Three things:
1. I’m okay with spying on people. But if the people are Americans in America: get a warrant.
2. If you want your excuse to be “it’s wartime”, get congress to declare formal war.
3. They could have gotten the warrant after the surveillance was done.
This is not a complex issue, even though its to the benefit of the president and the right to make it so.
Why didn’t they just get a warrant? The court is known to be extremely discreet, the process not onerous, and they could apply for one after they did the spying. Why didn’t they get the warrant? The quickest conclusion you can come to is that they didn’t want the courts knowing who they were spying on? Why?
Why do you liberals keep calling it “domestic spying”. If you take a flight from BWI to Germany , is that a domestic flight? Didn’t think so.
Why do you liberals keep calling it domestic spying . If you take a flight from BWI to Germany , is that a domestic flight? Didn t think so.
Because the applicable laws distinguish between surveillance of non-US-persons and surveillance of US persons. The latter is domestic spying even if said US person is in communication at the time with a non-us-person.
Similarly, an international flight is subject to US laws while it is in US airspace.
But why am I talking law to a Bush supporter? It’s clear that you will ignore any law rather than criticize your feerless leeder.
There’s another conclusion I reach even more quickly than that: Even under the forgiving rules of the FISA court, the Bush administration suspected an application for a warrant would be rejected. So they decided to skip the process entirely.
Of course, that conclusion raises a different–and more difficult–question: What are they doing that they couldn’t get a warrant for?
“Why didn t they just get a warrant?”
Because this issue isn’t about eavesdropping alone. The question is whether or not the president should be granted unlimited powers during a war without apparent end. This is not a move on the President’s part to fight the war on terror, no matter what the nitwit bootlickers think, precisely because 1. the FISA courts are notoriously lenient about granting warrants; 2. Congress had already amended FISA at the president’s request to give him the tools he said he needed; 3. as a result of those changes warrantless wiretaps could occur during a 72 hour window before the AG had to get a warrant; 4 see 1. For all these reasons there was no reason to bypass the FISA law unless, of course, your aim is simply assert the unlimited power of the executive and use the war on terror as your excuse. Idiots like Dugger who thinkt that Dems are being partisan here can’t see that the whole operation is born of conservative political motives to reassert a pre-Watergate Nixonian presidency: “If the President does it, it isn’t against the law.” None of the right wing hacks here have yet to suggest a single limit that they would place on the president during this war with no apparent or clear end. All of them seem to accept the argument that the president should have unchecked power to do whatever he wants for as long as he says were at war. That’s what this is about and why wiretaps are only part of the issue. The administration’s legal argument for warrantless wiretaps renders Congress and the courts utterly irrevelant with regards to Presidential power for the foreseeable future. Forget the Fourth Amendment, these lunatics want to throw the whole premise of the Constitution — checks and balances — out the window, and their fearful bootlicking followers slink along in support behind.
Ian –
It’s referred to as “domestic spying” because an agency heretofore banned from spying on US persons in the US (domestically) without a warrant was authorized to spy on US persons in the us (domestically) without a warrant. How stupid are you people?
Talk about bootlicking cowards, why wasn’t Gonzalez put under oath today? Now we know for certain that the Republican congress handed its balls to Karl Rove a long time ago.
Hey Ian, here’s a question for you. Do you think the president should have unlimited, unchecked powers to do whatever he wants as long as we’re fighting the “War on Terror”? Yes or no and why.
They do the surveillance, then they get the warrant. Or are you saying the freaking NSA doesn’t have caller ID?
Ollie, I will repeat my question for you since you dodged it in another thread& .
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 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& .
Can any of you explain how you would get a warrant under these conditions?
2 reasons: that is what it is, and the White House doesn’t like the phrase (as evidenced by the talking points echoing through the right to call it “terrorist surveillance”).
Tough question eh? Maybe the FISA law doesn t really cover everything huh?
Then, while you continue any surveillance you consider absolutely essential for national security, you petition congress to alter the FISA law. Congress has altered the law in the past to accommodate new security needs, there is no reason why they wouldn’t at least consider reasonable requests for further refinement.
Can you explain why the Bush administration never asked congress to do that, never over the course of three years of warrantless spying?
Or will you duck that question, the way every right-winger I’ve asked does?
*I almost spit up my milk.*
CALLER ID!?
Now THATS funny. You’re better than the Kings of Comedy and the Blue Collar guys combined.
That’s why I come here.
Read the post ollie….
The phone is registered to “chuck jones”, but we hear mohammed and achmed….
How do you get a warrant if you don’t know who is talking?
Tough question eh? Maybe the FISA law doesn’t really cover everything huh?
By the way, did you read the unbelievable smack-down that McCain layed on your hero Barack? Whooooo…..Obama’s ears must be smoking…!
Again, an international flight is defined as a flight departing from a country that is different than where it arrives. How can you say that a call is any different.
Oliver, the term “domestic spying” is a talking point from your liberal friends.
Pedro: fun example. If you think that things that make no sense are fun.
In your example, the phone of said “Chuck Jones” (great animator) has already been tapped. Why does your question about the warrant come *after* the phone conversation has already been heard by the authorities? That’s not how this silly “Constitution” game is played. Warrant -> Listen -> Yay.
You check your breaks before you venture out on a long roadtrip, not after you’ve plowed over a cliff. Well, *I* do anyway. And so does the Constitution. Unless there is a FISA exception.
Further, I like in your example how you *know* that you don’t hear Chuck Jones on the phone. How do you know you’re not hearing Mr. Jones? He sounds funny to you? Does he sound BROWN?! Surely, I could tell if someone named Chuck Jones was speaking.
That’s all folks.
I think the most likely reason for not applying for warrants through FISA is because they are data-mining, and to follow procedure and apply for warrants, even retroactively as allowed by FISA, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. So they have decided to ignore accountability.
It may be that they (and their supporters) don’t understand the purpose of judicial oversight of this stuff, or they don’t undertsand the risks involved in doing this, or they don’t care.
I hope it’s one of the former, and not the latter.
Hey Pedro, its called a reverse directory, use it. Your example is so crappy, we thought you were joking, but you keep posting it. You have probable cause built into the Al Qaeda computer, at least enough for a FISA warrant.
In any event, why has the Bush administration gone outside the law for four years, hiding that fact, and not gone to congress and asked for a revision or expansion in the law? That is the question you have to ask.
Because the President has read the Constitution. You should yourself. Where in it does it give the Judiciary jurisdiction over National Security?!?
The retroactive warrant is so that an action that has already taken place can later be explained via probable cause to the judicial branch. If you don’t have probable cause in the first place, it’s unconstitutional — retroactive or otherwise. I hope you’re not suggesting that the authorities can do whatever they want and then figure out why they *would have* needed a warrant. Again, that’s not how the game works.
First of all, Ian, you ignore the point that while in US territory or air space, people in an intertnational flight are indeed subject to US law, and do indeed enjoy constitutional protections.
Second, while the quarks and photons that comprise someone’s phone call may go zooming to the four corners of the galaxy, as long the person whose voice is represented by those quarks and photons is in US territory, he is subject to US law and covered by US constitutional protections. It is those laws and protections that distinguish US persons from non-US-persons, and it is that distinction, in turn, that differentiates domestic from foreign surveillance.
Let me know if you need me to explain this further. I realize I used a lot of big words. Maybe this concrete example would be better: if the feds used a spy satellite to train a hi-power camera on your bedroom window, would it be wrong to call that “domestic surveillance?” Remember that the spy camera is not in US territory, it is up in space.
“Can you explain why the Bush administration never asked congress to do that, never over the course of three years of warrantless spying?”
Yes, because according to FISA law, if you are eavesdropping on international traffic, as long as you aren’t targeting a “US person” you don’t need a warrant, FISA or otherwise.
“in your example, the phone of said Chuck Jones (great animator) has already been tapped. Why does your question about the warrant come *after* the phone conversation has already been heard by the authorities? That s not how this silly Constitution game is played. Warrant -> Listen -> Yay.”
(yes, I have been watching a lot of Loony Toons lately, glad you caught the reference…!)
Because you guys are always bragging about how easy it is to get a FISA warrant….RETROACTIVELY! Come on cellulose you aren’t reading the talking points! Try a little harder…..But as you may have read in my example, we don’t actually know who is speaking, so how do you get a warrant?
“in any event, why has the Bush administration gone outside the law for four years, hiding that fact, and not gone to congress and asked for a revision or expansion in the law? That is the question you have to ask.”
See my point one, it isn’t illegal.
Finally, Pidge is, as usual, a day late and a dollar short. Just knowing who the registered owner of the phone is doesn’t mean that is who is talking on it. What if it is one of those buy the minutes phones? So, if you don’t know who is talking, who do you write the warrant up for?
So flying from German to the United States is a domestic flight, right Ian?
cellulose, No, when did I ever say such a thing?
Wilbur, there are no semantics involved in this, look at the small picture, not the big one. Flying from point A in US to B in Germany is an international flight.
Also, you are pulling shit out of your ass with hypothetical situations. The fact is a call from Detriot to San Diego is a domestic call. A call from Detriot to Baghdad is international.
No cellulose, that is not the case at all. The whole point is that you can’t obtain “probable cause’ with actionable field intelligence. It isn’t a law enforcement issue, it is a national security/military one.
You are a good example of why americans don’t trust democrats with national defense though…thanks!
drpedro-please google “roving john doe wiretap” to find out how you get a warrant for an unnamed target. d-p-u is right, they are data mining everybody, so if you have nothing to hide you’re OK! Wasn’t it called ‘Carnivore’ when they tried to get it through a few years ago? The unfortunate thing is with such a blizzard of raw data the only way they can imagine how to make sense of it is by using logarithms, ask the FBI if that works (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/01/post_1.html). And finally everyone please ignore Ian until he can come up with something more than the simplest talking point designed for the Faux News watchers. Oh, yeah, and remember its “the Long War, a generational conflict like the Cold War” only no commies!
actually they have not said much at all, even at the hearings today. Perhaps they just want to keep the details of our top secret intel gathering operations, I don’t know, secret?
Maybe it really ISN”T a big conspiracy to spy on you lefties, but perhaps more to do with keeping an enemy off guard, and make them unsure of what is secure and what isn’t?
Naa, I am sure that is crazy, they just want to spy on lefties…..but remember wilbur, it isn’t the “government”, its the Trilateral Commission, the Barvarian Illuminati and Colonel Sanders….its an evil triumpherate…..
You guys are really out there….unfortunately your bush hatred puts our country at unecessary risk. Oh well, just one more cycle of republican election wins I guess….
Ian, a flight from new york to berlin is an international flight, but to conclude from that that eavesdropping on a phone call made in new york is not domestic surveillance if the destination of the call is berlin… well, that’s a non sequitur that it would take a moron to miss. Sort of like saying french fries can’t be made in America because they’re called “French”
I wish the wingnuts would get their story straight. SaveFarris seems to think that there is no constitutional check whatsoever on the president’s ability to act in the realm of what he defines as national security. Pedro seems to think that the FISA law does establish legitimate judicial checks on the executive’s power in terms established by the legislature. It wouldn’t surprise me if neither of them can see why those two positions are incompatible.
But let’s look a little more closely at what Pedro said:
according to FISA law, if you are eavesdropping on international traffic, as long as you aren t targeting a US person you don t need a warrant, FISA or otherwise.
You’re assuming, Pedro, that US persons were never targeted by the NSA program. Let’s go ahead and assume that: Why would the government not say “the warrantless surveillance is legal because it has never, and and will never be targeted at a US person.”? Instead, they say “it’s legal because this is war and we can do whatever we want.” Result: constitutional crisis, huge outcry, congressional hearings. Is that any way to avoid drawing attention to your covert intelligence operations?
Conclusion: either the administration’s handling of the case was incredibly clumsy or… they were, in fact, targeting US persons.
Either way it’s a loser for Bush… unless folks like you can keep thie lies and obfuscation coming fast enough.
FISA as amended by Confgress:
“(c) Specifications and directions of orders
An order approving an electronic surveillance under this section shall
(1) specify
(A) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(B) the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance will be directed, if known;”
Note that “if known” Pedro. Idiot.
Pedro, once again you are the supreme idiot. Your question was addressed and answered by Congress in the Patriot Act which amended FISA to allow for warrants in cases when the identity of a target was not known. Once again you show just how hard right wing talking points die because of the stupidity of the morons who keep repeating them. I would also point out that this clearly shows Congress’s willingness to work with the administration to change FISA to give them the tools they said they needed.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RS22140.pdf
“Subsection 1805(c) of FISA describes the specifications and directions for FISA electronic surveillance orders. Before 9/11, FISA electronic surveillance orders specified (1) the identity, if known, or the description of the target of the surveillance, (2) the nature and location of the facilities or places at which the surveillance was directed, and (3) if CRS-2
requested, the identity of communications providers, landlords and other person whose assistance would facilitate execution of the order.
Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act temporarily altered this third feature to permit a general command for third party assistance without identifying a specific person, if the target of the order regularly changed telephones or meeting placesor took other evasive steps in order to thwart surveillance efforts. The intelligence authorization act for 2002 altered the second feature to require identification of the nature and location of targeted facilities and places only if they were known. Thus, at least temporarily, FISA surveillance orders may be issued that simply describe the target but do not otherwise identify the target, the facilities or places to be targeted, or those communications providers or others whose assistance will be commanded to facilitate execution of the order.
Both the House and Senate bills amend subsection 1805(c) to require that FISA surveillance orders identify either the target or the facilities or places targeted; orders merely describing the target because the target s identity is unknown must identify the facilities or places targeted and orders that do not identify the facilities or places because they are unknown must identify the target. If the facilities or places cannot be identified in the order, both bills limit execution of a FISA surveillance order to times when the target is present at the facility or place under surveillance.”
“Perhaps they just want to keep the details of our top secret intel gathering operations, I don t know, secret?”
Why bother Pedro? According the AG all we have to do wait a little while and al-qaeda will forget that we’re trying to catch them:
Gonzalez today at the hearing:
“I think, based on my experience, it is true — you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance. But if they’re not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.”
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
actually they have not said much at all, even at the hearings today. Perhaps they just want to keep the details of our top secret intel gathering operations, I don t know, secret?
There might be some point to that comment if we were talking about revealing the details of the program. But like most of what you say here, Pedro, you’re just blowing smoke and dodging the real issues.
Print out a copy of this post of yours and save it until there’s once again a president in office whom you distrust. See if you don’t feel differently.
And it’s ‘triumvirate’, doctor.
Because the President has read the Constitution. You should yourself. Where in it does it give the Judiciary jurisdiction over National Security?!?
And where in the Constitution does it give the President power to “regulate and govern the land and naval forces?” Here’s a hint. It’s in Article I, Section 8. And it’s Congress that has authority to “govern” land and naval forces, not the President. Yes, shocking isn’t it? The Constitution gives more war-making authority to Congress than quaint war declarations. In actuality, the Constitution’s separation of powers on war-related issues are exactly parallel to its stipulations on domestic issues. Congress makes the laws. The President enforces them. FISA was a law that Congress passed to “regulate and govern” the “land and naval forces” (the NSA is legally under the Defense Department). FISA is every bit as constitutional as laws passed to fund National Parks. But then again Bush supporters don’t really care about “original intent”, do they?
pedro-I’m a leftie and I don’t hate bush, I pity him. Hating bush would be like hating the village idiot. That’s what Republicans do, check out the new budget. It seems this topic has really gotten to you. You’re getting more and more shrill. That was a good pun though…I mean triumpherate…what a gas! It would also be the name of the new world government established by the Insult Dog from The Conan O’Brien Show after the imaginary TV characters complete their jihad! Keep ‘em coming!
No, No, No! I’ve posted this before, but I’ll repeat it since you keep making this basic mistake in not understanding the Constitution. Article I Section 2 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 president has the sole responsibility in directing how military assests are used in foreign affairs. Congress has no authority in this area what-so-ever.
SaveFarris and JWG have me convinced: when Clinton got caught lying about Monica, he should have just said it was for national security. Poof! Away go all the lawsuits, away go all the impeachment hearings. After all, there is no doubt our enemies are empowered and emboldened when our president is besieged and preoccupied by congress and the courts!
All my arguments about the NSA program have centered around how the courts have interpreted the president’s constitutional power to conduct foreign affairs.
Thus, at least temporarily, FISA surveillance orders may be issued that simply describe the target but do not otherwise identify the target, the facilities or places to be targeted, or those communications providers or others whose assistance will be commanded to facilitate execution of the order.
Thankfully national security issues aren’t being controlled by graduate student movie critics. Notice the bold above. As usual, we aren’t getting the whole story. How long is temporarily Frame? Look it up….Now tell me whether or not, within that period of time, we can actually track down WHO was talking on that cell phone in detroit? Can’t do it…? Gotta throw out the intel.
Finally, FISA explicitly exempts communications overseas when the target is not a US person from the need for a warrant. So why do we continue to argue this point? Until someone shows some sort of evidence that we are spying on US persons without a warrant it remains a tempest in a teacup.
And when is the president _not_ conducting foreign affairs in this day and age? When Bill wagged that finger, images of it were instantly beamed world-wide. Jacques Chirac saw it. Saddam Hussein saw it. As I’m sure Ian will tell us, that means it’s not a domestic issue!
Oh and Paul (frameone)……
No more bloggy link for you?
http://daysofthelocust.blogspot.com/
Typical.
It explains the free-pass being given Gonzalez by the republicans
on the committtee. It may even explain the ugly open letter McCain sent
Barak Obama.
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm
And Pedro,
You can always read my latest review here:
http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&Itemid=136.
” As usual, we aren t getting the whole story.”
Just admit it, Pedro, your example was bullshit because FISA allows the NSA to tap the phone or location of the target even if the target wasn’t known. So if they find a phone number in Afghanistan they don’t even need a name to throw a tap on it. And if they can leaglly throw a tap ona line, any information they get from that tap about the target is naturally admissible. Might I suggest that next time YOU try getting the whole story instead of simply making shit up, you know, like medical conferences and journal publications. Idiot.
You keep beating a dead horse Pedro. The line has to be owned by someone, regardless of who is using it. If it is untraceable or cloned, a phone company or the government owns the right to the number. Permission can be obtained for tracing or wiretapping from the phone company or the government can grant itself permission, thus no warrant would be necessary. If the phone is owned by someone, warrants can be issued in the name or alias of the registered user.
Why would you have to throw out the intel? You have a record of the call, even if participants can’t be identified, you have probable cause for a warrant to tap the conversation. The value in court might be damaged by an inability to identify the participants, but as a matter of credibility, not as a legal matter.
Like a typical right-wing apparatchik, Pedro is latching onto a long discredited simplistic notion and trumpeting it as if it some sunburst of revelation that everyone on the other side is just too thick to see the obvious truth of.
Hey, Pedro says, the FISA only demands a warrant if the surveillance is not targeted toward US persons. Since we know that nothing the Bush administration does could possibly be illegal, the conclusion is obvious: none of the surveillance has been directed toward US persons!
The ghost of Thomas Jefferson rolls over, heaves a deep sigh, and mutters “bullshit”.
Warrantless foreign surveillance is routine intelligence procedure. The NSA doesn’t need a warrant when it points a spy satellite at Uday Hussein’s swimming pool. The CIA doesn’t need a warrant when it bugs the Chinese consulate in Thessaloniki. Everyone understands this. If that is all Bush was up to, all he has to say is “we respect the fourth amendment, so we are not targeting this surveillance on US citizens or residents without following the FISA guidelines.” Some ultra-right or ultra-left whackoes might bleat some, but the vast majority of people – barring the emergence of evidence that he’s lying – would let it drop. Notice no operational details are revealed in such a statement.
Instead you have all this shucking and jiving about war powers authorizations, previous presidents actions (even pre-FISA presidents), indignant accusations of treason, etc…. all of which prolongs the amount of time that this supposedly secret and sensitive initiative remains on the front pages.
Conclusion: it is almost certain that they are targeting US persons without warrants, and they want to continue doing so wihtout any meaningful oversight whatsoever.
Has anyone considered the laziness factor?
In other words, this Administration seems to really hate doing actual, you know, work. It seems to me what’s happening is that there are some number of suspected terrorists in the world, X. X is a large number. Rather than do the intelligence work required to winnow out those who are obviosuly not terrorists, the Administration has decided to surveil them all. FISA does have lenient standards, but they are after all standards.
Mohammed Ahmed has lived and worked and rasied his family in Queens for two generations, owns a convenience store, pays his taxes and is an upstanding citizen. But his name just sounds terr’isty. So, rather than do the work necessary to remove his name from a surveillance list, the NSA will just keep on spying on him.
Remember: Presidenting is hard work. So is intelligence gathering. I think what we’re seeing here is proof that not only is this Administration incompetent, but they are lazy. One on its own is cause for concern. The two together are deadly.
Porter Goss is hot on the trail of the real enemy;
“I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy. And we’re trying to reinstill that.”
The audacity of these people. Will abject cronyism win out, in the end?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigation/story?id=1587307&page=1
I can’t believe no one I’ve read anywhere has mentioned the irony of this exchange:
FEINSTEIN:
… Mr. Attorney General, in light of what you and the president have said in the past month, this statement appears to be false. Do you agree? GONZALES:
No, I don’t, Senator. In fact, I take great issue with your suggestion that somehow that president of the United States was not being totally forthcoming with the American people. I have his statement, and in the sentence immediately before what you’re talking about, he said — he was referring to roving wiretaps. And so I think anyone…
The irony drips as the hearing is about whether the president is permitted to HIDE SHIT FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
“you … just spit back talking points…”
Yes, this from someone who demanded to know why we weren’t using the phrase “terrorist surveilance program.” Naturally, of course, Ian overlooks the fact that his and Pedro’s argument have been repeatedly refuted in detail with references by numerous people.
TMW has a good comic out this week.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20323
As usual, you liberals just don’t get it. You don’t want to hear any opinion but you’re own and just spit back talking points instead of actually refuting the argument in a civil way instead of using the words ‘fuck’, ‘retard’, ‘dumbass’, et al.
So again, why didn’t they just get a warrant?
(I watch Law & Order, I know when a witness won’t just answer the question)
This is so tiresome..BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO….
From the FISA statute:
(f) Electronic surveillance means
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
Now your fellow travelers are saying they are spying on US persons, and that is covered in FISA as well…and is illegal. If that is the case then lots of people are in trouble. However, there is NO evidence that is the case…just the wild speculation of a bunch of raving moonbats…
If that is the case then lots of people are in trouble. However, there is NO evidence that is the case& just the wild speculation of a bunch of raving moonbats&
Except that (as I keep saying), if they had such a simple defense available to them, they certainly would have used it by now. Saying “we are only targeting non-US persons” would reveal no operational secrets that haven’t already been revealed.
What reason is there to refrain from such an defense while advancing numerous weaker ones, inflaming the controversy and revealing numerous operational details in the process? Can you think of one, Pedro, even hypothetically?
I can think of two extremely elegant hypotheses: either they have something to hide or they are breathtakingly incompetent and arrogant at the same time. There’s absolutely no evidence to contradict either hypothesis, and either would be quite consistent with past behavior of this administration.
Here’s my issue with this whole thing…the president and his administration claim they can do these things because this is a time of war. Really? When did congress officially declare war? According to the constitution only congress can declare war. I know, I know…the whole authorization of force blah, blah, blah. But officially we are not at war.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WAR, IT ISN’T AGAINST THE LAW!
ANOTHER ELEGANT HYPOTHESIS….THEY DON’T WANT TO TELL PEOPLE WHO THEY ARE LISTENING TO!
WHY GIVE THE ISLAMOFASCIST ANY MORE INFO THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE?
Dr. Pedro, you are correct in your assessment of the FISA statute. However, since the right-wing media (according to OW) keeps calling it domestic surveillance, you wouldn’t even know that at least 1 party to the conversation was outside the US. What is an international flight? A flight that travels between two countries. What is a domestic flight? A flight that travels within the border of a single country. What law governs an international flight when it is in international airspace? (Not the laws of the originating country…) What is a domestic call? Takes pace within the borders of a country. What is an international call? call that travels from one country to another. I assume everyone sees where I’m going here… If you listen in on a person outside of the US and pull all communication from that number by passively recording the info and then reviewing it on a weekly basis, if that person rings up a handful of people in the US, have you violated the law? Isn’t your TARGET the foreign person (and thus, the FISA statute does not apply)? Can such a call be described as a domestic communication? Can tthe surveillance of such a call similarly be desribed as such? (No and No in my BDS-free mind.)
Oh, and another interesting tidbit… Since the NSA and the CIA were successful in getting most foreign calls routed through the US (ie a call from Pakistan to Afghanistan might be routed through the US), do OW and th Moonbats (cool band name or WHAT?!) think that intercepting this communication when it passes through the switches of AT&T is a violation of FISA? Just curious… because, using the definition of “domestic” in use by the media, this would certainly fit under that category.
The main disconnect is the recognition that WE ARE AT WAR. We’re talking past each other…
Shouting doesn’t make your bullshit any less stinky, Doctor.
What useful information is given to “islamofascists” if one says “our warrantless surveillance does not target US persons”?
Can an islamofascist conclude that any calls he and his comrades make within the US are free from surveillance? No, becaused they have no way of knowing whether the government has procured a warrant against them.
On the other hand, every time some government official goes in front of a camera or a mic to try to keep this growing scandal from landing smack-dab in Bush’s face, another tidbit of information about this “secret” program leaks out. If Bush could have prevented that by acknowledging that he was bound by FISA, it’s a shame that he didn’t, wouldn’t you agree?
stwendler: if you’re going to leap into a thread late, at least read the previous messages so that you’ll know which of your idiot talking points have already been smacked down repeatedly. Don’t waste our time.
Aw Wilbur. You went and made peedro break his caps lock key.
“What is an international flight? A flight that travels between two countries. What is a domestic flight? A flight that travels within the border of a single country.”
First Ian now StWendler. Okay guys fess up. Which idiot right wing blog or on-air gasbag came up with this moronic analogy first and why are you repeating it like pea-brained parrots? And Ian, here I thought you had taken a bold stand against talking points.
Nice! Alberto Gonzales used it also
So transparent. Reminds me of one of the early items on Media Matters where we showed Sean Hannity denying that he used talking points… then he used a talking point.
Good call, frame. That talking poi…er, nugget of wisdom!…originated with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan!
All perfectly legal?
Seems some Republicans in Congress have suddenly become infected with that BDS you people keep yammering about.
I’m sure neither “Beam Me Up” Scotty McClellan or AG da AG is subtile enough to have come up with this idea. I see the deep and mystic wisdom of Dick Cheney behind another indisputable metaphor! And he’s even made sure they use different countries as examples so us dopes on the left won’t tumble to their gambit! Diabolical………..
Is that whose hand is up the back of Scottie’s shirt? If so, I have to give McClellan some credit. You can hardly smell the venom.