makes the current explanation a bit strange.  There's got to be more to this story.

In addition, I think that we all need to step back and decide whether the justification laid out in Professor Yoo's memorandum is a justification that we can live with.  If a Hillary Clinton takes office in '08 (which is not inconceivable), are we comfortable with the notion that she gets to break the law if she thinks, in her sole opinion, that the law conflicts with her duties as CIC?  

Yoo's rationale for this newly-discovered presidential power should concern everyone -- particularly given that we're in a war that may last as long as the Cold War (if not longer).  How many presidents will come and go in that time?  Will they all be decent men (and women)?  Will they all be decent all the time?  The whole point of requiring checks and balances is because men can't be trusted.  (He has a sinful nature, some might say.)  Even decent men can't always be trusted.  Even good men do evil.  The old saw about the road to hell being paved with good intentions is an old saw for a reason.

I'm concerned about the leak, yes.  But I'm more concerned about the policy.  Unless there's some explanation about why a FISA warrant won't fill this particular niche, these kind of searches should stop as a matter of policy.  (Whether it's legal or illegal as a matter of law is another matter, and one I'm not qualified to answer.)

...of defending the United States.

For the Democrats this seems to be a crime.

When will the Democrats learn that this is a losing strategy. The only way they'll see a Democrat in the White House is if they watch "The West Wing."

The one who does not belong to the "White Flag" wing of the Democratic party, which seems to be all there is now days, including Howard "Hear me Scream" Dean.

The one that back this President, our troops, and a strong national defense.

The one that the "White Flag", blame America First crowd hates.

Is that clearer?

But, honestly, I have never met any of these white flag people and I am out and about extensively talking to folks.

Despite the "King George" meme-in-the-making, and without knowing the specifics, which doesn't inhibit any Royalist assertions on your part, the President has acted in the best interests of the country. He has done so repeatedly and, G-d willing, will continue to do so, whatever the political costs to himself and, frankly, the Republican party as a whole. To me, that's leadership. and against an enemy that does not, and will never, discriminate among men, women and children, I much a prefer a man willing to make an error of commission than one of omission, especially if the latter was motivated by a need to satisfy the self-appointed arbiters of social, moral and legal conscience who populate the hand-wringing left.

 Speaking for myself, I would not hesitate to shoot anybody who threatened me or my family, nor would I wait for permission from anybody this side of heaven to do so. President Bush is a singularity - a man who will do whatever it takes to protect the citizens of the United States. These days, anything less than that is academic.  

. . .is being read out of the party by Dr. Howie and his minions in spite of all those positions, because of his refusal to join the Senate Surrender Caucus.

I should have been a headline writer.  Lead sentence; Experts agree Bush assails Free Speech, warn of threat to civil liberties".  It must be nice to have a bifurcated brain, no corpus callosum, think of all the embarressment you avoid.  Better than that you're spared the trouble of thinking. Yes there are people with unicameral brains who act the same way but they're usually found in remote areas of New Guinea hunting other humans for their dinner. Outrage over Plame, auto-heroism for the NSA exposure.  Both packed into the same sinistrorse labyrinth of a mind.  People are fond of quoting Jefferson's remark about preferring a free press over government.  Less often do you hear that he said the greatest threat to a republic is a licentious press.

some things here that aren't.

There is no requirement for the NSA to get a warrant listen in on international communications, even those which originate in the US. It simply is not a requirement.

What are the technical limititations that make  prohibitive keeping a complete record of every communication you send?  Of keeping security camera records for every room of your house?

Because I guarantee you, as technology progresses, this becomes more and more feasible.

For the cost of the Iraq war, we could have purchased over one trillion gigabytes of disk storage.  You think the government doesn't have this kind of buying power?  That's 6000 GB of storage per household.

Getting the storage is in reach.  What's missing?  

Where are they going to get the manpower to watch all these feeds?  Obviously, they're not.  But we have software that (albeit not completely well) determines if songs or movies are going to be a hit.  Software can tell if there's motion or nudity in shot.  Software can tell if a plane passenger represents a risk.  In short, the software will tell the people who is interesting based on their data feed, and then a human will further analyze the feed.  

So, technically, I ask you, what is wrong with my above proposal?  What part can't we currently afford?  What part is beyond our technical reach?  More importantly, I want to know what we have to do to get it in reach.

Thoughts?

The level of Bush hating in this discussion is amazing. Those claiming Bush has broken the law in this thread and elsewhere (CNN for example) didn't read the entire NY Times article. Towards the end of the article, it is clearly stated that only domestic to domestic conversations require a warrant for the NSA. Domestic to non-domestic conversations, such as the ones discussed here do not, and never have required warrants. If you don't like the idea of the government attempting to prevent terrorism by this technique, say so. Don't pretend it is some new, evil civil rights violation by King Bush.

Some of the posters here have touched on the real story. How can we effectively conduct this or any war when our intelligence agencies feel free to divulge confidential information to politically damage the Commander-in-Chief?

the time, effort, and inclination to listen to the communications, transcribe and in a lot of cases translate, and analyze the communications. The funding for the project.

And, of course, who is going to do this for the communications of the NSA employees? The NSA?

utimately won't matter if the Libs are successful in ending the monitoring of suspicious communications.

Once we lose track of what they are doing, the terrorists will commit another atrocity - even more spectacular that 9-11 if possible.  At some point, after the next or the third outrage, American will begin to hold all Muslims and their enablers responsible.  A true culture war.  

I believe that this great concern for civil rights is only a stick to beat W.  Anything to regain power for the Dhims.

I have not seen the article you are refering to.  In the NYT article I did read: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18bush.html?hp&ex=1134882000
&en=5b0fa310edb6186f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

I saw that the administration suspended the program in 2004 because of concerns about its legality.

The bashing here that I can't figure out is all the attacks on the media.  The terrorists surely knew they were at risk of wiretaps before all this.  What exactly have the terrorists learned from all this?  How are they helped?

Tom

I'm a new poster here, but I have been amazed at the level of blatant stupidity, deliberate blindness and all-out hypocrisy demonstrated by the Russ Feingold's, Chuck Schummer's and media hacks over this story.

Those hurling charges of law breaking need to learn how to read. Even the NYT(that treasonous bunch who reveal covert secrets), at least have the splinter of an ethical bone left in their body to point out that actions taken by the President were legal and reviewed by a court as well as the AG and members of both parties in Congress.

This was no coincidence that the Times runs this story in conjunction with Feingold and company on the day the Patriot Act provisions came up for renewel. This is so reminiscient of what they pulled the week before the 2004 election, when they ran that year old story about ammo dumps not being secured(a story that turned out to be proven false), that sheer chance of timing can't be used as an excuse.

The NYT and their editors should be fully prosecuted to the full extent of the law for revealing state secrets.

I am sick of this partisan press who can't deal with the fact that their beloved libs aren't in power anymore. They didn't win in 2004, so now they will go to any lengths to so weaken the administration they despise, even at the risk of hurting innocent Americans and the country as a whole.

The only lawbreakers in this whole affair are A)the person or persons who revealed sensitive information to the Times and B)the Times themselves for publishing it.

How about we start with the publishing of classified information in time of war....sounds like treason to me.

to be outraged over this but I'm not sure why. You are going to base a policy on an N=1 situation of Ames? Carried to its logical conclusion we shouldn't even ask for birth certificates since I'm sure they have been forged in the past.

It also seems to me that if this chick became mentally incapacitated after a poly-freakin-graph we should be thankful we discovered that now before she was in a real stressful situation.

It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.

Apparently the fundamental skill known as 'reading' is now defined by the Left to be 'word games'.

Go read comment #94, you ignorant fool.

Apparently, my math skills are more deteriorated than I thought.

As detailed by the President was that these numbers that were tapped were the result of captured material in Afghanistan (and presumably, Iraq and Pakistan and other foreign countries) leading to US sources (cell phones, IM, e-mail, whatever).

FISA court approval is swift; but Justice is unable to get to FISA in less than SIX MONTHS. Unacceptable.

This was NOT:

A. Widespread sweeping surveillance of non-threats of domestic political activity ala COINTELPRO.

B. Unsupervised and without feedback; Jay Rockefeller and others had concerns which led to a temporary suspension and modifications of the program.

C. Domestic only wiretaps; they were limited to communication with known Al Qaeda terrorist contact channels.

The results of this led to the stopping of a bombing plot aimed at destroying the Brooklyn Bridge and killing thousands. The PATRIOT ACT allowed the passing of info gathered from the wiretaps to investigators in the FBI which led to an arrest and conviction.

What we are going back to by DEMAND of Dems, the Media, and McCain is the pre-9/11 status, where info from the CIA and other foreign intelligence services could not be passed to the CIA (Al Qaeda plotting to fly airplanes into buildings) due to the concerns of civil liberties.

PEOPLE WILL DIE. It will be entirely preventable. And ALL DEMS fault. They would rather have absolutist civil liberties than protect the greatest civil liberty -- the right not to be murdered. But what can you say from the Party that celebrates Tookie and believes the 9/11 Victims were "Little Eichmans?"

Of course, if the DEMS and MEDIA complete their tying of the President's hands, you'll get people deciding to make themselves safe by themselves. Which is ugly, brutal, and all too predictable.

GWB is ironically the greatest protector of civil liberties seen in a generation, by taking moderate, measured, and limited common-sense steps to avoid either a police state or the mob.

What makes the people who run the NYT think that they have to right to place their views over the elected government of the country. Please do not respond 'The Constitution' because that is not what the First Amendment means.

n/t

#68 as well.

Certain congressman and posters here seem to find high fault, in the abstract, that the NSA program didn't seek warrants within 72 hours after the tap. Following the prima facia assumption that the taps would have been approved as for good cause, the complaint seems rather technical in light of the high stakes GWOT. And even as regards the technical side, a definitive conclusion of fault is not yet warranted. At this stage, the uproar seems clearly to be a game of torpedo politics, security be damned.  

I am with commentor van and will be looking to understand why the NSA program did not seek subsequent warrants if that is all that was necessary to stem this kind of criticism. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they didn't for some valid reason. Perhaps something else...

I don't know whether to legally fault the NYT. But when Congressmen defend the leakers as whislte-blowers I want to ask: Did you already investigate whether the leakers tried to blow the whistle through the proper official governmental channels, namely the courts and congress, especially since they were already aware of and to some extent monitoring this program? Why did they just have to go to a major donkey MSM outlet whose only power and greatest temptation was to expose it, even if it was perfectly legal and in the greatest national interest? Answer me that congressman, or else we am compelled to conclude the claims you are making are politically self-serving at the expense of national security.

The Left never seems to address that part of the Constitution.

Actually as you can see above, I have had some more fun with your formulation.

Or more generally

Where...

F is the set of all possible valid formulas and,

M is the set of conclusions from arguments in all moonbat minds

M = {f/0) where f element F.

Keep close watch for the divide by zero exception.

but the gop ain't so principled in opposition, either.  the gop is certainly better than the dems when it comes to security issues, even when the gop is in opposition.  but i recall a lot of opportunistic and unprincipled moves by the gop in the 90's.

Don't feel obliged if it would be much time to find out.

Thanks.

Or kos himself?

Or any number of the many, many folks who post on DailyKos?

only computers are so dumb they can't divide by zero. People can do lots of things wrong without a problem :-)

A computer can make a mistake in a fraction of a second that it would take a hundred humans years to make.

-----------------

I went and read comment #94, which states that the NY Times article confirms that government wiretapping of "domestic to non-domestic conversations, such as the ones discussed here do not, and never have required warrants."

Then I read the NY Times article. There is no such confirmation in the article. Moreover, the article explicitly states that "law enforcement and intelligence officials are still required to seek a F.I.S.A. warrant every time they want to eavesdrop within the United States."

Then I reviewed the relevant law (largely FISA and the regulations promulgated under it, with particular emphasis on any changes adapted under the Patriot Act). While I am far from an expert on that body of law, I found nothing leading me to believe that government wiretapping of domestic to non-domestic conversations do not require a FISA warrant.

I therefore think that both you and TennJohn are completely wrong on this issue.

But before calling you an "ignorant fool", as you have done to a poster on this thread, I'll allow you the chance to argue otherwise - as I wrote above, I am far from an expert on this.  

There was no such statement in the Times article.

when it appears that he is flat-out incorrect.

I must confess that I wonder if the poster even read the NYT article in question, or any of the relevant law.

authored a search warrant. Probable cause is in the eye of the (robed) beholder. Assume, for the sake of argument, that an individual arrives here from Syria with the stated purpose of visiting relatives. He pays cash for 500 pounds of ammonium nitrate based fertilizer. A couple of days later, he buys a gun from a private dealer (to avoid a background check).  He is staying with a married couple at a modest home, but it is well landscaped. Do you have enough for a warrant or a wiretap order? If not, do you detail a couple of people to watch him? how long can you do this? How many times can you do this?

Allocation of resources is a teensy weensy problem, no? Let's say you get the search warrant. You execute the warrant, but with the lapse of the "sneak and peek" portion of the Patriot Act, you have to inform, and therefore, arrest him if you find detonators and such. He sez, I want my lawyer. Game over. You know he has 3 other partners, but he won't tell you anything without a (sweet) deal, if he tells you anything at all.

I hope you all sleep soundly tonight.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the substance of your argument, although you have raised some interesting points.

I simply oppose name-calling by anyone.  It doesn't belong in a serious debate.

Speaking strictly as a political practitioner, I must say that I am enjoying this immensely.

So you have reviewed "FISA and the regulations promulgated under it, with particular emphasis on any changes adapted under the Patriot Act." That's great. I applaud your diligence.

Here's what I think. I think most people will listen to only so much of this lawyering, which will sound to them like, "pursuant to... whereas... Starfleet Regulation 102.9, Paragraph 6(b), as amended..." at which point they will conclude, accurately, that only by investing five years of their own lives will they ever know for sure who is right.

We get this all the time from experts. It's OK. Really. In the end we are always left in the position of Harry Truman, yearning for the one-handed economist.

So what we'll do instead of listening to all this blather is decide on our own, based pretty much on gut instincts, whether we think it was a good idea or a bad idea that Bush sic'ced the spooks on people whose phone numbers were found on laptops in Afghanistan.

Most of us will conclude that we're glad he did that, and we'll consider the noise about this to be further evidence that the Democratic Party is run by people who suffer from rectal-cranial inversion. And that the reporters are worse.

So on the whole, I'm glad to see this happen.

I work in the Ag/fertilizer industry and there have been just a few jillion safeguards put into the purchase of ammonium nitrate.

is 63%.  71% for academics.

I think you're mostly right. Many have noted that voters are "rationally ignorant" regarding these types of issues - not just legal issues, but all sorts of issues pertaining to policy knowledge.

But relying on the general notion that something is a "good idea" or a "bad idea", as I hope you'd agree, is not an ethically sound strategy for evaluating a President's potential violation of constitutionally protected civil liberties.

Such a strategy may be the refuge of the rationally ignorant, but it's not right for policy-makers and those who follow them closely (aka, us) - those who are expected to think through these issues completely - to engage in such conduct.  

At the very least, the type of outright lie/ignorance (depending on intent) expressed the post I responded to shouldn't be tolerated when these important issues are at stake.  

requirements, but little else at present. I used ammonium nitrate, because we all know it can be used to make explosives. There are all manner of relatively benign chemicals that can be used to make great mischief. It only takes about 40mg of nicotine to kill you. Since you work around farming, I assume, you know where you can get a few gallons of say, 10% nicotine.

At the very least, the type of outright lie/ignorance (depending on intent) expressed the post I responded to shouldn't be tolerated when these important issues are at stake.

Well, as I said, I applaud your diligence here in the forum. As for the real world, as one of the people who has no intention of spending five years to figure who is right, I am taking the bet that those who do know this stuff in some detail will pursue it to its logical conclusion.

This will either turn out like Iran-Contra, where the left screamed its bloody head off to no effect; or it will turn out more like the cases of Mssrs. Nixon and Clinton, both of whose tribulations turned out about right in terms of Cosmic Justice. Whichever it is, the conclusion probably won't come before Bush's 3 years is up.

that will immediately make clear that any foreign national or a call with one end out or the U.S. makes it perfectly legal:

The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

...but the expression you're looking for is: "Hear, hear!"

...but right and wrong aren't. If people on the left and in the MSM are going to torture the statutes and  the case law trying to tease an impeachable offense out of this, let 'em. The rest of us know that Bush did exactly the right thing.

And for the left-wing college professors who think there is no such thing as right and wrong: you're wrong.

Researching this issue enough to reach your own conclusion would likely take you substantially less than five hours, much less five years.

Here's a start, should you wish to educate yourself:

FISA can be found at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html

The most important case law (peripherally) supporting Bush's argument is:

United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980)

This will either turn out like Iran-Contra, where the left screamed its bloody head off to no effect; or it will turn out more like the cases of Mssrs. Nixon and Clinton, both of whose tribulations turned out about right in terms of Cosmic Justice.

...and bet on the former.  There's been no hint from the President of a coverup and/or evasion on the subject.  It's been done: it's being done; and it will continue to be done.  Don't like it?  Win the next Presidential election, and you can run the country and the war however you like.  Until then, it's his call to make.  Which, by the way, it is.

But this is a distraction from the real question: who leaked the information to the New York Times?

I'd like that information now, please.  Before they get anybody killed.

I thought you would appreciate the response I received from Senator Specter's office.  Here it is:

"Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

I receive a large volume of E-mails, phone calls, faxes and letters every

week from concerned citizens like yourself.

Unfortunately, due to the high volume of mail, I can only respond if

you're a resident of Pennsylvania.  If you need to find out who your U.S.

Senator is please go to www.senate.gov."

I guess I should have expected this type of response from him. I'm from Massachusetts, and if he thinks I'm going to waste my time contacting my senators, I've got a bridge in Chappaquidic I'd like to sell him.

There are many insecticides on the market which affect the nervous system or cause death with the right doseage. Have we seen any in use? Delivery system slick.....try another scare tactic.

Yes, indeed.  I'm also a (new) resident of the Commonwealth and I don't think emailing them to express your displeasure on this issue will meet with much more than a quick trip to the Trash folder.

On the other hand, now I have to give Bill Frist a little credit:  a few months ago I wrote a fairly long email to him and I received a thoughtful reply and wound up on his email distribution listserv.

Maybe what our senators should do is put a Paypal link on their email forms...oh wait, I don't think we want to open that can of worms...

In any case, thanks for your effort: this is all the more reason we need a better and more concerted response from the group here.  

I hope the NSA is not looking in on Redstate. Don't be surprised by a hard knock on the door.

Researching this issue enough to reach your own conclusion would likely take you substantially less than five hours, much less five years.

You kid yourself. On this subject, I make it a point to know what I don't know.

If I told you that the IBM 2022 zero-coupon converts were a better deal than Wal*Mart common because of the effects of the upcoming FASB 531 on pension accounting, you'd be a fool to think that you could figure out in five hours whether I was blowing smoke at you. If you thought you could do that in five hours, you would deserve whatever happened to you. People write masters' theses on how to evaluate convertable debentures.

You say that FISA is the correct statute, and over there is the case law. How do I know that? I'd have to know and understand ten other laws before I could even be sure you'd zeroed in on the right one. No thanks. I've hired lawyers. So I know that if you ask five of them something, you'll get five different answers. Like most things in our society, the law has turned into a giant ball of unmeasureable quantum fuzz that cannot be pinned down or made to hold still. The only answer to any of this, in any field, is to muddle through and see what happens.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

to what you have seen, you end up with two smoking holes in Manhattan. What if the "delivery system" is a hypodermic needle in a snickers bar - slick. Want to calculate the economic damage? Remember the Tylenol scare.  As you said, there are many insecticides that are highly toxic. As a matter of fact, a few can be converted into nerve agents rather easily. The FBI seems convinced that Mr. Hatfil made weaponized anthrax in his apartment. If you think that you can protect this country from people who are willing to die for their cause and pacify the ACLU at the same time, then you should stop sniffing what you're selling.

Republic of Taxachusetts.  You and I are but two rare, red specks in a sea of blue.

And keep it from exploding with dry ice.  In fact, my father accidentially blew up his neighbor's inground pool as a child -- using the same nitroglycerine recipe, which was just one step too far for his father, after all the time bombs had exploded in the backyard.  Ah, the 50's. But he also built an electron microscope (!) and won a scholarship to a very prestigious university, so all was forgiven.

I'm expecting a call any day now because I know the recipe.  Oh, wait:  people should also invesigate little bookstores all around Baltimore, and in hundreds of other major cities, because they sell the Loompanics Unlimited books.  Did you know that you can buy a CO2 laser system for eavesdropping on neighbors for about $200 and assemble it yourself?  

I doubt the NSA is interested in this kind of conversation, but if they are, I'd be happy to have a few agents over for dinner and cocktails -- I'm sure we'd have some interesting stories to tell, because, truth to tell, most of the people I've known who could be seriously dangerous with technology have been anarcho-Socialists who generally have Democrat girlfriends.  But I don't think they're the ones the NSA is really interested in, either.

general admonition)

 Bush evidently had a number of prominent lawyers advising him on this policy. Tell me what I should assume. They are all incompetent? Or he just decided to ignore them because he is an ol' hickory style President? Or that he really just doesn't care one wit about the law at all? Or, what? Why did he inform the courts and congressional leaders of the policy if he knew so well it was illegal? Why did he halt it for a period?

So tell me again, why do I want to go fish? I apologize in advance for being inflamatory in my next comment.

Maybe the reason I can't get motivated is that I don't have a pair of those x-ray glasses that Dan Schorr wears, which allow him to see the skeleton of Nixon, Haldeman and Erlichman in every conservative political leader. It appears those glasses are all the rage now, and I have been going to the wrong party's optometrist.

BTW, I agree that the insult was out of line and appreciate your investigation of the facts.

This comment represents my similar inability to resist.

What do I hear?

That's metaphysically absurd! How can I know what you hear?

but I think you mean "epistemologically absurd"

Just get it over with and shoot me.

I empathize with your frustration, but sometimes there are answers in the law. If you ask five competent lawyers whether (and where) articles of organization must be filed in order to create a Delaware limited liability company, you'll get one answer.

This issue is a little more complicated, but still manageable. Lawyers do their best to make their craft seem ethereal and impossibly complex, but most of the time it's not.

I think you'd surprise yourself if you took the time to research this issue. You might not come to a conclusion that you're 100% confident in, but I'd wager that you could get to 90% pretty quickly, which is worthwhile for someone who thinks and writes about the issue.  

By the way, the Congressional Research Service (branch of the Library of Congress) has written a 90 page summary of this issue which pretty much deals with it fully: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf

aren't worth the electrons to send them. The most important words could possibly be the title as that is the only thing that will get read.

Your other option is to lie and give a false address in PA.

There's a priceless moment on the Firesign Theatre's third album when an authority figure (a prosecutor who is somehow also an auctioneer) bellows, "What do I hear?" and a stoned voice from the back of the room responds, "That's metaphysically absurd, man. How can I know what you hear?" Insider Audio

Oh I laughed when I read it, but I just couldn't resist the chance to keep our absurd repartee going. But flaggin me for flaggin a quote seems a good way to end it. I am shot down and happily RIP.

Bush has an argument that the warrantless surveillance at issue is legal. There is an "emergency situations" provision in FISA section 1805(f) that may give him shelter. That provision's procedural requirements make it unlikely that the administration has complied with it fully with respect to all of the surveillance orders, but it's definitely possible. There are other, less convincing arguments as well.

But I don't share your trust in the executive branch to base its actions on a legitimate reading of applicable law. Lyndon Johnson had plenty of lawyers to defend his unlawful stealing of votes from Coke Stevenson. Herbert Brownell wrote a famous memo in 1954 to J. Edgar Hoover that justified what were uncontroversially unlawful warrantless entries. And, of course, there was Nixon.

Have you no shame, you CO2 emitter? Fortunately, except for the ELF crowd, lots of "dangerous" people are pacifists. We are also lucky to have some people on our side who are dangerous, but not pacifists.

Following your post, there are many good reasons to have a Dem G/F, but none to marry one.

Way cool. That pdf is 90 pages of what I imagine will be some very exciting legalese. I saved a copy on my hard drive, which is where I put all the important 90-page documents that I need to read.

This blogging sure is hard work.

But he did anyway.  And he used it to imprison political enemies in the North to be sure that no one would be elected that could hurt his war effort.  

As for what Bush did in this case, he authorized the NSA to monitor phone calls to foreign lands.  Seeing as how I can't even leave an airport after an international flight without a customs strip search even being an American citizen with the right of free travel, I can't see how you can argue it's unconstitutional to monitor international telecommunications.  

As for Habeus Corpus,  a valid point, however it's been held by the SCOTUS for centuries that the President has the authority to hold enemy combatants, even American ones, as part of war.  Americans who were captured fighting for the Axis weren't arrested and sent home for a prison sentence, they served in the POW camps with their fellow soldiers.

after he has told you about his 3 partners, who also get the same option?

Look, extreme rendition is an important part of our anti-terror policy. And there's no way we can be sure who to apply rendition to if we can't listen to what they're saying. Would the lefties rather that we grab innocent people and fly them off to Egypt to be questioned?

Seeing as how I can't even leave an airport after an international flight without a customs strip search

Makes me wonder why the ACLU hasn't sued against this. Sure we strip search 90 year old grandmothers and swab babies for explosive residue in order to avoid racial profiling. But isn't it a fact that we are searching everyone 'illegally without cause' a grave concern? And what about looking at our bags with x-ray machines or worse a personal inspection! Where are our Privacy Rights? And showing ID at the ticket counter and the security line... it's as bad an idea as showing ID at a voter polling station!

enough Jack Bowers' to go around;-)

g'nite all

Coincidence? Probably... not. Does it leave several doors ajar... maybe! :)

Going to miss you all for a while but the grandkids have it over on all of us.

Merry Christmas,

Steve

co·in·ci·dence

n.

   1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.

   2. A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.

This has been powder kept dry for the day that they wanted to sink the Patriot Act. I'm on the opposite front with this guy and his book. I think he is getting hosed.

They have had this info for a year... and I'm sure this guys book as been ready for print for quite a while... he's just been told he has to wait until they give him the go ahead. Now he is hosed, his book isn't going to sell squat if the Patriot Act actually gets put to bed. Poor fool, had his book came out in September-October at the low point of Bush's poll numbers he could have cleaned up.

We'd be shocked if clients paid the first time the bill came due.

If you really believe that they are only spying on Muslims with ties to al-Queda, you are seriously deluded.  

Rove goes first.  He is, after all, leaker-in-chief.

that's what we have been doing: flying off innocent people to other countries who are guilty of nothing but having unfortunate names such as Mohammad.

Sure doesn't sound like it would've taken much or our enemies to get her to do their bidding.

Democrats claim that while the government has the right to apprehend and prosecute homicide bombers, it has no right to violate their civil rights in atempting to detect and prevent such bombings. This, of course, was the pre-Patriot Act law of the land. Democrats refer to such civil rights violations as "prior restraint" or censorship. Democrats can be relied upon to ensure that suspected homicide bombers will have the same legal protections as alleged burglars.

That he even cares about what the PA response is. He is following his usual MO. It has worked fine for him in the past and he has no reason to figure it won't continue. Besides he isn't up for election any time soon, and I am sure he can count on the GOP establishment helping him out in 2010.

Normally, at this point, were we interested in rehashing this argument for the 1,000th time, we'd ask for links, then we'd start debating the meaning of those links, then you'd toss some Known Facts™ at us, and we'd go round and round (Love will find a way/Just give it time!) for a comment thread thirty comments long.

But, we've had that discussion a billion times. No need to replay it again.

The world, as gunslingers say, has moved on. So should you. This is your first and only friendly hint.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. My bad.

Buh-bye.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and information you bring to the discussion and consider myself better off for it.

Me thinks we nailed down the major difference between us: what engages our distrust. While I share with you a measure of distrust for those who govern us, and my list would have included President Clinton, I do find something qualitatively different about the current case versus those you mentioned. (BTW, they trigger my distrust too). Namely, if his lawyers were incompetent, their advice wasn't motivated by protection of the President's self-interest. It was about protecting national interests  The Hoover case may seem more parallel, but I think that case troubles me mainly because of other things we now know about Hoover's character.

I'll freely admit that I have a strong gut feeling of trust for President Bush, and that motivates some of my analysis. Your gut may motivate you differently. But its not all or nothing. I have a pretty healthy distrust for government in general. Its just that neither this matter, nor the issues revolving around the patriot act engage it... yet.

The rumored content of the Barrett Report engages it though. I wonder if it engages yours. I don't like to think we are all just partisans...This analysis has me pondering that...But I am not ready to concede that yet, at least on my part. LOL

"that's what we have been doing: flying off innocent people to other countries"

Uh, got any proof?

And why is that you get so upset about extreme rendition yet you supported Saddam's police state in Iraq?  Do you really care about "privacy rights" or are you just looking for a cudgel to whack the president with?

The idiot is no longer with us.

You still have to meet a burden of proof before you can get a warrant. And that all takes valuable time. I for one don't want our intellgence agencies wasting time on the red tape. They aren't depriving anyone of their liberty, they are just listening in on suspect international calls. I am getting tired of the overreaction by the paranoid 1984 types on both the left and right.

I am much more concerned with how our secret documents end up in the NYT.

Sorry to see him go in a way -- I was just getting warmed up.

If you think they have the time or resources or desire to spy on all 7 billion people on the planet, it is you who are "seriously deluded".

And even if they want to listen to my calls, I am fine with that. I don't have too many conversations about the jihad and killing the infidels, so they probably wouldn't have much interest.

For me it would be 20 then renegotiate from billed hours down to worked hours. :-)

Another child left behind in syntax. Oh dear.

I suppose you take mice away from the cat, too.

"I am much more concerned with how our secret documents end up in the NYT."

Me too.  That's a hundred times more serious than the "outing" of "superspy" Valerie Plame.  And yet it won't get investigated.  Just like Duke Cunningham went to jail but Nancy Pelosi didn't.  Just like DeLay has been indicted but Clinton never was.  There's a big doubble standard.  If a Democrat does it, let it slide, but if a Republican does it, send the toughest prosecutor you can find after them.  I guess maybe it's just as well since if every Democratic crime was investigated, the FBI would really have their hands full.

and tell me what you think.  That post cites part of FISA which seems to authorize the President's decision.

Thanks for your posts.  Instructive.

One would like to think the Republican leaders in and out of politics would love to go after Pravda (NYT), and we have a strong Republican majority now and a Republican president.

So what will stop them?

Do they think it will backfire on them and lose them popularity?

Are they simply spineless?

Accidentally stuffing his pants full of secret documents to take home and destroy. He should have got 20 years in prison for that, but he just gets a slap on the wrist instead. Actually slap on the wrist would be greatly overstating the penalty.

This kind of stuff is handled by career employees. There seems to be no shortage of incompetent and sometimes partisan hacks in our most important government agencies (FBI, CIA, even DoD).

Consider this genius, for instance.

What was it Zell said?  "Sandy Berger stuffed some PDBs into his BVDs"  That cracked me up.  

Putter brought out the big hitters Nick and ConservativeMutant....nice steering.

if I ever saw one.

You forgot to remind us that BushLied™. The lack of Hitler comparisons is also disappointing. I've seen better.

That comment didn't last long. Hehe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=2

Under the agency's longstanding rules, the N.S.A. can target for interception phone calls or e-mail messages on foreign soil, even if the recipients of those communications are in the United States.

Usually, though, the government can only target phones and e-mail messages in the United States by first obtaining a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which holds its closed sessions at the Justice Department.

Traditionally, the F.B.I., not the N.S.A., seeks such warrants and conducts most domestic eavesdropping. Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so...

While perhaps it is easily missed because it is couched in some ambiquity, it still does seem to support the previous commnentor's assertion.

Also there is this, on pg. 5

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

Hmm... very difficult indeed.

Why do people who get so upset about secret police in the Soviet Union not look with concern upon the US government arresting US citizens on US soil and sending them to remote prisons for "interrogation" sans trial?

But perhaps some questions won't be answered.

Going to the topic of this thread, how does this leak endanger national security? It seems implausible to me that legitimate threats wouldn't be aware that they could be eavesdropped upon at any time... all that would be required is a warrant. I know people have been talking about how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to indict somebody; if you believe that, do you believe a warrant is even as hard to get?

Of course, the FISA act that everybody's quoting seems really straightforward to this non-lawyer: it specifically allows eavesdropping without a warrant. However,

"In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest."

So the claims that warrants take time to get don't really apply. They get up to 72 hours after deciding they need the wiretap to get the order approved, which can be done in parallel with the wiretap.

I also want to point people at this article on TPMCafe, written by someone who's dealt with the FISA court and getting it to approve warrants.

According to published comments by current and former Clinton officials.

The problem is that by FISA statute there's a lot of procedural stuff that MUST take place BEFORE a warrant is submitted to FISA. These are time-delay tentpoles that cannot be fixed by assigning more lawyers.

So yes, knowing that the information obtained by listening in to very specific people; those who had their numbers listed in seized Al Qaeda computers or who called known Al Qaeda contact numbers (or used IM same deal) the information had to be gathered THEN and authorization sought after the fact.

Given the reporting to FISA court AND senior Senate Intelligence Leaders this is a good faith effort to balance the need to save lives by finding out what attacks are planned on the US and obeying rigidly and Clinton like all fears of infringing civil liberties.

Or we can go back to Clinton's approach. You know, the one where two planes hit the WTC. One hit the Pentagon. Another Shank's Field in PA.

I'll bet there's 3,000 families that would gladly trade Khalid Sheik Mohammed's ability to IM without the NSA listening in for their loved ones back.

His dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld seems applicable here:

   The proposition that the Executive lacks indefinite wartime detention authority over citizens is consistent with the Founders' general mistrust of military power permanently at the Executive's disposal. In the Founders' view, the "blessings of liberty" were threatened by "those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain." The Federalist No. 45, p. 238 (J. Madison). No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution's authorization of standing armies in peacetime.

    Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress's authority "[t]o raise and support Armies" was hedged with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." U. S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II.

    As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King:

    "It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy: while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which, by the constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." The Federalist No. 69, p. 357.

    A view of the Constitution that gives the Executive authority to use military force rather than the force of law against citizens on American soil flies in the face of the mistrust that engendered these provisions.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&i
nvol=03-6696

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/bushs-unchecked-executive-power-
v.html

Once before a Judge, FISA grants warrants quickly.

The process BY LAW is strained that GETTING in front of a FISA judge is taking six months.

THAT is unacceptable; and not fixable by anything less than FISA Law changes. Because Zacarais Mousassoui was not a "foreign" agent even though he was part of the 9/11 plot the FBI could not get a warrant to look at his computer until AFTER 9/11.

Yes the current set of laws cost lives. About 3,000 of them. NOT being able to look at Mousassoui's computer under strict civil liberties rules cost us 9/11. But then Liberals always put RIGHTS before LIVES. Particularly if it's working men and women.

Does THIS seem reasonable to you?

§ 1804. Applications for court orders

(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents

Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include--

(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;

(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application;

(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;

(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that--

(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and

(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;

(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;

(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate--

(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;

(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;

(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and

(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that--

(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and

(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;

(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;

(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and

(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.

(b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets

Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the application need not contain the information required by paragraphs (6), (7)(E), (8), and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance techniques and communications or other information concerning United States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the proposed minimization procedures.

(c) Additional affidavits or certifications

The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.

(d) Additional information

The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the determinations required by section 1805 of this title.

(e) Personal review by Attorney General

(1)

(A) Upon written request of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the Director of Central Intelligence, the Attorney General shall personally review under subsection (a) of this section an application under that subsection for a target described in section 1801 (b)(2) of this title.

(B) Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a request referred to in subparagraph (A), an official referred to in that subparagraph may not delegate the authority to make a request referred to in that subparagraph.

(C) Each official referred to in subparagraph (A) with authority to make a request under that subparagraph shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such authority is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such request.

(2)

(A) If as a result of a request under paragraph (1) the Attorney General determines not to approve an application under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the application under this section, the Attorney General shall provide written notice of the determination to the official making the request for the review of the application under that paragraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to make a determination under the preceding sentence, the Attorney General may not delegate the responsibility to make a determination under that sentence. The Attorney General shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event the Attorney General is disabled or otherwise unavailable to make such determination.

(B) Notice with respect to an application under subparagraph (A) shall set forth the modifications, if any, of the application that are necessary in order for the Attorney General to approve the application under the second sentence of subsection (a) of this section for purposes of making the application under this section.

(C) Upon review of any modifications of an application set forth under subparagraph (B), the official notified of the modifications under this paragraph shall modify the application if such official determines that such modification is warranted. Such official shall supervise the making of any modification under this subparagraph. Except when disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of any modification under the preceding sentence, such official may not delegate the responsibility to supervise the making of any modification under that preceding sentence. Each such official shall take appropriate actions in advance to ensure that delegation of such responsibility is clearly established in the event such official is disabled or otherwise unavailable to supervise the making of such modification.     

Decide what is more important, following the letter of the law and losing lives, possibly thousands or tens of thousands, or saving lives in  a good faith effort to comply with the law as much as possible under executive authority?

I know what Side I'm on.

If they go through all the trouble of getting a warrant to tap Mohhamed's phone and he calls Bob to ask if he has the ammonium nitrate for tommorow night, it is totally unacceptable that they would have to spend another 6 months trying to get a FISA warrent to intercept Bob's communications.

In his comments that judges tell them to "come back" later. In my other posting above I included a link to the actual FISA law, what is required to obtain a FISA warrant either before or 72 hours after includes:

1. Identity of the Officer making the application for the warrant.
   
   
2. Authority of the Attorney General
   
   
3. Identity and description of the target of surveillance.
   
   
4. Statement of facts about the circumstances including:
   

A. Target is a foreign agent or power

B. Each of the facilities to be surveilled.

5. Minimization process for surveillance
   
   
6. Detailed description of the info sought and types of communications or activities to be surveilled.
   
   
7. Certification by National Security Advisor or Asst. that:
   

A. The Certifying official deems the information foreign intelligence info

B. The significant purpose of the surveillance is foreign intelligence

C. The information cannot be obtained any other way

D. Designates the type of foreign intelligence sough.

E. Including a statement for the basis of certification that

i. the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence designated

ii. the information cannot be reasonably obtained by other normal investigative techniques

8. a statement of means by which the survelliance will be achieved and if physical entry is required
   
   
9. A statement of facts concerning all previous attempts to obtain FISA warrants involving any persons, facilities, or places involved in this application
   
   
10. A statement of period of time for survelliance, and description of facts supporting a request not to automatically terminate survellaince after desired information is obtained.
    
    
11. Whenever more than one means of survelliance device or method is used, the coverage of each device and minimization procedures must be attached.

The AG and Judge may require additional info.

The AG must personally review each request and respond in writing to the applying officer.

I've left out some steps that apply to foreign powers. These are eleven major steps that must be documented up the wazoo. Note the statute is written to LIMIT the amount of information gathered. If Johnny Jihadi uses IM, Libraries, disposable cell phones, and couriers there's LOTS of extra work to document each means and if Johnny Jihad does something not anticipated the Feds can't listen in legally. Such as just drop a friends house and use his telephone.

The poster is frankly not very credible. Under Clinton all was about lawyering and nothing about anti-terrorism. The Millenium plot was foiled by a sharp-eyed border guard who spotted Ahmed Ressam (who after being arrested quickly lawyered up and told us very little) and the Jordanians on their end (by torturing the usual suspects).

FISA was WRITTEN to minimize any survelliance. It's for a civil liberties first, fighting terrorism second mindset (written in 1978 during Carter's term).

WHAT in the above process for getting a warrant makes you think the emphasis is on getting information to save lives instead of protecting civil liberties absolutes. Pick one. But don't cavil when terrorists blow the next skyscraper or stadium filled with people apart.

the time, effort, and inclination to listen to the communications

Computers are already capable of these things without complaint.  All they have to do is present a list of suspects as they arrive.

As to why the government would choose to do this--well, to make America safer and to catch terrorists, I'd think.  These are some of Bush's primary goals, he's said.

transcribe

Computers can already understand speech.  I have a telephone conversation with one every day when I plan my commute.  I say 10 more years until they can transcribe with 99.9% accuracy.

lot of cases translate

15 years, I'd guess until it's ready.  Troops in Iraq are already using a primitive real-time speech-to-speech translator at checkpoints.

And, of course, who is going to do this for the communications of the NSA employees? The NSA?

Any reason why not?  I'd be surprised if some level of this didn't go on already internally at the NSA.  And the number of people directly involved in the program would be a small percentage of the population--the rest could be monitored as normal citizens.

Why isn't the poster credible? Her biography makes her credentials clear (she did actually work in the Clinton whitehouse).

She says, "The 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that during the Millenium scare, that exception was  utilized to give the Attorney General the necessary wiggle-room to get the wiretap, then explain later" -- the 9/11 Commission Report (section 6, if you want to check, on page 7) talks specifically about how under FISA a large number of wiretaps were initiated very quickly.

Where is this 6 month figure from? What is its source's credibility?

As for whether the FISA is good law or bad law: what does it matter? Is the only thing stopping an Executive from ignoring Congress and ruling the country as he wishes ("for its safety, of course"), his good manners?

Her biography makes her credentials clear (she did actually work in the Clinton whitehouse).

You're not serious about credibility are you?

If we get to bring our rates back up to normal when you do.

plain balderdash

Unless you're saying that computer policemen are going to investigate this is meaningless.

I missed the part about the computer analysis of the traffic. Where does this fit in.

It also simply ignores the sheer volume of traffic. Right now the NSA's backlog for mere transcription runs close to a year.

I'm sure writing that post was fun but it shows you to be a very unserious person.

The process BY LAW is strained that GETTING in front of a FISA judge is taking six months.

You need to support that statement.

As for the legalisms (which you quote extensively):  They're not unusual or abnormal, and they are easy to satisfy.  Indeed, although I have no experience with FISA warrants, I have seen ordinary search warrants executed.  The forms are preprinted, the appearance before the judge takes thirty seconds (and needn't be in open court -- indeed, I've seen cops grab a judge in chambers to sign a warrant), and the warrant is almost always issued on the say-so of the officer.  

But perhaps you're not arguing any of that because you concede "Once before a Judge, FISA grants warrants quickly" -- despite the extensive material that you quote.  Which makes me wonder why you extensively quote that material.  Is it merely to obfuscate the issue?

The only relevant issue is whether it does indeed take six months to appear before a FISA judge, as you assert (without support).  My experience with ordinary warrants suggests to me that this number is dramatically incorrect.  But I'm willing to see any support that you may offer to back it up.

See my post above:  You need to provide concrete support for the six month figure, for your entire argument hangs on it.  Also:  Does it take six months in every case?  

Where is the support for this six month figure?  Unnamed (and uncited) Clinton-era officials?  Do you think that, even if such officials exist, that the same is true today, post 9-11?

To someone who has experience with ordinary search warrants (albeit not FISA warrants), you're making an extraordinary assertion -- particularly in the post-9/11 world.  Back it up.  

Many are down on Bush but I think many toher countries spy as well, they have just not been caught yet. Is Bush the only Head of State to sanction spying? I believe not, and most likely you feel the same way. The recent spy case in Ireland has the reported ex-head of a major political faction on the run and in hiding, fearing for his life. Russia's' government is stacked with former KGB officers, Israel has been accused of bugging embassies in America, now there is evidence Britain may have spied on the Irish political party Sinn Fein. Is spying a necessity in today's world?

Raymond B

www.voteswagon.com

The statistics for warrants before the FISA court are here: http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html.  Pay attention to footnote 6, which has some bearing on the "six months" claim.

Two of the 934 applications were filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in December 2000 and approved in January 2001. Also, two orders and two warrants were modified by the Court. No orders were entered which denied the requested authority.

Pre-9/11, this suggests a turnaround time of no more than a month (and likely much, much less than that) -- for all we know the two "December 2000" warrants that were approved in January were sought on December 31 and approved on January 1.  I doubt that the Presidential review process is any faster.

is simply too great a burden to meet in terrorism cases. I gave an example further up the thread. I don't think the facts add up to P.C., but you can't afford to move on without satisfying your curiosity. Congress will convene a committe and say you were "risk averse".

See ex parte Quirin, concerning the Nazi sabotuers.

are they listening in to everyone. NSA is far too busy keeping track of all the black helicopters and researching ways to penetrate those sexy tinfoil hats you guys wear.

can be used to 'trigger' on intercepts. That is they can 'listen' to various kinds of communications and when certain things are said of tranmitted the system can trigger a more complete intercept. This is certainly useful in quickly working through large amounts of mostly meaningless traffic.

But computers can't analyze the context and intent of the message, for that we need humans, and that takes time. There just isn't enough time in the universe to assess the meaning of the day-to-day communications of 290 million people.

That is too long. Even if its 24 hours that is too long. What are they missing while they are putting together their petition for a warrant?

by Mark Levin yesterday in National Review's "Corner":

But these leaks -- about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front companies, and now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and extremely detrimental to our national security. They are far worse than any aspect of the Plame matter. The question is whether our government is capable of tracking down these perpetrators and punishing them, or will we continue to allow the Times and Washington Post determine national security policy. And if these wiretaps are violative of our civil liberties, it's curious that the Times would wait a year to report about it. I cannot remember the last time, or first time, this newspaper reported a leak that was helpful to our war effort.

What makes you constrain it to today. The first spy was probably the second guy to climb down from the tree.

Despite the disdain shown by Secretary of State Stimson, gentlemen have been reading other gentlemen's mail since time immemorial.

Did I hear him right ON Fox News Sunday? paraphrase(the leakers should be prosecuted vigorously to the full extent of the law).

Harry looked largely helpless but I've got to salute him for that statement.

to suggest that the administration is eavesdropping on calls and emails from people who they do not suspect are involved with planning or funding terrorist acts?

So am I, so it seems is Harry Reid who called for the prosecution of the leaker.  "Whether it's legal or illegal as a matter of law-------I'm not qualified to answer".  That's it?  But then the six month question kind of fades, like it or not. Policy you don't have to like nor death and terrorism.  But life is choice.

"Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html

Yes, I am. Her credentials clear; she's got the background. What makes her credibility suspect to Jim Rockford?

von, apparently this comes from one of two posts by Mark Levin found at http://corner.nationalreview.com/

He seems to think that the redtape at the Justice Dept. subgroup that handles these things has frequently caused such delays. I am a legal system moron, so I don't know what to make of him. He also appears to be the source of the quote elsewhere in these here threads that Fisa permits warrantless seraches when one of the parties is foreign enemy.

Frankly, the idea of widespread NSA surveillance is a non-issue.  I couldn't care less if the government listens to my phone conversations.  I have nothing to hide.  All someone who listened to my phone conversations would learn is that I love America and hate terrorists.  

If people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear as far as surveillance goes.  It is only those anti-American elements -- "peace" activists and the rest of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party -- that are complaining about this.  Perhaps it is because they are afraid that the government will learn what they are really up to.  

But computers can't analyze the context and intent of the message, for that we need humans, and that takes time.

It's a shortcoming in the system, one that should be worked on.

There just isn't enough time in the universe to assess the meaning of the day-to-day communications of 290 million people.

Whittling that 290M number down to something approaching the actual number of human agents we can spare would be precisely the job of the computers.  They can't "comprehend" the message except on a very basic level, just like you said.

It all depends on defining the metric you're searching for.  In a very simplistic case, we might say the metric is "number of times this user mentions 'bomb' in emails each month."  (The tech for this is already available.)  The computer produces a list of the top 100 people who said 'bomb', and then 100 agents go have a chat with them.  290M agents are not needed.

The actual metric would be much more complex than that, of course.

Unless you're saying that computer policemen are going to investigate this is meaningless.  I missed the part about the computer analysis of the traffic. Where does this fit in.

It fits in, as you say, as the computer policeman.  The analysis would be done to identify and save "pertinent" information out of the sea of data, and also keep track of markers that might suggest someone is a risk.

It's really quite simple.  Let's say you have 100 available agents.  You ask the computer for the top 100 risks based on its analysis, and you send the agents to work on the actual data.

Right now the NSA's backlog for mere transcription runs close to a year.

Sounds like a problem.  I think computers could help a lot with this and we should be putting research into it if we want to fix the problem.  What's your proposal?

I'm sure writing that post was fun but it shows you to be a very unserious person.

I don't think it shows that at all, but I am more than willing to hear arguments to that effect (preferably more than "what balderdash".)

Google Maher Arar. You just might be surprised. Then again, maybe not.

And before I ask this, I have not read all 225 entries on this topic...:)

What would be the reason for NOT getting a warrant? Im not a legal eagle, so I am a little puzzled why the NSA didn't just get a warrant to avoid exactly this kind of situation....

Thanks for sending me off for more.  I'm having trouble with it.  Here's from Cato on this point:

Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal. That's what happened to the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin. But Hamdi has not been charged, much less tried...

 Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution distinguish between crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and terrorist acts. Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions, noting that Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war that authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military tribunal. Today, the situation is different. We've had virtually no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of tribunals, and no legislative suspension of habeas corpus.

 Yet those functions are assigned to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. It is Congress, not the executive branch, which has the power "To declare War" and "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Only Congress can suspend the "Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus ... when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Without either constitutional or statutory authority, the administration has decided that it will set the rules, prosecute infractions, determine guilt or innocence, then review the results of its own actions. That's too much unchecked power in the hands of the president. We cannot permit the executive branch to declare unilaterally that a U.S. citizen may be characterized as an enemy combatant, whisked away, detained indefinitely without charges, denied legal counsel, and prevented from arguing to a judge that he is innocent.  

My emphasis, full text here:

http://www.catoinstitute.com/dailys/08-30-02.html

that would be fine.  It's about dissention and you know, those extremist terrorist librarians that they are after.  And, of course, anyone who believes the constitution is anything more than "just a godda** piece of paper."

"Heads need to roll over all these recent security leaks, and I don't mean Bush's."

do you mean Bush's security leaks or Bush's heads?

Where are the secret librarian detention camps? I've been wearing my tinfoil hat lately so I guess I haven't been kept up to date by the mothership.

then you would have the New York times about their location, now wouldn't you?  I am not saying that the librarians are terrorists and are put away in the secret librarian terrorist camps ...all I'm saying is that they were refered to as terrorists by our guys - someone better suggest they quit saying ridiculous stuff like that before we all need to move to New Zealand where they pay psychiatrists a healthy wage!

what happens and precisely my point. We do not have the time and resources to listen to everyone so we filter it down to likely suspects and work them. There is no time to listen to Bill Jones chatting with is mistress -- unless of course they spend their time chatting about Sarin or C4.

I'd rather they didn't listen to me even in they are going to hear nothing but nonsense; they don't have the right to do that without a warrant.

But that is not what is going on here.

and all will be revealed ... :-)

My sense is that their legal reasoning is quite sound.  The only real problem here is with public relations: the left has screamed and their minions in the MSM are picking up on the "big brother" meme.  Like I said, I welcome "big brother" if it means that I'll be safer.  My life is an open book.  It is only those who are secretly plotting against us who should be worried about surveillance.  The rest of us should be happy it's going on.  

I realize that 1992 was along time ago, so things may have changed since I last dealt with the NSA. The NSA I remember would not violate the law, Presidential order or not. They would refuse, plain and simple. If it was a grey area, they would call in the lawyers before they did anything. I hope Bush comes to realize that the war on terror is simply not worth the headaches, at tells the American people that they are now "on their own."

Or we can go back to Clinton's approach. You know, the one where two planes hit the WTC. One hit the Pentagon. Another Shank's Field in PA.

To attribute that to Clinton is reprehensible.  He failed, but so did this Administration and -- if Hussein really was working with Al Qaeda -- Bush I.

Last time I checked, when Clinton did go after Al Qaeda, Republicans criticized the hell out of him.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I would include all post-1960 administrations,  except for maybe those of Ford and Carter (I am open to persuasion here).

The rise of the imperial presidency has not discriminated in its effects on Democrats and Republicans. Power corrupts, regardless. Indeed, in both its strengths and weaknesses this administration reminds me most of what I know about Lyndon Johnson's political career.

I give up.

How does this fit into the discussion?

and a father

I hope Bush comes to realize that the war on terror is simply not worth the headaches

I am certainly glad you are not the President! What do you mean the WOT is not worth the headaches? We are talking about the lives of your fellow citizens.

The NSA I remember would not violate the law, Presidential order or not

Yeah, right.

Section 1802 lists when a FISA court order is required - I don't have time right now to cut/paste/discuss, but I think if you read 1802 (and then the emergency section, which is either 1805 or 1807 - don't recall off the top of my head) you'll have a good idea of how the FISA structure works with respect to the necessity of court orders.

Of course you should keep in mind that Bush has an argument that certain powers are justified constitutionally regardless of what FISA says (similar to what John Yoo argued in his well-known memo). Support for that argument is pretty limited, though, in my opinion.  

Sorry to bail, I may have more time later (I have to go do work for paying clients now :-) )

that we are in agreement. If  you read my other comments you will see that I agree they are on good footing here.

I'd prefer that they not listen to my conversations, and certainly wholly domestically, they do not have the right without a warrant. I'm not doing anything that should draw attention either so I'm not concerned but I'd just as soon they not listen anyway.

But we aren't talking about wholly domestically, these are international communications; we are talking about people who are identified as associated in some way with captured/killed terrorists or terrorism facilitators; IANAL so I'm not sure that when FISA was written they had considered stateless actors and I think that colors the consideration.

As far as I'm concerned the NSA is not doing anything I would not approve.

The "headaches" line was sarcasm (perhaps too dry?)". Of course the WOT is important. I get frustrated watching Bush get bashed while trying to protect a nation of ungrateful and fickle people. Either he did too little, or he does too much, depending on which tack the opposition is using today. I watched the 9-11 hearings in shock and disgust, while Bush got crucified for NOT doing before 9-11 that which he is crucified FOR doing after 9-11. Yes, it's a good thing I'm not the President, because I don't have George Bush's patience.

I've put only ten or fifteen minutes into researching this, but here's what seems to be relevant.

50 USC 1205(f)

[The Attorney General] may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

(There is further text, but it did not appear relevant.)

Her credibility is suspect  because she ignores the real problem with FISA.

GETTING to FISA requires herculean efforts. Pretty much EVERY FISA warrant is approved, that's not the point. The point is that there is so much delay and documentation to get before a FISA judge as a matter of statute that it's not credible for more than one "emergency" involving at the most one or two targets.

Read the whole process; there's the requirement for certification by the National Security Advisor which involves I'm just guessing about 7 -10 legal staffers before the Advisor can certify; then there's the personal review by the AG (again about 7-10 staffers involved before the AG signs it) and all the minimization efforts to protect the privacy of people who will be talking to the target.

Also, the requirement is for extreme and exact specificity regarding each "facility" ie telephone, computer, cell phone etc to be targetted along with place and person. If Joe Jihadi under surveillance walks into an internet cafe and starts IM'ing to bin LAden in Pakistan, NSA cannot surveill said IM exchange if it was not already in the warrant; as a practical matter doing it anyway and then going back 72 hours later is practical only for say ONE target.

Because of the literally MOUNTAIN of paperwork required. You're talking about 2 inches of binder material; all in legal format. Try that one on for size.

Clinton was neither stupid nor a fool. Under his watch there was the 1993 WTC attack by foreign terrorists; the failed "Blind Sheik" plot to blow up bridges and tunnels in NYC; the 1996 Khobar Towers attack; the 1998 Embassy Attacks; the 2000 Cole attack; and the failed 2000 LA Millenium bombing attack. FISA warrants during Clinton's 8 years amount to about 8-10; something like that.

Why? Because the process is designed to be so onerous and limiting that just getting to a FISA judge to apply for the warrant by statute requires mountains of paperwork.

Allowing something by drowning it in documentation is a favorite legal trick; it's not allowing it all. The poster is disengenous because he/she knows this; and ignores the central issue of FISA:

By making the process of getting to the Judge so onerous and time consuming it pretty much limits it to heroic one-off efforts centered on one or two individuals.

The idea that hundreds of numbers contained in laptops, cell phones, and other materials seized from Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other nations could be run through this FISA process is laughable.

Choose which one you want: a rigid codified process of legalism designed to protect privacy at all costs; or saving lives by getting information about plots to kill Americans.

By my view the President (of whom I'm no fan of in many domestic areas) did the right thing and made the right call. By all means let's have a debate on "spying on terrorists."

But hey if you think the above eleven steps are a mere formality then you have no idea about how the system works.

Thanks for retrieving the cite, much appreciated.

The pdf I linked to above seems to be helpful in evaluating the context of these provisions. also appears to come from a reasonably disinterested source (Library of Congress) which is nice, given the politically charged nature of this stuff.

Appreciate you openness there but I don't think I can tag along with you on the LBJ analogue, because I don't have a pair of the afrorementioned glasses. If you ever decide to make that case in a diary, I'll check it out, but only if it survives scrutiny. From what I have seen of those arguments, the assumption shows up again as the conclusion. Divide by 0 exception.

I'd be much more interested in your understanding of the NYT quotes at #197 and following the FISA dialogue. (I am going over to Sunday Morning shows as I think it may continue there).

sorry I missed it as sarcasm. I guess like you I am just fed up with the sniping at every turn. If the President didn't do something he's remiss, if he does something he's a cowboy.

what kind of law do you practice?  (Don't feel obliged to answer.)

Even assuming the secret police running amok through Bush's fascist state had the time and inclination, what makes you think anything in your calls is interesting enough to bother listening to?

I remember a leftist housemate one summer in college who was sure that her school funded feminist organization's meetings were bugged by the FBI or its ilk, despite not having any evidence of that. I was just trying to put her mind at ease when I pointed out that even if the govt was bugging political opponents, the information to be acquired bugging her group wouldn't be worth their time.  Instead I unintentionally hurt her feelings, like I was personally belittling her. I think actually finding a bug would have been a great boost for her self-esteem.

Some things about leftists never change...

Thanks for that link to the kossacks working themselves into a frenzy over this. In principle I still believe it was wrong for this secret to leak out, and criminal investigation hopefully resulting in jail for the leaker(s) is in order; but just the pleasure of seeing the loonies' derangement escalate even further makes almost glad it leaked.

is the Left's condescension.

How righteous they are!  And how evil Bush is!  And above all, how stupid the American people are for not seeing things the same way!

Oh how the Left suffers!  Oh oh oh!

Like the weeping Cassandra being led away into obscure slavery by her cold-hearted conquerors.

Is that what the Dems are hoping will happen is that they will use this to get more seats in 06, and then in 08 get the White House and the Congress again.  Then...if there is another attack, they will lay the blame at President Bush's feet saying that either A.  He could have done more to prevent this (not mentioning that they blocked him doing so), and/or B. It was President Bush's policies that inflammed the islamofacists against the US and if he had only made kissy face with them instead none of this would have happened.  Take your pick.

I said leaving, as in I've already made the flight and am currently going through customs to walk out of the airport.  Are you worried that we have pollock terrorists?  Going to wear a suicide belt all the way to the US, get in their rental car and then detonate?