Any Democrat who rolls over on this mess deserves to get shunned and smacked down for following the advice of those “Democratic consultants” who have overseen the party’s slide into oblivion.
How Gonzales Plans to Defend Eavesdropping
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to use a Congressional hearing on Monday to lash out at “misinformed, confused” news accounts about President George W. Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program, and to declare it “is not a dragnet,” according to administration documents provided to TIME. “I cannot and will not address operational aspects of the program or other purported activities described in press reports,” he plans to say in testimony prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee. “These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong.”
NSA Eavesdropping Scrutinizes Thousands of Americans, Later Cleared, in Hunt for Terrorists
Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.
Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as “terrorist surveillance” and summed it up by declaring that “if you’re talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why.” But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.
The question here is simple: do we have the courage to not do exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to do - violate our laws and spy on our fellow citizens - and do we have the balls to stand up and ask if we have an elected president or some sort of monarch?
Well, do you, America? Do you have the balls?
Month 61 of the Republican war on facts… heavy casualties… send for help…
Related
Obama: The Game?
4,000 Die In Iraq For Bush’s Lie
Please Make Video Games Easier
I don’t think terrorists have as their goal pushing a nation to a far - right interpretation of the right to search and seizure.
The issue here is not fear, or lack of it. It has to do with with power. We have the power to do certain things in our own defense, and we should do them.
But, what would constitute “balls” in your mind? What would we have to do or not do, to indicate that we are not afraid of terrorists?
How clueless are liberals? The backlashliberal post Oliver links to finishes with a quote from Roosevelt:
This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933
On february 19, 1942 Roosevelt issued Excecutive Order 9066. It allowed military commanders to round up tens of thousands of American Citizens and put them in internement camps . The highest ranking government official to oppose the internment was J. Edgar Hoover, a Republican
“Month 61 of the Republican war on facts” indeed.
Yeah, well some would like to say those who want to get out of Iraq
are against the WOT. Some of these same folk say if you are opposed
to the way wiretaps are being conducted, you must want all wiretapping
ceased.
It’s not about eithor/or. It’s about credibility and legitimacy.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
We just don’t trust that this President and his pals have enough
respect for civil rights to take care not to trample on the many
to get to a few. Pretty simple really. Credibility/legitimacy.
Uhh, you are mixing things up. No violation of laws has been proven at all. And I doubt adult Democrats are going to accept your premise that the NSA not conduct surveillance to reduce the threat of terrorism. It is career military and civilian professionals screening NSA intercepts according to certain pre-established criteria. You would have us throw away that weapon in the war on terror? But by all means I think the Democrats should err on the side of helping the terrorists. President Rice has a nice ring. So does Presdient Guilliani.
Dugger, You guys don’t get it. How about helping in the WOT instead of fighting those fighting it.
For those who haven’t seen the Huffington Post - Al Queda Caller ID
Too classic. The fearful sycophants of power, Frank and Dugger, have spoken. In Frank’s book, not only does power corrupt, it has the responsibility and the right to corrupt absolutely. Dugger, naturally, misses the point entirely in blind fealty to the administration: The question is not whether the law was broken, the question is whether or not the President has the authority to violate the law. The administration has already admitted that it violated the FISA statute, it’s argument is that the AUMF gave the President the authority to do just that. Rather than actually debate the Constitutionality of what the President did and just how much power we want to give to the executive in this country, Dugger comes back with the Bullshit Defense: Even questioning this program is to hurt the war on terror and threaten the survival of the country.
Oh well, so much for democracy and a free society all because Frank and Dugger crap their pants at the thought of al qaeda.
In conclusion, let me pose a hypothetical to test the limits of your fealty to King George. Let’s say that in 2008 Bush decides that the winner of the presidential election, because of his or her stated approach in the campaign, would not be tough enough in fighting the war on terror and that, in the interest of national security, the elecetion had to be overturned. He argues that the AUMF and Article II give him this power because we are a nation at war. Are guys on board? I know this is a wildly exagerated scenario but I’m interested in knowing what the limits of right wing bootlicking is. Really, guys, how far are you willing to take this?
I cannot and will not address operational aspects of the program or other purported activities described in press reports, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales plans to say in testimony prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee. These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong.
The citizenry is misinformed; and the government WON’T inform us.
For once, I am forced to concur with the AG… but I shall expound further: These blog-thread-comments are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confused, or wrong.
So, the lefties jibber, the righties jabber. The liberals mumbo, the conservatives jumbo. The democrats hem, the republicans haw.
I don’t want ANY government perusing through my stuff… but if they do, could they at least do some chores? Clean the cat-box? Jeebo-Kriminey.
“I doubt adult Democrats are going to accept your premise that the NSA not conduct surveillance to reduce the threat of terrorism. It is career military and civilian professionals screening NSA intercepts according to certain pre-established criteria. You would have us throw away that weapon in the war on terror?”
To be more specific, I can’t think of a more obvious and purposeful distortion of the issues at work than this ludicrious assertion. Throw what out Dugger? No one is saying that the government can’t eavesdrop on US citizens — only that the government has to get a warrant first. One of the criteria these learned professionals used to have to satisfy was “probable cause” to avoid situations like the one we apparently have now according to the Washington Post story.
If you want to discuss this issue, Dugger, you should first get your facts straight and second stop behaving like such a bootlicking partisan hack.
What I don’t get is why Frank and Dugger sit around here and bitch. Don’t they know they’re winning the war against us? We’re led by the ultimate wussies, the DLC. Were I a Bushie, I’d just ignore most of the Democrats, though I’d keep trying to marginalize Howard Dean, since he’s actually interested in fighting and effective when another Democratic higher-up bothers to help out. I’d instruct my followers to do the same, and use them to be prepared for policy fights, like axing Social Security.
AG Gonzalez-that means Gonzalez and not his roadie Ian-
At the hearings next week, how are you going to respond to the
statement you made at your confirmation hearings; “That’s a
hypothetical” when you were asked directly about domestic
spying on Americans?
Did you have somthing to hide?
Jeebus, is Ian a cretin or what?
Obviously, he’s never heard of the Fourth Amendment.
Oliver — that means Oliver, not one of his minions — what do you personally have against the terrorist surveillance program? Most of the time you do give explanations of why you are against the administration’s policies, however we have yet to see what you think is wrong with this. Do you have something to hide, you a terrorist or something?
“Oliver that means Oliver, not one of his minions what do you personally have against the terrorist surveillance program?”
Again, classic. Ian has even gone so far as to adopt the administration’s misleading phraseology he’s such a fearful suck up to power. Why do I say misleading? Maybe because the so-called “terrorist surveillance program” doesn’t appear to be surveilling terrorists at all, as per the WaPo article which elaborates on the few paragraphs Oliver cited above:
“Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the nation’s second-ranking intelligence officer, acknowledged in a news briefing last month that eavesdroppers “have to go down some blind alleys to find the tips that pay off.” Other officials, nearly all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss the program, said the prevalence of false leads is especially pronounced when U.S. citizens or residents are surveilled. No intelligence agency, they said, believes that “terrorist . . . operatives inside our country,” as Bush described the surveillance targets, number anywhere near the thousands who have been subject to eavesdropping.”
Of course Ian didn’t read the article because it put “terrorist surveillance program” in quotes, a sure sign of the writers liberal bias in his congealed brain. But how else is an editor supposed to handle a “terrorist surveillance program” that doesn’t surveil terrorists?
Ian, Dugger et al –
Maybe one of you guys would like the suggest a LIMIT to presidential power during war time. Where’s the line, in other words. Or is there no line in your minds that the President can’t cross? Of course we already know that Frank would set himself on fire if Bush asked him to be a beacon of freedom, but what about the rest of you bootlickers?
Ian: I suspect your special ‘friend’, Ken Mehlman is a terrorist.
Don’t you think we should access all of Ken’s communictaions–including phone records, emails, letters, medical records, etc. —who knows what we might find in Ken’s ‘closet?’
Or does Ken have something to hide?
There’s nothing wrong with intercepting the phone calls of alleged Al Qaeda sympathizers - but it’s very simple if they’re U.S. citizens - get a warrant. There’s no reason the administration can give for why it simply didn’t get a warrant (besides them not wanting anyone outside of the circle of sycophants to know who’s calls were being listened to). They could even get a warrant after the spying was done. Why couldn’t they just get a warrant?
“Because he’s the president” is not a valid or legal answer.
“This isn t spying on Democrats but while we re on the subject, it would probably be safe to do so or real Americans.”
While you’re at it, please clarify why you think it’s okay to spy on Democrats and what you define as a “real American.”
Oliver, when have I ever said “because he’s the President”? When you liberal get this through your thick heads … FISA is not only out dated, but doesn’t work with this situation. This isn’t domestic - to - domestic spying, this is spying on Muhammed from Saudia Arabia to Hubjed in Florida. This isn’t spying on Democrats — but while we’re on the subject, it would probably be safe to do so — or real Americans.
If Clenis did this, I swear the left wouldn’t care — oh wait he did, Eschelon.
“FISA is not only out dated, but doesn t work with this situation.”
Please explain, in your own words Ian, why FISA is out of date and why the administration couldn’t go to Congress to change the law. Keep in mind that they did go to Congress to have the 72 hour window added through the Patriot Act. Okay. Explain away …
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/
Clinton used Echelon only with FISA authorization. Have some more Kool-Aid, little boy.
BTW, little boy, I see you have a link on your “blog” to Place a Bet on Iraq, where sheeple can buy 25,000 Iraqi Dinars for $45. But as any currency converter could tell you, 25,000 Iraqi Dinars are only worth $17.
Why do you take a sponsorship that would rip off your fellow wingnuts? Do you see them just as rubes to fleece?
If FISA is outdated… change the law. But you don’t get to disregard the law simply because you’re the president. It’s not that hard to get, even for you Ian.
I also love how you just showed yourself to be another of those wingers who hate the a-rabs.
“am I retarded or something?”
That’s the most honest thing you’ve ever written. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
Okay, fine change the law, it still wouldn’t matter as Bush doesn’t need to use FISA, not because he’s the President, because it is only used for domestic spying. Now if Bush okayed monitoring a phone call from Florida to Hubjeb in California, that would be different as both lines are in the US. Why do you hate America so much?
Oliver, what is this all about “hard to get” … am I retarded or something?
I don’t hate “A-rabs”, I just hate terrorists. Oh I forgot who I’m talking about here, the race baiter of all race baiters.
How do ya’ll feel about assasinations?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11180519/site/newsweek/
Thanks for the link, Leo. I think this only puts more pressure on the wingnuts here to suggest a limit to presidential power during war time. Or do they think that there is no limit at all?
What, is the Media Matters office not open so you can’t give me a valid answer?
Bashing me? It’s because I’m white, isn’t it?
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES
frameone continues to play the “All you conservatives are scaredy cats” card, yet he has yet to name what it is we’re afraid of.
Are you saying you would rather let Achmed make all his phone calls to Abdul unencumbered, then run the risk that someone’s> Fourth Amendment rights might be violated.
So, I ask you, frameone, what are you afraid of? That we’ll all be wearing brown shirts soon, and shipping Arabs off to the desert in Utah? Now who’s a “scaredy cat”?
Cut the crap, and get real. This is all about opposition to the war in Iraq. If this were Clinton and Kosovo, you wouldn’t care what he did.
We’ve had this discussion about a dozen times, and a dozen times you insist I’m afraid, frameone, and I reply that I am not.
Either I am lying about being afraid, or I am not. So, why would I lie on an anonymous forum? In fact, why disagree with you on an anonymous forum? You’re just being juvenile, playing the “scaredy cat” card over and over, because you really can’t argue for the petty little imposition you think would make you feel better.
It’s your unwarranted fear of the Bush administration that has you all in a tizzy over this.
Meanwhile, who are the people who have brought us more and more government intervention over the years? The liberals.
Who has invaded our privacy and personal lives over the years? The liberals.
I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of — that the powers you unreasonably might one day be in the hands of liberals.
Any lefty out here…..
How do you get a warrant for a person that you don’t know the name of? If a SEAL team gets a US number off a laptop in Afghanistan, how long do you wait?
The President believes that what he has authorized is legal, that is why he announced that he did it a day after the article.
If the FISA courts are (A) So easy to obtain warrants from and (B) so easy to get warrants approved after the fact…WHY would the administration even bother to bring all this grief upon itself?
It doesn’t pass the common sense test…..
Legal issues are decided by the courts, not by blogger-thread commentors, nor by the president, nor by the president’s executive branch.
…the courts.
Oh, and drpedro, please refrain from name-calling (although I often fail that admonition myself).
Not true….how do you know the registered owner is the person you are listening to?
but clearly you are deeply afflicted by the Bush Hatred Syndrome, which will make rational conversation difficult, if not impossible. If you truly believe that the POTUS flaunted the law, just because he could flaunt it…you aren’t rational.
What name calling Mucker? Lefty?
Surely you jest….
drpedro, if you ever listen to the Sean Hannity show, you would know that liberals hate being called what they are, liberals. It’s like it’s a dirty word or something, oh wait …
pedro,
You answered your own question. Why would the Administration circumvent FISA? Because it believes in expanding the Executive beyond the powers of the Constitution, as a matter of principle. Because it is arrogant and contemptuous of the Constitution to the core. I suspect America will discover that the next few days as REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC Senators flail Gonzalez. Frankly, I’m just happy Congressional Republicans are starting to take their oversight responsibilities seriously for once. Lord knows that if a Democrat were doing this he’d already be impeached - and he probably should be.
Your Navy SEAL example is not problematic at all. If they get a US number in Afghanistan they can instantly find out who the number belongs to. It’s called the “Reverse White Pages” and you can do it yourself without fancy NSA technology. Once you have the name you get a FISA wiretap. All of that can be done within minutes.
“yet he has yet to name what it is we re afraid of.”
Apparently, everything.
yet he has yet to name what it is we re afraid of.
More specifically, the entire modern world.
No, pedro, I didn’t say Bush flaunted the law simply because he could. I said he flaunted the law because he felt that the Constitution provided him virtually unchecked power when it comes to the War on Terror. And the problem here should be obvious for conservatives. What happens to you when a dirty liberal like President Hillary Clinton decides that militia organizations are the gravest national security threat, and decides to wiretap all gun owners without court approval? Surely American militiamen like Timothy McVeigh, who orchestrated the second-deadliest terrorist in US history after 9/11, know how to use the latest forms of technology. And who really knows what goes on in those militia meetings in northern Idaho? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The current NSA argument deals with the court-accepted Article II responsibilities which gives the president the warrantless authority to deal with foreign matters (including court-accepted examples of warrantless searches of American citizens involved with foreign agents). Your example is entirely domestic and therefore baseless and irrelevent.
It seems to me you can make a reasonable argument against (and for ) unwarranted wiretaps based on surveillance data. It dioes not at all seem reasonable to stop the NSA surveillance programs unless you think there is not a viable terorist threat. My understanding of the wiretaps is that time and security constraints do not permit a poitn by point adherence to regualr peace time warranty procedures. That is not Bush saying that but career intelligence professionals.
Especially laughable though is the argument that this is some kind of power grab by an ‘arrogant and contemtuous” Evil Frat Boy. Give it a break. He’s trying to fight the WOT and doing it the way he thinks best. You can’t read his mind and have no idea of this thoughts and motivations. Lets hear liberals say specificaly what they would do to fight the WOT. What weapon would you give up that Bush is using. Would you lose leads on a potential terroist attack because you have to stop and get a wiretap authorization? So easy to whine and carp from the sidelines, so much more dificult to actually govern.
Dugger
Would you lose leads on a potential terroist attack because you have to stop and get a wiretap authorization?
Actually, you WILL lose leads precisely because you don’t follow the law.
If you don’t think Dick Cheney has in mind the expansion of Executive authority then you are obtuse. This isn’t paranoid mind-reading. Cheney has said on numerous occasions that the government “gave up” too much power after the Nixon years and that the Executive should get it back. Have you ever read what former White House legal adviser John Yoo has to say about Executive authority? Did you ever wonder why Bush included “signing statements” that rendered null and void a Congressional act banning torture? I just wish all the so-called strict constructionist conservatives would read the damn Constitution for once. Take a good look at the authority granted to Congress on national security matters, and compare it to the authority of the Executive. Here’s a clue: Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” I think FISA counts as “making rules for the government” of the military and, by extension, the NSA, no?
I don’t doubt that Bush is trying to fight the WOT. I don’t think he’s wiretapping political enemies, for example. But I don’t believe the ends justify the means. If you think FISA is outdated then ask Congress to update the law. Just don’t come up with some bogus “Constitutional” argument about Presidential authority to circumvent FISA just because you find it inconvenient.
And think of the future implications of Bush’s argument. Nixon justified all of his wiretapping on the basis of national security. Even if you trust Bush’s intentions 100%, do you trust every future President to use this authority properly. Thus the Hillary example (and why should it matter if it’s domestic or foreign as long as she cites her so-called Commander-in-Chief authority to stem a domestic insurrection? The point is that with this precedent she is literally judge and jury) We have checks and balances for a reason because we are a nation of laws, not men.
elrod throws up a straw man about gun nuts in idaho.
We are talking about tapping foreign terrorists in foreign lands who are calling associates in the US.
But I repeat my question, why, even if he thought the constitution provided adequate authority, would Bush bypass FISA if it were such an easy slam dunk?
Doesn’t pass the common sense test.
The problem elrod, is that you haven’t read the fisa law.
FISA is effective only if you are deliberatley trying to listen to an american citizen. If you hear an american citizen while listening to a foreign suspect, thats fine, you don’t need FISA permission.
There are lots of laws protecting the rights of american citizens here….it is silly to start imagining people breaking those laws in the future, based on the fact that Bush believes this law gives him permission to listen to overseas terrorists.
Elrod, My understanding is that NSA has surveillance criteria that could lead to a ‘requirement ‘ for specific monitoring. This might be part of an ongoing conversation. The monitoring ‘requirement’ is established by career intelligence professionals. But since this is almost real time, it may well be that the monitoring will have to be virtually immediate to do any good. Lets not pretend. Either we are fighting a war or we are not. Either we take strong steps to fight that war, as Presidents have done historically on BOTH sides of the political fence - or you don’t. You are right that there may be questions of ovrestepping - but why treat that potential as a partisan political issue - as a crime.
I just don’t get it. Is it only the American people and the Republicans fighting the WOT? Are leftists too pure or too secure in their little ivory towers to join the nation in the struggle. Do we fight with one hand behind our backs? I hear nothing from the left but what we cannot do in the WOT. Quit bitchin’ and tell us YOUR plan - if you don’t like Bush’s.
Dugger, Lead, Follow or get the Hell Out of the Way
Dugger;
I have said many times how consistent you are in your positions. I have
been under the impression that you are distrustful of bureaucracies.
Have I been incorrect that you are distrustful of ANY bureacracy. Is it
only left-leaning bureacracies that you give the ‘fish-eye’ to?
What is it about this Administration’s bureaucracy that you have to give
it a pass on your usual skepticism?
We feel there has been a consistent disrespect for individual rights by
the people who are currently in power. Why should we trust blindly
in the good intentions of right wingers, when you are loathe to grant
us on the left even the right to question their behavior?
No. This clause (Article I Section
has been understood by the courts to mean that Congress has the responsibility to create and organize the armed forces (i.e. they regulate the judicial codes and employment policies). The courts have uniformly and consistently ruled that the president has the sole responsibility in directing how military assests are used in foreign affairs. (Congress also controls the money allocated to the military which can limit the use of the military.)
it gives Congress the right to establish and organize the armed forces; but the actual deployment and use of the armed forces so established, especially in time of war, is exclusively within the powers of the executive branch. Thus, viewing the NSA as a military asset and its surveillance programs as part of the conduct of a war by the chief executive, Congress could regulate, for example, employment policies of the NSA, but could not dictate to the President how he uses the operational capabilities of the NSA to further military goals.
Why would anyone be concerned about granting the executive unlimited powers for the duration of a war that has no end? Once again, could any of you wingnuts suggest a single limit to presidential power during the war on terror or can the president now do anything he wants at any time in total secrecy without oversight? Is that the America you want to live in for the next decade or two or in perpetuity?
if you ever listen to the Sean Hannity show
God, say no more. Please. No more.
Can any of you righties please just simply explain why Bush couldn’t have gotten a warrant? It’s a simple thing, really. He could get a warrant after the spying had occured. So why didn’t they?
It’s really quite simple. Come on, one of you give me a decent answer why.
Article II limits the presidential powers being debated to foreign affairs. The courts have always ruled in support of the president having the constitutional power to search Americans without a warrant when dealing with foreign affairs. By using the term “unlimited” you are distorting the argument.
Hmm, when I was a kid… I always felt lonely and afraid when my parents would argue.
Now that I’m an adult… I always feel lonely and afraid when my government argues with itself: this shouting match between the intelligence gathering departments and the executive branch has really set me on edge.
And, drpedro…, when you type “leftys” I DO feel like you’re just name-calling.
And ian, you’re trying to mind-read again. I don’t think “liberal” or “lefty” is a bad word… but the reflexive use of it shows a lazy-thinking habit.
“government bureaucracy single-handedly becomes dedicated to expanding its size and power. ”
No argument. The consolidation of power is self-preserving, and growth is
the best defense against loss of ground by being active at gaining ground.
“I note that the people doing the intercepts are career intelligence people.”
There is no doubt there are people who have integrity and feel a deep need to serve the common good. There are also those who think of ‘me’
and ‘my career’ first (see above comment) There are good and bad in
government, both civilian and military. They are not all warriors with
the instinct of self-sacrifice found in the heroic acts that are selfless. How are those who think in the former vein influenced by superiors who
have an agenda and share their insights in a suggestive way? They cannot
all be pure as driven snow; can they?
“note that there are rulesas to that surveillance.”
Therein lay the debate. Are the rules to be observed when convenient?
Who is interpreting the rules as they conform to 4th amendment and
FISA? Can we trust those who need to be exemplary in the example they
set? That is the question. I am not ready to trust those who have
shown little regard for individual rights over the rights of LARGE,
MONEYED bureaucracies just because they tell us to trust them. Trust
is not given. IT IS EARNED
Are there any other kind?
Semant,
I am not particularly distrustful of the honesty or morality of bureaucracies but of their efficiency and effectiveness. Not for one second do I think a Republican bureaucracy is ‘better’ than a Dem bureaucracy. Was associated with governemnt for over two decades. Once created, a / any government bureaucracy single-handedly becomes dedicated to expanding its size and power. Why? Because grade (tand therefore power and money) is determined by how many people in your orgainzation - the more people, the more money power, prestige. IE, human nature.
However, you flat can’t have governemnt without bureaucracies. They are a necessary ‘evil’. Governemnt and life in a democracy is always a trade-off between invidual freedoms and the freedom-restricting rules necessary to apradoxically protect those freedoms. I note that the people doing the intercepts are career intelligence people - not appointed politicans. note that there are rulesas to that surveillance. I note there is a terrorist threat. So then, do I think the potential for good from the surveillance (in the WOT) outweighs the potential for bad (precedents that could lead to abuse)? At this point, yes. The technology works and we have to defend ourselves at some point with extraordinary measures.
There is nothing wrong with the debate, but it should NOT be a a partisan political debate.
Dugger
Because he doesn’t have to as long as the American is involved in a communication with a foreign agent (as demonstrated in every court case involving an American, a warrantless search, and a foreign affairs issue in which the president has constitutional authority).
Lawyers using court precedents dealing with past cases about the president’s constitutional power to employ warrantless searches against Americans involved in foreign affairs.
You do understand that lawyers have a tendency to play fast and loose with case history to justify the conclusion their clients want? If past policy indicated to me that the Bush administration went to his lawyers and said “is it legal for us to ignore the FISA court” and they did their due dilligence and said “yes, it is”, there wouldn’t be much of a deal.
BUT.
I have a feeling the scenario went more like “find me a way to ignore the FISA court”.
I am not a hardcore civil libertarian, but I can’t get a simple answer for why its okay for Bush to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant that is relatively easy to get - and he could get it after the surveillance.
Ollie, if it were easy he would have done it…why go through all this hassle otherwise?
But how do you get a warrant on a phone number when you don’t know who is on either end of the line? Again, SEAL operator in Afghan gets a number off a computer. We tap the number and hear someone named “mohammed” in Kabul talking to “Achmed” in detroit. Well, the phone number goes to a guy named “chuck jones”.
How do I get a warrant, even in two days in retrospect? I don’t necessarily have probable cause, I don’t know the names of either parties, and I don’t know their nationalities. All I know is that an E-4 SEAL found the number on an Al Qaeda computer….
So, do we listen or not?
if it were easy he would have done it& why go through all this hassle otherwise?
This is what I’m trying to figure out. I can’t get an honest straight answer out of you guys.
Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked, much less answered.
When did we suddenly get enough Arabic-capable translators to monitor all these calls? Wasn’t that a big problem just a short while ago?
Did you read my post Ollie? Can you tell me how you get a warrant under the situation I just described above?
Thats your answer. Your assumptions are fallacious…..#1 it isn’t easy to do and #2 it isn’t necessary based on current law.
This is really another Democratic tempest-in-a-teacup in an attempt to stir up votes.
Ahhh, cracker in a barrel comes through again!
Ask another question, don’t address the subject.
Beautiful man, stay on point by driving the conversation…..
drpedro, dugger, ian, et al… Please stop referring to the Global War on Terror, the Sec Def has renamed this action as “the Long War, a generational conflict like the Cold War, but without countries.” Get with the program dudes.
You’re making an assumption without facts in evidence.
As for the second part of your question: you’re asking this like it’s a rhetorical question. This is is the point of this thread and the inquiry.
Dugger
Who are we going to trust?
I say, as long as covers are not blown, as long as it is only methodology
we are examing; the american people need to hear the truth so we can
move on. My fear is that the admin is breaking the law, and that is
the reason for the secrecy. I don’t sense a need to find the truth on the
part of republicans (specter? maybe, maybe not) and I don’t feel the
dems (in general) want the truth for more than political reasons. But
I really don’t care who gets at it or why, for the present, because support
from the public is dwindling. If we need to lance this boil on the body
politic; sobeit. Truth has a colonic quality to it. Dispense with the toxins.
Without public support, the WOT doesn’t have a chance. Idiots may
be screwing up our best chance of fighting it. We need to know who,
or if, it is being screwed up. If that means the terrorists may be
given information that will help them avoid capture for the present,
sobeit. It is important the public has the utmost confidence in our intent
as well as ability to fight terrorism without mitigating the meaning of
freedom. That is what we’re fighting for isn’t it?
Semant,
Can’t really refute your counter argument. Who does decide? There is risk either way. Any of us, myself certainly included, who says we have a corner on this issue or that we have it all figured out, is full of it. You have to weigh the principal as you raise the point against against the security issue. And I would, with trembling and quaking, go with the security side in this case.
IMO thats why debate on site like this can be misleading. None of us really know - hell, either side could be right, for the wrong reasons - as judged by how things turn out - or neither.
But I dont accept any bogeyman theories either side. Bush is not out be an evil king and Dems do want us to be safe.
Dugger
Do I need to connect that question to the topic for you peedro?
OK, here ya go:
If we’re only listening in on conversations with members of al Qaeda, you might guess that a good part of the time, they’ll be speaking Arabic.
If we’re listening in on the conversations of people who speak Arabic, we must have people to listen who understand Arabic and can translate it into English.
If we have people who can understand Arabic and translate it into English, their services must have been acquired within the last four years. If you recall, there was a backlog of wiretapped and taped conversations in Arabic that had not been translated when the 9-11 attacks occurred.
On the other hand…
If we haven’t acquired the services of Arabic-speaking translators, the assertion that the purpose of the NSA program is to listen to al Qaeda members starts to smell a little fishy.
Is that clear enough for you?
Pedro;
Don’t get tired of extracting yourself from Quaker’s beartrap?
I guess you are the one whose life is really affected by abject, uncontrollable fear eh?
sounds like a bad case of angst…..
ask your doctor about upping your meds…
Not even an inch.
Your assumptions may provide you some comfort. They offer none for me.
Oh, now I get it cracker.
You have moved the goal post.
See, I DO have a hard time keeping up with the galloping paranoia and conspiracy theories….thanks for connecting the dots.
However, I bet we can find a few good arabic translators for the NSA. We may not have enough to go through every document we get from Iraq, but probably can break some free for a presidentially ordered tap.
What was that you were saying about “goal posts”?
Peedro, did you get around to posting a link to that peer reviewed work of yours? Can you break someone free to get on that?
Or are you going to claim that you have no time and disappear for 2 days?
Take all the time you need. Disappear for six months or more (hint) if that’s what it takes. Chop chop!
Fact you are behind the times….all available on medline…just type in my name….oh, you don’t HAVE my name.
Like I said before, not like I am going to give you yahoos my name and address!
And I hate to say it, I was at a medical conference…presenting a paper! Sorry you missed me…..
Who needs an address Pedro? You’re sack of shit liar until you cough up the citations.
yea paul, whatever.
The good news is, I can read YOUR dreck anytime I want to!
http://daysofthelocust.blogspot.com/
Though I noticed that you stopped linking to your site, so maybe you are beginning to see the benefits of anonymity……LOL
Semant, I doubt its clear they are breaking the law. Well intended, smart people on both sides have differing opinions on the law. One side is then operating from the moral imperative to keep America safe; the other from the moral imperative that the governemnt should not do illegal things. I think it is wrong to assume the Admin sought just to do evil things, or conscience illegal things for good purposes. They thought and think its legal and good.
What concerns me is why this is a partisan issue. Why not make a non-finger pointing decison and move on. If its judged illegal, pass laws to make it legal ASAP and put it behind us. I have little patience for those who are using this issue, like the Plame thing, merely as a partisan political pretext.
Dugger
…put it behind us. I have little patience for those who are using this issue, like the Plame thing, merely as a partisan political pretext.
“Put it behind us” sounds very much like… um, er, uh… “Move on.”
So…, I trust you were as ambivalent during the 1990’s Whitewater and presidential blow-job investigations?
I would settle for no ‘bloviatable’ hearings, but a quiet bi-partisan examination of the issue with a series of recommendations - as to what, if anything needs to be done. I agree no one should be breaking the law, even for a noble cause, but throughout history we have been wuilling to pull together during times of crisis or war and grant our governemnt certain extraoridnary powers. I think the WOT calls for a little extra juice.
You could, for instance, require that the license to for say ‘immeediate’ warrants for suspected terrorist activity expires each year - to be renewed or not by a bi-partisan Congressional committee.
And I suppose, but highly doubt per Gen hayder, that the committee could conclude the spying on Ts is doing no good.
Dugger
Dugger;
As you know, politics courses throughout every aspect of human life.
I agree it should now be used as a partisan issuem but I don’t agree
that we should ‘just make it legal’ because I don’t know what they’re
doing and they have not earned trust. Apparently a lot of pressure
is being put on republicans to ‘tow the line’ by withholding money
and support from those who refuse. They (WH) may think they are
right. and maybe they are. This wound is becoming infected and
the patient is in mortal danger if we don’t drain and clean it.
Dugger;
All the grandstanding or hallalujahs would go away if closed hearings.
But the antiseptic nature of sunlight cannot be disputed. Sunburn?
Maybe. But I still think the truth is the best medicine. How to get at
it? Tough call. Perhaps a closed hearing with non-elected, bi-partisan
types (9-11 commission) doing any security redacting, then publish
or perish.
“so maybe you are beginning to see the benefits of anonymity”
Not at all. I’m redesigning. In the meantime you can always find my latest here: http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&Itemid=136
When I say something I can and will back it up. You can’t.
Frame;
Shortly LA weekly will dwarf Latimes in readership. Thanks for the
link. Been lookin’ for your stuff.
No frame, i won’t….big difference. I will just have to live with the opprobrium that you heap upon me….(sigh) I hope my professional ego can stand it….
“I will just have to live with the opprobrium that you heap upon me”
Just try coming here with a few facts and the truth once and awhile. (and thanks for the support Semantic, look for my take on Bubble this Thursday!)