The Facts: Domestic Surveillance

The Bush administration has asserted that the authorization to conduct warrantless wiretapping on U.S. citizens in the United States was implicit in the legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda, passed by Congress shortly after 9/11. Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle denies that claim, explaining in a Washington Post op-ed that in fact Congress specifically rejected the insertion of a clause that would have allowed the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States." (See also the news story about Daschle's revelation.)

Of course, in order to have an informed debate about this complex subject, we must first have an understanding of the specific facts involved, and the applicable laws.

What the Law Says

Title 50 of the United States Code, Chapter 36, states:

§ 1802

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this chapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers ... or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party ....

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute ...

(b) Defense -- It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties -- An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction -- There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "covers the intentional collection of the communication of a particular, known U.S. person [defined as a citizen or lawful permanent resident] who is in the United States, all wiretaps in the United States .... The Act requires that all such surveillance be authorized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or in certain limited circumstances, by the Attorney General." (See in particular the sections beginning on pages 10 and 26 of the PDF.)

For additional background on what National Security Agency has said about wiretapping and protecting Fourth Amendment rights, see this helpful compilation from the National Security Archive.

(Want to lead the Debate for a day? Click here.)

News Stories

The scoop first appeared on Dec. 16 in the New York Times, which revealed it had kept the information quiet at the administration's request for a year prior to publication. The Times also provided this primer on the NSA.

On Dec. 19, Bush came out on the offensive, while Democrats questioned the legality of the surveillance.

White House Elaborates on Authority for Eavesdropping, Post, 12/20/05

Spy Court Judge Quits in Protest, Post, 12/21/05

The Post's Bart Gellman sizes up a Republican claim that Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless spying, just like Bush did. Gellman points out a fundamental difference: the Carter and Clinton orders did not apply to U.S. citizens, who have the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

News of Surveillance Is Awkward for Agency, NYT, 12/22/05

Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report, NYT, 12/24/05

Officials Want to Expand Review of Domestic Spying, NYT, 12/25/05

This Post article from last month discusses the post-9/11 increase in domestic surveillance activity.

Other Useful Material

This is the letter to the editor from NSA General Counsel Robert Deitz, written in 1999, stating categorically that "the agency does not violate the Constitution or the laws of the United States. NSA operates under the eyes of Congress, the executive branch and the judiciary, and an extensive oversight system regulates and limits its activities." And this is the text of the letter the ACLU wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, requesting a special counsel be appointed to investigate the legality of warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons.

Media Matters for America, a progressive, non-profit media watchdog group, offers this list of 12 myths surrounding the domestic surveillance scandal.

William Arkin's Early Warning blog has been on top of this story from the start.

Read the transcript of Bush's Dec. 19 news conference, in which he discusses the surveillance issue.

By Emily Messner |  December 27, 2005; 11:00 AM ET  | Category:  Facts
Previous: Attn: Debaters! Your Turn to Lead the Discussion | Next: Judicial Interference Justification Doesn't Hold Water

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Emily,
Good for you. This is another really important matter (as the case for war is). It does bring up at least two fundamentally important questions.
1. The balance in the conflict between the 4th amendment and the powers provided to the President by the constitution.
2. How you conduct oversight of secret activities.

We have a real problem here in that we don't really know the facts of what this program actually is and how broad it is. So far the administration has limited itself to acknowledging the interception of phone calls where one end of the call is outside of US territory. Exactly how many and upon what evidentiary basis we have no knowledge, just a lot of speculation, informed or otherwise. What is most bothersome to me about it is the considered and deliberate decision by the administration to circumvent FISA review, or any other for that matter. I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would contemplate seeing the constitution as investing in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces such arbitrary unreviewable executive power as to render the 4th amendment meaningless to all citizens. The interesting question is how do you get the matter to the Supreme Court?

I don't know. I would suppose that Congress might have a way of doing that. Any US citizen who has been the subject of such an invasion of their privacy should have standing to get the matter in front of the court; but by design they have no way of knowing or proving that this has occurred, so this seems unlikely. What I would like to see would be for one of the telecommunications companies, which owns and controls the switches through which these intercepts seem to be made, to refuse to grant access without a court order. Not likely either, these guys are not about to risk profits for civil liberties. But this may provide an indirect route; sue the company on behalf of its customers for unauthorized disclosure of private communications. One way Congress could assert itself would be to make it a criminal offense for a company or an individual to provide such access without a court order, indeed, such a rule or law probably already exists somewhere. The President may be beyond the reach of a statute, but no company is. Of course this would make the Attorney General's job even more conflicted than it already is since it is he who would have to enforce such a law. Where are you Eliot Spitzer?

One way or another, this and other recent assertions of arbitrary unreviewable executive authority have to be challenged, have to be limited. The powers inherent in the term Commander-in-Chief cannot be so broad as to be dictatorial.

Posted by: Cayambe | December 27, 2005 07:29 PM

We do need to seek out and intercede in the activities of possible terrorists. how we do it is important though.

the potential for misuse and abuse of government power is real and problematic when there's no oversight in any practical sense of the executive branch.

i don't trust this president's judgement on a whole array of important issues. why would anyone trust his call on who in the US gets spied on, without justifying it to even a secret court?

we were attacked on Mr Bush's watch, and the principle architect of that attack is still at large; they shifted resources away from his capture to mess with Iraq. now Iraq serves as a better training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was under the Taliban, while the majority political movement in Iraq leans toward Iran, which Mr. Bush antagonized enough to push their public to elect their very own conservative reactionary.

their "tough guy" talk, discouragement of political speech, contract cronyism, and plain poor judgements have not helped our security or standing in the world.

"Live free, or die." Good motto to remember, bring back to the fore of our thinking in America.

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | December 28, 2005 02:37 AM

I think checks and balances are important, and public transparency is equally important. If you've got a hot-rod car that goes 150MPH, and what you most want to do in life is go 150MPH, chances are you won't just be doing so at the drag strip, where it's officially permitted.
The ability to break the law with impunity
may not be the same as permission, but to some people largely amounts to the same thing, especially if they don't fear getting caught. The old saw goes, 'if the police police the people, who polices the police'? Another one reads, 'knowledge is power',and can't forget the old classic standby of 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'. It sure makes you wish that all the megabillions were being spent in a more productive direction, say towards total energy independence, which, bluntly spoken, is probably the core issue on the table, at the end of the day. You don't need a supercomputer and legions of pale-faced snoops to figure that one out.
Countries like Japan are making leaps and bounds in the general direction of producing their own energy, green tech isn't just politically chic anymore, it's also eminently practical from the standpoint of energy security. Diversifying our energy sources is a sound method of building a better future, and it will ultimately lower costs to the consumer, and prevent monopolization. Oil will probably be around for years, but there's no law saying we have to keep using it.

I think what we're facing is basically the same problem that existed in america in the 1970's, with environmental and OPEC pressures our economy got squeezed. In this century we'll have more people, more cars, more energy usage, more immigration, so we also need more common sense, more lateral thinking, more innovation, and more public participation. More people need to get to the polls, or the polls need to go to the people. Get communities involved, have a civics renaissance. Nationally recognize people or groups that do the most to promote or contribute to a more stable, less vulnerable, and more efficient energy infrastructure. Put ads on TV as a public service to remind people to conserve. If america 'went green' and started using about 40% less energy than we do today, it wouldn't impact people's lives too much, it wouldn't break the bank, and it would make a lot of sense.

Similar percentages should be considered, in my view, in other areas, such as the budget. With 8.1 trillion in red ink on the table, it's time to bring the issue of the national debt to the debate table. The alternative is to let that issue fester, and compound, and ultimately become the single largest threat to america's future. Argentina went broke on much less debt than our nation has, and there's no magic force to prevent it from happening here.
Some progress has happened, Congress has taken some token steps towards spending reductions, but unless they're followed up with more robust fiscal restructuring, ultimately we'll have an insatiable monster of an interest payment that will no less than bankrupt the country. My thinking is, 'we just don't want to go there', so budget cuts in the 20% to 40% range are likewise in order. Now, a budget cut doesn't have to be the same as a program cut, it just means that a lot of programs have to go on a diet. There's enough corporate and state/national success stories out there to refer to to model after to accomplish that goal, but one key ingredient will be teamwork, and with political in-fighting on the increase, it's going to take a lot of citizen/voter initiative to really push for such changes and reforms. I think we also need to wake up from the multi-billion dollar power struggles and D.C's '
business-as-usual' approach to getting things done, if Congress' only function in life anymore is to fight over the tax dollar feed trough, at some point I think they stopped actually serving the taxpayers, except maybe as a side dish...
redefine 'public service' while we're at it. That's where blogs and forums and the internet itself can come in real handy, for some old-school idea-sharing and collaboration. Reunite communities, get people to start participating in government as citizens again. If people won't/don't vote, then someone needs to find out why. No rocket science, so far...

Speaking OF rocket science, though,
I think america's a country full of fairly creative people, and with a little organization there's very little stopping our country from achieving great things, up to and including building a 3-story parking garage on the moon, if we really wanted to, as an extreme example.
Information's one thing, knowledge, wisdom, and initiative are something else.

This century's truly going to be a measure of which country or countries do the best job of implementing all of those. Where we end up in that global hierarchy will be a direct result of what we do with what we have, our people, our schools, our time, our money, etc.

Thank you.

Posted by: Bert | December 28, 2005 03:17 AM

For the constitutional problems of FISA, see: http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/12/presidential_po.php

Although FISA itself is probably an unconstitutional intrusion on presidential powers and responsibilities, Congress did try to restrain its sweep. If you look closer at FISA, it makes warrantless intercept of communications between al Queda and its US agents and supporters legal. In posting USC Title 50 Chgapter 36 - 1802 you neglected to provide the definition of "United States person" from section 1801 of that same law.

Under the definitions of "United States person" does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power. An "agent of a foreign power" is anyone, citizen or otherwise, who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." Which means that people who do not help al Qaeda or other terrorists are safe from surveillance. Anyone who does, however, is a foreign agent and can be targeted for warrantless eavesdropping.

Posted by: James J. Klapper | December 28, 2005 06:29 AM

9/11/2001 was the start of a war. Wars change how the US Constitution works. Current discussion on NSA intercepts is seditious babble which is part of another coup attempt by the Democratic Party & its ignorant, biased & unprincipled MEDIA. Bush Administration should take the same actions that the Lincoln Administration did during the Civil War & treat the modern Copperheads the same way.

Posted by: Max Rugemer | December 28, 2005 07:15 AM

I think The Miami Herald columnist Robert Steinback had it right. Osama wins if we sacrifice our liberties and rule of law for a never ending war on a tactic, terrorism.

Posted by: C. Heintz | December 28, 2005 07:16 AM

If I were to mentally "sketch" out the variety of scenarios for eavesdropping on individuals, citizens or not, for the purpose of preventing terrorist attacks... I could pretty easily convince myself of situations where I wholeheartedly support (or rebuke) the President's decision.

However... knowing that this is true actually simplifies my viewpoint. It's not the President's publicly stated intentions that I struggle with... how could you? (it is a speech writer's job to ensure this is the case) What is concerning is that the Administration doesn't feel the need to actually implement reasonable policies as government practice to help protect us for the foreseeable future. They would prefer to quietly and without debate simply claim wartime powers. How does that really make us safer? What happens when Bush leaves? No systematic improvements... no updated policies for fighting terrorism. Just a questionable secret decision which his successor will have to either extend or... somehow sell as policy in 2008.

Have we forgotten that the Republicans control Congress? Have we forgotten that nearly anything with the term "terrorist prevention" attached to it seems to pass without argument? Knowing these things, I continue to struggle with why this Administration went it alone. Do they have that much contempt for the Congress they control? Do they have a monopoloy on good ideas? Clearly... they do not.

Again... I'm not attacking the publicly stated objectives. However... it is our responsibility to critique the methods. Or did we sacrifice that uniquely American characteristic after 9/11?

Posted by: Rick | December 28, 2005 08:35 AM

The Law has not kept up with technology; therefore, the Law needs to be changed.

An al Qaeda operative can walk into any Radio Shack, but X number of cell phones, activate them with an American company (thereby acquiring a US phone number), then take them to another country to use.

The Fourth Amendment offers protection to Americans against UNREASONABLE searches. Is it unreasonable, after 9/11, to monitor the phone calls of foreign al Qaeda operatives to those using cell phones with American numbers when we know in hindsight that Atta -- while in this country preparing for the attack -- communicated with al Qaeda's leadership abroad? Is it unreasonable for the government to do whatever it can to intercept such conversations, knowing that Able Danger had identified Atta as an al Qaeda operative before the attack? What about the civil rights and liberties of those slaughtered on 9/11 by al Qaeda?

IF these phone calls really were domestic spying, I, too, would object. But, they're not. They are international calls with one end outside the country. The remedy is simple and involves personal responsibility: If an American citizen does not want his calls monitored, then he shouldn't be chatting with foreign al Qaeda operatives on the phone. And to me, it is that simple.

Posted by: Christine G. | December 28, 2005 09:36 AM

There is nothing in the law that hamstrings our police or intelligence services unless they intend to operate as a police state.

It's clear that unless the administration wanted to spy on people who were not involved with terrorism (or crime), they had all the power they needed.

I believe that the administration wanted to violate this law because they were not using it to protect us, but rather because they wanted to spy on their political opponents. That is absolutely forbidden, whether we are at war or not.

Impeach them.

Posted by: Avedon Carol | December 28, 2005 10:20 AM

War.. Remind me again when Congress declared war..? Certainly not in response to the 9.11 attacks; this is political rhetoric to cover for unrestricted federal power, period. We were attacked by terrorists b/c some 3,000 people were killed. Innocent men, women and children.

36,000 innocent americans die every year in the US from influenza - where is your outrage? Ten times the deaths. No one to blame? How about the people setting the agenda from Washington then? Lack of a proper health care system in the most industrialized and "free" country on the planet.

The notion that responding to deaths in NY by killing civilians in Iraq is ludicrous. Do you remember the bunker hit during Gluf War 1 that killed over 400 men, women, children? Well, that's different - it was war, right? We can do it to them, that's upstanding, patriotic. They can't do it to us.

Keep it legal and consitutional if you can - there are way fewer rights in this country than you think, and this "war" on terror equates just as well to a war on your civil liberties. Freedom of speech? That is restricted by the Sedition act - you can't legally speak out against the US government. And most recently, an Iowa woman was charged with TERRORISM b/c she threatened to shoot a police officer. Puh-leeze. War is convenient.. and in this case, it hasn't been authorized in Iraq by Congress. Using that as an argument to authorize unrestricted presidential power is a shortcut to fascism.

Let's cut to the chase and just declare the ends justify the means, the constitution is just a 250 yr old piece of paper (ala Pres. George Bush) whose time came and went, and put a tap on all domestic phone lines.. Gah!!!!

Warrantless tapping b/c FISA is restrictive when there is a clause permitting proactive action is clearly a violation of the law, and the argument is silly to boot. "They" can't stand the idea of oversight, pure and simple.

*soapbox mode off*

Posted by: gonzo | December 28, 2005 10:34 AM

The next time I hear the phrase "activist judges" from a Republican I will remind them they have manufactured a god like power for Bush from broad words from the constitution and ignored specific words of the statutes. Scalito certainly should be grilled on the limits of executive power.

Posted by: Jack Hicks | December 28, 2005 10:45 AM

Most of the Republican party and the supporters of this war have taken the term "activist judges" and stood it on its head. They have used a broad phrase in the consitution and given Bush almost god like powers and completlely ignored the clear language of FISA. Alito should be questioned closely on executive power and congress should certainly hold hearings on this matter in January.

Posted by: Jack Hicks | December 28, 2005 11:00 AM

The farther you live from the World Trade Center, the easier it is to forget. You people that think the NSA is coming after you in Idaho or Vermont or someplace are way too full of yourselves. We are looking for guys named Marwan and Ramsi who call Wazeristanand Peshawar, get it? Whose names or email were linked to either a cell phone or computer grabbed off al Qaeda prisoners. If you're calling them, you've got problems. If they called you, even if it was a wrong number or Chinese take-out, you've also got problems. Tough luck.

The investigation that is needed is by a special counsel seeking indictment of the NSA leakers and NY Times reporters.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 28, 2005 11:20 AM

The actions of President Bush (Karl Rove, Cheney, etc.) is simply "Richard Nixon" part Two. Every time the Republicans get into a position where they controll the presidency and at least one house of congress they go overboard. Every single time. The fact that the FISA court denied (or modified) over a hundred secret requests should be an indication of their inability to focus on the main problem (Osama). Don't think for one moment that Karl Rove isn't interested in what Mr. Fitzgerald has in store for him! Don't think for one moment that information is not vital for political survival.

These are impeachable offenses, articles should be voted on before we lose our Democracy. History shows us that Hitler didn't controll Germany overnight, it was step by step.

Posted by: Marcus Taylor | December 28, 2005 11:22 AM

For my two cents, a state of war doesn't abrogate the Constitution. There is more danger to US citizens when a President assumes emergency powers than in any terrorist threat. There was a perfectly good, quick and legal mechanism for Bush to get warrants to eavesdrop on US citizens, he just ignored it. Is this what you want from a President? Geez, have the Republicans turned all their libertarians into lapdogs? Might as well turn your guns over to the Gummint, too.

Posted by: Turnabout | December 28, 2005 11:48 AM

Outside the occupation of Iraq, there is no war which the USA is party to. There is no such thing as a "war on terrorism." First of all, you can't have a war against a tactic or strategy; that's just an abuse of language and syntax. There can't be such a thing as a war against mortar fire, or SAMs, or aerial bombardment, and there is no such thing as a war on terrorism.

The second problem with the "war on terrorism" is that thanks to the PATRIOT act, a terrorist is anyone the President says is a terrorist. Today, maybe it's Arab & South Asian Muslims. Maybe 15 years from now it's labor unions or Southern Baptists. The law allows it, and those deemed "terrorists" by the administration effectively lose their constitutional rights.

There is also a problem with the domestic espionage program Bush authorized. First of all, we don't know who is being searched and/or monitored and how. If it's a domestic application of the Echelon program, or something similar, there is no question that completely innocent people are having their communications intercepted, with no sound basis. The principle of the fourth amendment is that the government must identify who is to be subject to search and/or seizure, and also justify the reasons for such a search. We may as well repeal the fourth amendment if this domestic espionage program is to be allowed.

Posted by: Brian | December 28, 2005 12:17 PM

Digital data packets flying around cyberspace from server to server; from router to router; from gateway to gateway are just that: DIGITAL DATA! You can't tell e-mail from ftp requests from voice over IP data. On top of that, you only have IP and MAC address to figure out where it originated. None of these data packets contain complete information. Only small segments of the data exist in these packets.
What does one use to originate an FISA warrant? MAC address maybe?
The way the law is written, we are still trying to tap a SINGLE phone that does not move.
The way the technology works, the target can be anywhere in the world and using any hardware and succeed in evading scrutiny.

We need to be watching ALL TRAFFIC.
So, how do you do that?

Posted by: astronerd | December 28, 2005 12:27 PM


The administration seems to honestly want us to accept the idea that a free press, congressional oversight, judicial oversight and even the rule of law are dangerous tools to be abused by terrorists.

They're not. They are the essence of American democracy. The idea that the President needs to rewrite the balance of powers in secret is absurd. The Soviet Union had both the intention and capability to destroy all life on the Continent. And yet the balance of powers survived. If OBL is so much more dangerous, perhaps we should be looking for him a little harder.

Nobody, nobody, is arguing that surveillance isn't a legitimate and necessary tool in wartime. That's a straw man defence. According to the way the President and his supporters describe the program, they should have had absolutley no problem obtaining warrants or indeed rewriting FISA. Either they're not being honest about the program or they are simply grabbing power for the Executive because they can, not because they actually need the power to conduct the surveillance. This is the core problem in the arguments that attempt to legitimize the spying program. No reasonable person is 'on the side of the terrorists'. Many reasonable people are on the side of checks and balances in government.

The 4th Amendment is not quaint or irrelevant, and it is beyond the pale for the President to willfully ignore it, as he has. As he has also ignored statutes written in plain english. Instead he offers authorizations apparently written in invisible ink while no one was looking.

Posted by: Bullsmith | December 28, 2005 12:28 PM

To Max Rugemer: The United States has not formally declared war on anyone since December 10, 1941, against Nazi Germany. We have not been legally "at war" since WW2 ended in 1945. A formal Declaration of War is required to empower a President to take action to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, should the need arise.

Yes, thousands of men and women have died in battle since then, but civil liberties were not officially restricted during the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, or Kuwait. But the Presidents involved didn't ask for, and Congress didn't grant, a formal Declaration of War for any of those military conflicts. In my view, they should have.

President Bush should have asked for a Declaration of War against both Afghanistan and Iraq before sending in the troops. He would have been guaranteed the former, but there would have been debate on the latter before approval. In any case, Congress would then have given Bush the extended authority he's illegally taking for himself. What he's doing now is clearly an impeachable offense at the Nixonian level.

Posted by: A former Bush supporter | December 28, 2005 12:32 PM

Those of you who think that this "scandal" is somehow an impeachable offense need to paddle your way out of the deep-end of the fever swamps. The real scandal is the NYT basically compromising national security by telling the jihadi's that we are monitoring their phone calls to their buddies back in the fatherland. Thanks alot. Another scandal like this and Bush's approval ratings will rise another 10%.

Posted by: D. | December 28, 2005 12:38 PM

The question becomes "Did Bush have a legitimate reason to go around FISA for the wire taps/electronic surveillance?" The Seattle Post Intelligence seems to have uncovered a possible explanation.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi

Of course, remember that it wasn't just Bush here, key Congressional leaders from BOTH parties were informed and gave tacit approval in those early days after September 11th.

Posted by: | December 28, 2005 12:54 PM

Oops, sorry. last comment was mine

Posted by: D. | December 28, 2005 12:57 PM


D. I'm shocked! The Terrorists only realized we're after them because the NYT said so?

Is the enemy dangerously clever, or blatantly moronic? You seem to claim they're both.

Everyone assumed there were massive wiretaps. Nobody assumed they were illegal because it's so damn easy to get legal ones.

As to the claim the law was insufficient: if the law is broken, you fix it. There is no defensible reason to demand a semi-permanent state of lawlesness.

Posted by: Bullsmith | December 28, 2005 01:04 PM

James J. Klapper ......... It's not clear to me if you are trying to make a point (and if so, what point) or just supplying useful information.

As to points, I would think that the probability or improbability of the constitutionality of FISA is moot to the primary issue, which is warrantless electronic taps of "US persons" outside of FISA.

As to useful information, you get an A+ in my book. Anyone who follows your link will come to Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in the Truman era seizure of steel mills case. What a treasure that is! So well written, so well reasoned, so relevant to the issue at hand. It reinforces my conviction that this issue must get before the Supreme Court in some appropriate manner and I shall hope that one of the current Justices will rise to the occasion as well as Jackson did. Thank you James.

Turnabout ......... I am no damn lapdog. :o)

Posted by: Cayambe | December 28, 2005 02:16 PM

The problem is with the scope of the wire taps. When Greenpeace, PETA, the American Indian Workers and the Catholic Workers have there phone taps, we have a problem. This administration isn't just eavesdropping on potential terrorists. They are eavesdropping on POLITICAL OPPONENTS. And for all of you arguing that the terrorists now know we are tapping their phones, give me a break. They are not stupid. Take off the blinders people, the same administration responsible for no WMD's, Abu Gharib, and the Valerie Plame leak are asking us to trust them, saying they only spy on terrorists, you must be drinking some pretty strong Kool Aid to have such blind faith.

Posted by: Tom Delay | December 28, 2005 02:22 PM

I thought the "lapdog" comment was very apt.

What appalls me about this whole thing is not that Bush is doing what he is doing. They've already been caught investigating various non-radical peace groups as national security threats. (So much for the argument that if you aren't talking to Al Queda you have nothing to fear.)

What blows me away more than anything else is to hear Republicans make the argument that we should simply bypass the Courts if the President decides it is necessary to conduct surveillance. What happened to getting government off the backs of the people? What happened to the libertarians within the party? Hello? The constitution? To me it appears that many Republicans are now saying that, "If W says it is necessary, we should just go ahead and do it." Sheesh. Total and utter abdication of American rights.

The war on terrorism may very well last for several generations. Are we prepared to do away with all sorts of American liberties? Why don't we just put the constitution on hold for a few generations and issue an emergency declaration giving the commander in chief the powers normally invested in the other two branches of government? Let's just make it official.

Posted by: Appalled | December 28, 2005 02:48 PM

"This administration isn't just eavesdropping on potential terrorists. They are eavesdropping on POLITICAL OPPONENTS."

Exactly.

Posted by: Appalled | December 28, 2005 02:50 PM

This President, his Administration and the congressional leadership, have broken the law. Impeach every member of the administration who knew of the Illegal wire tapping and censure if not expel every member of congress who had knowledge of this program. We impeached a President for lying about a sex act and yet we are giving a pass to a President and a congress who spied on American citizens without abiding by a very well established law. To top it off he says he will continue to do it and the people who exposed this illegal activity are some kind of traitors.
You cannot and you should not justify these actions by saying you were trying to protect us. The same arguments were used in Nazi Germany when Hitler created laws or broke several, so that he could aggressively deal with the socialist and communists who were infiltrating the German body politic. Those same actions were used to eliminate any legitimate candidates who opposed his administration. We allow this and you have already slipped down the slippery slope and headed over the cliff.
I know, you who agree will say what can be done, or those who disagree will say why not do something about it yourself. Well I am going to do the only thing a middle class working citizen can do I am copying this to my Senators, congressman and the local paper. The time has come to act.
People will tell us and this President has told us that we should trust in them to do the right thing. I say to the President, I have looked at the history of countries where citizens have allowed this type of latitude to its government and I have to say, sorry I don't trust a government that is allowed this power. To those of you who trust this man, what will happen when there are people in power you don't trust and they do the same thing and have the precedent of this Presidency to justify their activities. By then it will be too late. Your grandchildren, I'm sure, will thank you for living in a time when America established democracy in the Middle East while dismantling it's own at home while " We The People" did nothing. Wake up. "This" is the defining moment that will establish our legacy, future generations will thank you for not giving in to fear but for standing on principals that can not be violated. If we allow this to pass the terrorists have already won.

Posted by: Flynnstone | December 28, 2005 02:57 PM

Flynnstone hit the nail right on the head, Republicans.

You may think Bush is doing the right thing when he (unnecessarily) breaks the law to suit his needs, but there will be a Democrat in the White House someday. What will you do if that Democrat does exactly the same thing Bush is doing? Especially if said Democrat is one Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hmmmmmmmm????????

Posted by: Keith E. | December 28, 2005 03:04 PM

Eavesdropping on political opponents? You mean evil Sith Lord Karl Rove ("BOO!!") has been listening in on breathless coatroom conversations between Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi? No wonder the Democrats can't seem to win an election.

Posted by: D. | December 28, 2005 03:07 PM

I don't think it is necessary to listen in on the discussions of Dean and/or Pelosi to defeat the Dems. However, does that make it right?

Is that really the government you desire? What if it is your famed boogeyman, Hillary Clinton doing such surveillance? Wouldn't you want Congressional oversight? Is it okay just because it is Bush who is President?

I mean doesn't that argument sound lame to you as an American? I really think most Republicans are going by partisan reflexes here and have not thought this through at all.

Posted by: | December 28, 2005 03:26 PM

Anybody here remember "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"? (FDR)

And anybody remember who said: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing
drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."

Instead of exhorting us to courage, this president has hammered us with fear. And its working - look at the posts above and the others who want to simply blindly hand over their Constitutional protections to a man who has so consistently proven he cannot be trusted to protect them.

To paraphrase FDR, what we have to fear is the stoking of our own fear. Fear is a powerful political weapon wielded very effectively by this administration. Are Americans not brave enough to keep a stiff upper lip, even if we lose a small iota of protection, while we hold our leader's toes to the fire to keep his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". If this president can not or will not protect us within the law and the Constitution, it is time to replace him with a leader who can.

If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, why would we hand them a victory by giving our freedom away?

Posted by: patriot1957 | December 28, 2005 03:35 PM

We need a President from Texas. Well, maybe some don't know the details ...

"Remember The Alamo" was a battle cry at the Battle of San Jacinto. Good thing people were listening because the whole thing took about 20 minutes once it got started - Gen. Sam Houston was very clever about it. Afterwards, Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (for short) was captured then NOT treated as those captured at The Alamo. He was not tortured, he was not shot ...

Sam Houston was not fighting a past battle (The Alamo) at San Jacinto, that, in the end, is why he won the future.

The question is simply this: Is there a future after 9/11 ? If so, then we'd better start acting like it.

Posted by: GTexas | December 28, 2005 04:24 PM

Way to go Mr. President! Can you wiretap ignorant Americans like Mrs. Messner and point out the traitors to this great nation.

Posted by: milostea | December 28, 2005 05:59 PM

I've never been able to understand the argument that the *reason* the President had a right to bypass the courts was because the courts were too restrictive.

Isn't the entire point of having a FISA court judicial oversight? If FISA acting on their judicial oversight is precisely why the President must bypass judicial oversight, why do we have judicial oversight in the first place?

Since when is the court guilty until proven innocent? If FISA denies the President a warrant, isn't it safe to say they have a pretty damn good reason for doing so? If the President thinks the court is too restrictive he is welcome to take that case directly to the American public. He failed to do so. Why is anyone defending him over this?

Posted by: Will | December 28, 2005 07:20 PM

The point of having FISA is to allow the President to get the job done. What else do we need a President for than to DEFEND America from Terrorists?

Bush didn't break the law. If he was breaking the law, his advisors would have advised him not to do it. I don't think Bush is really that stupid.

Posted by: shoelimpy | December 28, 2005 10:03 PM

Let's suppose you have a program that will search a stream of data packets for the word "bomb". You run the program and, after some time, you get a hit. You capture the packet and decode the MAC and IP addresses. You now have an extremely limited time span to go to the IP and intercept that data stream. When the voice over IP data is decoded and you can listen to it, you find out that it was a call from some PETA person who was saying, "I bombed on my exam, Kathy, and neither you or my mom are going to make me go back to finish college!"
If we had put together a warrant request, this voip call would have been finished and terminated. It is true, though, that the data still exists on a hard drive somewhere.
Do we NOW go and get a warrant? Do we want to investigate all data that includes the word "bomb"?
The laws that would cover modern technology situations like this JUST AREN'T THERE!

Posted by: astronerd | December 28, 2005 10:18 PM

Mill_of_MN "we were attacked on Mr Bush's watch, and the principle architect of that attack is still at large; they shifted resources away from his capture"

No, curiously enough we got the architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, partially through "invading his privacy" by wiretapping his ass. Then got him to squeal like a pig by diminishing his human dignity, dignity guaranteed by a noble treaty. Ohhhhhhh, the humanity! The humanity!

Bin Laden was the co-CEO that approved to the plan Mohammed cenceived, planned, and executed. Getting him is important, but we now know that radical Islam is not some James Bond-like Spectre organization headed by a single genius nemesis "Mr. Evil" whose capture or death will collapse the whole organization. It is stupid in war to fixate on an idividual as the only problem, a lesson Bush has had pounded into him by both radical Islam going on while Binnie, Al Ayman, Zack, and Omar hide in deep cover - and by the capture of Iraq's "Mr. Evil" not mattering in the slightest in ending attacks on Americans in Iraq.

We have hundreds of special OPs and the CIA people Lefties hate so much dedicated to capturing high value targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq - backed by 150,000 troops in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.

Making a crusade to "capture" an evildoer so a 5-year long show trial stocked with the ACLU, Ramsey Clark and other America-haters is at best mildly gratifying at worse, a public podium where 5 years of propaganda damage can be inflicted by the enemy leader....as Slobbo is doing on the Euroweenie's insipid International Criminal Court for the last 3 years..

"now Iraq serves as a better training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was under the Taliban"

A famous Lefty self-deception myth. Iraq has become a death trap for radical Sunni Arabs. And wait until the Shiite militias and Pesh Murga get the keys to the prisons where 10,000-18,000 insurgents inc. over 4,000 foreign fighters still survive. And the terrorists have also managed to piss off the Jordanian public, Saudi military, and the squeeze on Syria has commenced. No where to run, easily. The myth of course is that terorism must be fought by UN statements of double-deploration made by Kofi Himself, the lawyers, and by cult of victimhood kumbaya rallies - because *shudder* fighting and killing terrorists only makes them more trained and more invincible.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims and maybe 120 million of them support the Islamoids, even will join the Islamoids under the right circumstances. So far, the US has fought them with kid gloves and not sought mass casualties. The point is to impress on them that if they give us shit, we will be in their backyard right quick and while we may not kill a lot of them and destroy their infrastructure, to let them know we could if we wanted to.

And only Lefties who hate and loath the people who protect us while not understanding their capacity to kill and ruin any enemy are obsessed with the "invincible Chechen, the never-defeated Afghan mujahadeen, the endless sea of mighty Jihadis" that will wipe us out --and of course the Lefties believe it will all be our fault for fighting back and thus "encouraging them".

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 28, 2005 10:27 PM


Chris,

Why didn't the President make his case before congress if he didn't like the laws? What genuine impediment did judicial oversight create? Paperwork? They're the government. They can deal with paperwork.

Are you telling me the Republican leadership of the house and senate cannot be trusted to defend the American people or to fulfil their duties of oversight as required by the constitution?

Jeepers, we better vote these out!

"Lefties" don't "hate and loath the people who protect us"

You seem to be the one with all the hating and the loathing.

How very Christian of you.

Posted by: Bullsmith | December 28, 2005 10:49 PM


I went completely off topic on you.

Still, you really totally misunderstand "Lefties" if you think they don't recognize the realities of Iraq.

Answer me this,

Who would be most accurate in describing the events in Iraq from Jan 1 2003 until now:

People who have repeatedly described steady progress punctuated with major milestones and, very very occasionally, a small reversal

or

People who have seen Iraq swing from optimism to defeat, from democracy to rank corruption, from hope to despair to hope to despair to exhaustion....?

Is reality a closet "Lefty"?

Posted by: Sorry Chris, | December 28, 2005 10:56 PM

Let's all think about Bush's actions in the following context:

If Al Gore were president would the Bush supporters still be advocating that the President could simply bypass all the laws of the land to protect the country?

It looks to me that we will still be engaged in the "War on Terrorism" well past the time Bush leaves office. Will all you Bush supporters still be singing this same tune if the president is named Kerry or Clinton? If the powers Bush claims to have are inherent in the Commander-in-Chief are vaild, his successor will also have those powers.

Looking at the situation in those terms, are you sure you support the Commander-in-Chief having those powers?

Posted by: madstork123 | December 28, 2005 11:14 PM

What if its Hillary?

Think hard. Every time you think the president should have some unbridled power ask yourself if its OK for Hillary to have that power. Don't forget if she gets elected by a percent or two she'll have a mandate to remake this country as she pleases.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | December 29, 2005 12:42 AM

"IF these phone calls really were domestic spying, I, too, would object. But, they're not. They are international calls with one end outside the country."

And how would you know this since no one is overseeing exactly who is being tapped? Because Bush said so? Puhlleez! Whether or not you think Bush was a bald faced liar or a misled patsy or simply innocently not aware that beginning every speech on Iraq with a reference to 9-11 would "accidentally" "unintentionally" through no fault of his convince 70% of Americans that Saddam was involved in 9-11 or closely allied with al Qaeda, the end result is the same - you can't take what he tells you to the bank, can you?

From what I've seen over the past 5 years it is likely Bush did not go to Congress in secret session to get the law changed to keep up with technology because he doesn't want Congress to know who this administration is spying on or why.

If it was Hillary grabbing unbridled power you'd be having a stroke.

And no, its not OK with me for Hillary to have unbridled power either. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter who wields it.

Using fear to consolidate power should have the hair standing up on your arms, no matter which side does it.

Who was its that said: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death"? Look it up.

"If he was breaking the law, his advisors would have advised him not to do it. I don't think Bush is really that stupid."

Its not stupid. Whoever put him up to this (could his name be Dick Cheney) was cunning. They figure they'll fall back on their usual tactics of muddying the water until no one knows what they really thought. The Luntz memo is quite educational in that respect.

Posted by: patriot 1957 | December 29, 2005 01:15 AM

Bullsmith sez - "Why didn't the President make his case before congress if he didn't like the laws? What genuine impediment did judicial oversight create? Paperwork? They're the government. They can deal with paperwork."

Part of the problem is people whose understanding of the Cosnstitution begins and ends with the Bill of Rights. Who omit the goals of the Preamble, Article I, Article II, Article IV Section for in favor of an anal, absolute reading of the 4th and other Amendments they think ovveride the rest of the Constitution. There are checks, but separation of powers and equality of power does not mean it takes two branches to take any action (Congress doesn't vote on the acceptability of each SCOTUS decision, the SCOTUS doesn't sign off on the budget, Congress doesn't meddle in Presidential pardons, etc,) The President upholds the Constitution, which also means honoring it's totality over overemphasis on a single part to the detriment of the whole. Lincoln famously opined on this. And all final power is not in lawyers and courts hands. Only Israel, which lacks a Constitution BTW, places it's Supreme Court above it's executive and legislative branches. And no country wants to run itself like Israel, though plenty of lawyers and activists that seek to bypass democratic or the people's will, or the executive's institutional impediments to their ambitions think unlimited judicial power with no Constitutional constraints on it is ideal. 99.7% of the American people are not lawyers, and they do not want a small elite checkmating the executive and legislative branches or the will of the people as expressed in our Republic's laws and institutions.

The US has traditionally dealt with enemy with scant concern for their "precious liberties" in past wars because of the primary emphasis on the goals of the Preamble, the commitment to defend the States from invasion or hostile foreign power actions, and Western Civ tradition - which holds "in time of war, the law is silent" as Wartime Constitutional Scholar William Reinquist was fond of reminding his colleagues. And traditionally dealt with those in sympathy with the enemy as Republican Lincoln dealt with the Peace Democrats (better known in history as the seditious Copperheads).

Bullsmith further sez: ""Lefties" don't "hate and loath the people who protect us". You seem to be the one with all the hating and the loathing.
How very Christian of you."

Don't condescend to me or insult Christianity as somehow removing the stain of the Left - which is the open US military-haters, enemy-lovers, moral equivalency multicultis, and outright traitors you tolerate within your ranks. Who spit on returning soldiers in the Vietnam era? Who have made a crusade of removing ROTC and military recruiters from Blue State colleges and high schools where they exercise power? Who said they "loathe" the military? Who never votes for the military spending and equipment commanders say they need to prevail?

And who squeals "I support the Troops, Don't you DARE question my patriotism!!" while applauding every article that slimes US soldiers or endangers them by revealing secrets? Who has said every conflict they have been in after Vietnam starting with Grenada was a "hopeless quagmire" against courageous victims of oppression with moral equivalency to American soldiers that we are bound to lose against? That is supporting the troops? Or suing to be able to stand behind or even on top of fallen American's coffins bemoaning the "totally senseless and useless slaughter" - not of heroes, but "victims" of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II? Not crediting their bravery and service but framing them as stupid patsies slaughtered by greed, evil leaders, corporate profits???? That's the Left's vision of "Supporting The Troops"????

Frankly, I like the Left in it's present derangement. Like the last self-identified "Peace Democrats", the Copperheads, they have been goaded in their hatred of Bush, America, Western Civ, their conviction that it's still the 60s - to crawl way out on a limb. Where like the Copperheads, they sit poised for discrediting themselves out of American politics.

It's funny because Bush and the corporate crony Republicans are bad for this country. Terribly bad domestically. But Lefty control of the Democrats that says security of Americans is secondary to enemy "rights" and who seek to tear down American institutions that Americans approve of through use of the media, Hollywood, the ACLU, and the courts requires the Democrats purge the spawn of commies and other failed movements of the 20th Century out of their ranks. America wants (1)tough on defense, (2)progressive domestically Democrat Centrists like FDR, Truman, JFK, and to a lesser extent, Clinton. This country does best with a Centrist President and a Centrist Congress - or with a strong change-making executive of vision with a reluctant not in lockstep Congress. I personally am very hopeful about Hillary and a half dozen serious, can-do Governors who have Centrist tendendcies. But the Democrats in particular need to purge the Left from controlling nominations - and if the Republicans are smart they will tell the maniac free trade, globalize, tax cuts for the wealthy crowd that they had their shot...

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 29, 2005 01:33 AM

I still say the centerpiece for the whole song and dance is energy... if we didn't need oil, we'd be a heck of a lot better off and we wouldn't have Exxon/Enron/Etc. trying to run the country. Alternative technologies exist that are in heavy development in countries like Japan that definitely merit closer attention, and some progressive investors.
Energy independence, good for america, good for everybody else....if NASA can send the shuttle hundreds of miles into space at 30,000 MPH or whatever on hydrogen, there's no reason we can't figure out how to design some type of engine that'll let you burn it in your own car, or just use electics with fuel cells and scrap the internal combustion engine completely. This IS the TWENTY-FIRST century, after all, no time like the present to take out the garbage...

Posted by: Bert | December 29, 2005 04:01 AM

Apparently the terrorists are not only so stupid they need the New York Times to tell them they might be spied on, they also need Fox News commentators to tell them that the New York Times is helping them by telling them that they're being spied on.

In fact, why is this website discussion even here? Don't you know a terrorist could be reading this and find out that he might be spied on?

Posted by: Kea | December 29, 2005 04:15 AM

So many "reporters" seem to forget that the Congress should not abridge the Constitution in their legislation, and if they do, checks and balances need to correct that.
I hear the 1968 law makes explicit exceptions for the President as concerned Foreign Intelligence gathering, written by the Congress, duly noting their inability to rewrite the Constitution with a legislative bill.
I note further the hate Bush press never mentions either of these facts. Our founders realized, and as has been practiced for more than 200 years, that Congress cannot keep a secret, and therefore left Intel gathering to the Executive branch.
Congress can write up all sorts of legislation, but if they attempt to usurp Presidential powers inherent in the Constitution, and practiced for hundreds of years, why then it is THEY, not the President whom deserves a sharp reprimand.
Bush haters will never come to this conclusion.
However, the outcome has already been written on this case, and the Bush haters will be disappointed, just as they were told the Plame leak was not a breaking of the law, even by those who wrote the law, two full years before the Libby fibbed to Fitzpatrick fiasco.
One doesn't need to wonder, either, where the Bush haters are when it comes to the latest Intel leak, the one concerning this very topic, and why they aren't raging and blazing a trail calling for the head(s) of the leaker(s) this time.
So pathetically slanted is the left press nowadays, and so overwrought with ideations and feverish postulations ( see the above column replete with dozens of referrences, none of which cover the three most important aspects, the Constitution, 1968 law and Congress' lack of Amendment), that this reader no longer respects them, their opinions, or their obtuse methodology of hiding the truth while baffling with fluff and blather.
A shameful condition, indeed.
Now, where is the call for the investigation into the leaker(s) of this most highly secretive Intel gathering ?
The IMMENSE SHAME of the silence in that area tells the story better than my critiques can.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 29, 2005 07:25 AM

Actually, SiliconDoc, you're mad at the New York Times for the wrong thing. Because they certainly should have informed the public that we have a renegade White House full of law-breakers. The real question is why they didn't blow the whistle over a year ago, when publishing the story might have done some good to hold them to account.

The Constitution, first and foremost, is structured to prevent executive power from becoming imperial power. The Bush-Cheney administration is trying to overturn that. This administration believes it trumps the Constitution. That's actually their argument. Marshalling the Constitution to try to justify overturning the Constitution is just plain dishonest.

Posted by: Avedon Carol | December 29, 2005 08:19 AM

The fact of the matter is that according to the way the law is written, at this time, the president authorized an ILLEGAL act. I don't care if it was for the right reasons, he broke the law. If he does not like the law, then he needs to get it changed.
Being the president does not make one immune to breaking the law, ask Clinton with his perjury, Nixon with his domestic spying or Reagan with his Iran-Contra...Strike that last one, he didnt recall having knowledge of it...
Anyway, the fact is if the law was broken, then a penalty needs to be handed down. Should he be impeached? Maybe, but at the very least he should be Censured and should apologize to the American people. No one is above the law in this land, Multi-millionaires and Famous actors and sports stars non withstanding...

Posted by: Joe D. | December 29, 2005 08:23 AM

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the comments revolve around the political beliefs of the posters, not the basics of the debate. Most of them appear to be taking a stand based on what they believe will hurt their political opponents, not on the legal facts of the situation.

The constitutional basis is pretty simple: If it's domestic surveillance or intrusion of legal US residents then the subjects have rights which make warrants necessary in most cases. If it's surveillance of a foreign enemy or its agents, US residents or not, then warrants are not needed. FISA does support this distinction, in spite of its dubious legal basis, and presidents since Carter have used the system as an internal system of checks on surveillance while avoiding its problems with the seperation of powers through executive orders.

Congress cannot legally intrude on the constitutional responsibilities and powers of the President to conduct a war any more than the President can intrude on the responsibilities and powers of Congress by passing laws and appropriating funds by himself.

The courts have been very sensitive to attempts to expand either legislative or executive powers at the expense of the other branches of government, as the link I posted showed. They are not likely to look with favor on either FISA or the War Powers Act regardless of the political motives of either side

Posted by: James J. Klapper | December 29, 2005 08:44 AM

What was authorized is legal as upheld by several courts since its inception in 1978 - authorized and executed by Carter; re-authorized and executed by Clinton; and re-authorized and executed by Bush. There was no wiretapping; it was electronic surveillance by other means of conversations between overseas persons and persons in the US. But, all of that is lost on those who are indeed invested in the US being destroyed by those who claim loss of civil liberties, but cannot identify those losses - they can leap right to the conclusion without having to go through the thought process to get them there because that's easy. Those who have served, and are serving, at the pointy end of the spear ensure those kibitzers' safetey / security so they can carp about supposed losses of civil liberites, but that's because we lack the sophistication and intelligence of those who talk rather than act.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | December 29, 2005 08:46 AM

What was authorized is legal as upheld by several courts since its inception in 1978 - authorized and executed by Carter; re-authorized and executed by Clinton; and re-authorized and executed by Bush. There was no wiretapping; it was electronic surveillance by other means of conversations between overseas persons and persons in the US. But, all of that is lost on those who are indeed invested in the US being destroyed by those who claim loss of civil liberties, but cannot identify those losses - they can leap right to the conclusion without having to go through the thought process to get them there because that's easy. Those who have served, and are serving, at the pointy end of the spear ensure those kibitzers' safetey / security so they can carp about supposed losses of civil liberites, but that's because we lack the sophistication and intelligence of those who talk rather than act.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | December 29, 2005 08:48 AM

The one bright side is if the Democrats can control a house of Congress in 2006, they now have a hook to impeach Bush.
Why can't we have an unimpeachable President?

Posted by: Turnabout | December 29, 2005 08:54 AM

Of course we should eavesdrop of terrorist's phone calls with U.S. citizens, and I certainly don't expect the govt. to have to get a warrant in advance of that eavesdropping. That's why they are permitted to get the warrants after the fact.

There is not excuse not to get the warrants after the fact.

The fact that Bush ignores this is his f-you to the American people, a symptom of his overall attitude. His claims that he is justified in his actions is his spin on illegal activities.

Posted by: Jeff | December 29, 2005 09:32 AM

I am impressed by the level of restraint surrounding this particular debate.. lots of static on other threads here, it is interesting that this one manages to maintain a level of civil interaction. Too bad this isn't the case for the rest of the nation.

Posted by: gonzo | December 29, 2005 09:50 AM

Why the Dems won't push for impeachment (at least the ones up for re-election in '06):

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

If the issue is pushed, I think you'll see the Republicans use it to paint the Dems as even weaker on national security than they are already perceived to be and they will probably gain even more seats in '06.

Politics trumps principle.

Posted by: D. | December 29, 2005 10:10 AM

Knowing how the vitriolic anti-Bush crowd sticks to its narrative, I'll toss in some facts for the rest of you. The scenario, as it happened, was as follows: Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was caught with a cell phone and a hard drive, laptop or other. Numbers and e-mails became available, the owners of which were unknown. The FISA court will not, repeat, will NOT, recognize simple numbers or emails of unknown origin as Probable Cause, whether before the surveillance or afterward (as the staunch defenders of the 'law' would have it). So the choice is this: monitor the numbers anyway, or toss them out in the name of lawfulness. No other choice, and, by the way, you have to decide this in hours, not days.

So, change the law, you say (but not before losing the advantage of having the numbers). Do you really think that Feingold, Kennedy, et al, would have amended the FISA law to the benefit of the CIA and the NSA? Or that the entire procedure would not have been blasted on the front page of the NY Times? If you do, rest assured that Santa is back at the North Pole and the Easter bunny will come in the spring.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 29, 2005 10:32 AM


Jersey 'Independant'

Okay, ban the Democrats. Let judges serve at the will of the President. And don't, by all means, use a legislative majority to write necessary legislation.

Are there any parts of the Constitution worth keeping?

Posted by: Bullsmith | December 29, 2005 10:58 AM

heh.

Ted Kennedy visits a DC McDonald's drive-thru
Kennedy: "Yes, I'd like two Big Macs, large fries, and a large Diet Pepsi."

Drive-thru employee: "Super-sized, right?"

Kennedy: "Of course."

Kennedy: "...Wait, how did you --?

Kennedy: "-- Okay, LET ME SEE YOUR FISA WARRANT, DRIVE-THRU GUY. NOW!"

(www.proteinwisdom.com)

Posted by: D. | December 29, 2005 11:04 AM

As a non-American, I am glad that Americans can now have their communications monitored by the same group that monitors everyone elses communications. Finally American's get to be on the receiving end of some of the policies their government enduces on others around the world ... ;-)

Posted by: jj | December 29, 2005 11:04 AM

Why do you people continually divert away from facts to some theoretical principal of constitutional law? Have you called Baluchistan lately? Or Islamabad? If not, relax. Maybe you don't think these people are out to kill us, and George Bush is your biggest worry. Hopefully, you can continue venting while the NSA ignores you and monitors the bad guys.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 29, 2005 11:13 AM

I get it! It's because he's fat right?

Posted by: | December 29, 2005 11:18 AM

I would rather have the spies trying to uncover a terrorist plot before it surfaces. If that means wiretapping, so be it. The day eavesdropping is used to convict someone of a nonterrorism related crime, I´ll worry.

Posted by: YoMama | December 29, 2005 11:29 AM

The critical issue that has been missed in this entire debate -- the 500 pound gorilla that no one has noticed -- is that the president is claiming war powers when Congress has never declared war. Under our constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, which they have not done. While Congress has authorized the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has never declared war. It follows that the President cannot then assert "wartime" powers.

To pursue this further, were we to declare war, against whom would we be fighting? In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we are no longer fighting against a hostile government, but are in the countries supporting friendly elected governments -- in essence we are conducting peacekeeping operations, not war operations. If we would declare war on Al Qaeda or on terror, we would be essentially committing ourselves to a never-ending war in which victory can never really be ascertained. Moreover, such a perpetual state of war would give the president never-ending wartime powers -- certainly not what our founding fathers intended.

Posted by: David | December 29, 2005 11:43 AM

Chris F:

"No, curiously enough we got the architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed"

perhaps a better term for Osama Bin Laden is "producer" as his financing certainly was big. while he is not key for operations in a decentralized network, he is key for recruiting. his ability to evade the US and other forces is something that fuels recruiting of new extremists with some axe to grind on the west.

I said - now Iraq serves as a better training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was under the Taliban

You - "A famous Lefty self-deception myth. Iraq has become a death trap for radical Sunni Arabs. And wait until the Shiite militias and Pesh Murga get the keys to the prisons where 10,000-18,000 insurgents inc. over 4,000 foreign fighters still survive. And the terrorists have also managed to piss off the Jordanian public, Saudi military, and the squeeze on Syria has commenced. No where to run, easily. The myth of course is that terorism must be fought by UN statements of double-deploration made by Kofi Himself, the lawyers, and by cult of victimhood kumbaya rallies - because *shudder* fighting and killing terrorists only makes them more trained and more invincible."

Giving terrorists practice against real Americans in uniform is much better training than what occurred in Afghanistan before we invaded.

Remember too, that you can't kill your way to victory in this "war on terrorism". Substantially more than 1 million Vietnamese died during that conflict, and the end result wasn't a US success. If there are as you speculate, 10's of millions of Muslims who would join the anti-west movement, do you propose to kill them all, and let G-d sort it out? These people are no serious threat to us or our way of life unless we turn them into that threat by indiscriminate brutality that we decry when done by others.

an aside -imho your slurs about Muslims, "lefties" and others are inaccurate and counterproductive. however, if you can't say what you think, what's the point of free political speech? i just think that stuff detracts from useful points you make. let the debate flourish.

happy new year

Mill_of_Mn

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | December 29, 2005 01:02 PM

To Jersey Independent: George Bush doesn't get to decide by himself who the bad guys are. We'd both agree that the NSA can monitor Islamabad, but how about the Washington Post?

To YoMama: You can start worrying ("FBI says Patriot Act used in Vegas strip club corruption probe").

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2003/nov/04/110410819.html

Posted by: Turnabout | December 29, 2005 01:10 PM

This has got to be the most paranoid nation on earth. Doesn't it ever occur to anyone that they were far more likely to from an accident within two miles of their home than by a terrorist attack? Add up the total numbers of deaths from world terroism since 9-11, 2001 and compare that number to the number of deaths that occurred from natural disasters. How many elderly people dies in the past three years from flu? How many childern dioes from gunshot wounds in this country which celebrates gun ownership as some sort of red badge of courage?

Look. People are stupid. And they simply don't come any more stupid than the addled American public which, given a few minor changes in tactics, a few well orchestrated speeches, and a blitz of media appearances, can be made to foreget the absolute disastrous perfromance of this President.

Beam me up Mr. Scott! There is most definitely no intelligent life on this squalid little ball.

Posted by: Jaxas | December 29, 2005 01:13 PM

To patriot 1957, bullsmith, and David (and several others) - Thank you!!! You are dead-on.

To Chris Ford - some questions: Did you ever serve in the military? Where were you during Vietnam? How many of your children have you sent into the military? If a recruiter assked your 17 year-old to sign up tomorrow, with an almost certainty of being sent to Iraq, what would your reaction be? Finally, answer the questions posted above about these powers being in the hands of Hillary Clinton. Would you support that scenario with as much vitriol, as you do on behalf or Bush?

For the record: I am a Vietnam-era veteran of US Army Intelligence. I was a Nixon/Reagan Republican until I realized that I had become a target of the Republican Party (post-divorce, single mother, in grad-school and temporarily on food stamps). Now I'm a die-hard Independent. I work for the feds on behalf of my fellow veterans (Vietnam or otherwise), and I'm raising a son who not only is striving for an AFROTC Scholarship or an appointment to the USAF Academy, but who dreams of becoming the commanding general of the Air Mobility Command.

What does this make me? A Bush-hating Leftie, die-hard commie, anti-military traitor? Really? What's interesting is that I spent my time in the Army in Berlin, participating in activities designed to discover what the Soviets and East Germans were up to. When I combine what I observed and learned about totalitarian regimes, their secretiveness and repression of dissent, with what I've learned from history and about Constitutional Law (at a highly regarded Red-State law school), I still come back to the idea that foundational American principles are better than this administration would have us believe.

I spent 4 years surrounded by 22 Soviet Divisions, where my weapon was miles away across town, and West Germany was 120 miles down the Helmstedt Autobahn. I had to decide whether to live in fear of those tanks rolling up to the Wall, or do my job so as to minimize that possibility. I chose NOT to fear. I saw first-hand what manipulation of fear can do to a populace, and I resent the hell out of my own President's use of that and other un-American tactics. And I'd feel exactly that same way if that President was named Clinton. Can you say the same?

Posted by: BerlinBabe | December 29, 2005 01:53 PM

To Jaxas: I blame the RNC talking points for American stupidity. Wil Wheaton had a fun article in Salon about this:

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/12/22/wheaton/index.html

Posted by: Turnabout | December 29, 2005 01:58 PM

"Such an uproar over the Bush Spy-on-Americans program! One would think that this was just an isolated incident promulgated by our Fascist Leader.

To the contrary, telephone-tapping, both on overseas and domestic conversations, has been going on for over twenty years, unabated and unchecked. The NSA is only an instrument for the FBI, the DHS, the CIA, the Pentagon and a special group under the direct control of Cheney.

The new bunch of swine just inherited programs long in place. In the case of the Bush freaks, however, a new twist has been added. Instead of snooping on politicians uncooperative to the sitting President's will, they now have added American business interests.

Let us use as an example a story about some wealthy and crooked American company (is there any other kind?) that has been stuffing money into Bush's pocket (Yes, Virginia, Bush personally takes bribes) to allow them to dump poisonous chemicals into a nearby water supply. Now, if that company wants to know what its rivals are up to, a soft word in Bush or Cheney's hairy ears and the spy network taps into any rival businesses and passes the stolen secrets along the line.

Also, the White House taps into phone calls of: Democratic leaders, uncooperative American politicians on the local scene, individuals that actively work against any Republican interest, foreign diplomatic conversations coming out of Washington or, better still, easily taken off space satellites that forward overseas telephonic or fax communications.

The current Administration has agreements in place with two major American telecommunications companies, (one of them is the biggest in the country...who volunteered their services without being asked as a "token of support for the President's efforts to protect Americans from terrorists and their supporters..." from an original memo in my possession) both whom are known to me, (and soon will be to everyone else when I get more paper) to allow the Bush Gestapo to tap into any and all calls going over their systems.*.

Similar agreements are in place with several of the top internet servers, AOL in particular, who voluntarily allow "free and unfettered" access to any and all consumer accounts. While other Presidents in the past have often passively allowed this or even been unaware of the degree and extent of it, Bush has gleefukly and knowingly expanded this beyond belief. And the sickening thing is that there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Bush and his crime partners are now squealing that without their protective presence, America would glow like Hiroshima in 1945. The truth is, without the presence of the Bush cabal, we would have no terrorist problems. Even at this point, all the United States would have to do would be to stop its manic support of the state is Israel, get its intrusive and brutal troops out of Iraq and no one in the Muslim world would have any interest in attacking the United States.

The hysterically entertaining image of a stalwart Bush protecting America is redolent of a furious rabbit, throwing small balls of its own dung at an advancing coyote in the hopes that the coyote would bother his cousins one rabbit burrow over.

Welcome to the new Reich!

Heil Bush!

And like the Führer, Bush and Cheney love to hide in underground bunkers."

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2050.htm

Posted by: Cowardly American | December 29, 2005 02:08 PM

I'm still appalled by the arguments being made by those on the right. To sum it up:

"Bush didn't break the law. If he was breaking the law, his advisors would have advised him not to do it. I don't think Bush is really that stupid."

Then there's the argument that we need an all powerful President in a time of "war."

This can go on for generations. Do we really want to be the last generation of Americans to have lived in a free society? Do we really want to give the President the authority to bypass all laws made by Congress and the ability to simply ignore the rulings of the courts?

I wish those on the "right" would desist from simply denouncing all notions that laws have been broken as the rantings of "Bush haters." For the record, I don't "hate" Bush. I do think he broke the law however and I do think he's set an incredibly dangerous precedent for this country.

I think the supporters of the President are acting on their well-honed political reflexes and instictively following the talking points put out by the White House. I wish folks would reasses the powers they advocating for the President. Forget about party politics. Just think twice about having a President who doesn't need to obey laws passed by Congress and can ignore the Courts on whim.

If you can't set aside party rhetoric, then just think about this: President Hillary Clinton.

What we have here is a crisis which goes straight to the very foundations of this country. Attempts to blow it off as simply politics will damage the very concept of freedom in this country.

Posted by: Appalled | December 29, 2005 02:13 PM

I am not concerned that the President is monitoring terrorists, I would be more concerned if he were not.

What concerns me is the nature of this. If the President can demonstrate that FISA is ineffective to Congress, then he is welcome to do so. If the President can demonstrate that he can exert Executive power and ignore legislation he is welcome to make his case before the Supreme Court.

The checks and balances this country is founded on are neither arbitrary nor stupid. They serve a purpose that need not be mutually exclusive with evolving national security needs. If FISA really is based on questionable legal grounds, than the President should have said that out in the open so that the debate can occur in the legal community, presumably reaching the Supreme Court.

If the FISA court was too restrictive, than the American people, democrats and republicans, who actually *do* care about national security no matter how much you want to paint them as conservative automatons or liberal anti americans, will empower Congress to do the right thing. If the President presents a clear and reasonable case why FISA prohibits his ability to save America, than Ted Kennedy will be in the unfortunate position of the loan dissenter on national security.

The President did not do those things. He acted clandestinely and has yet to explain why he did so.

Now you say: The President has constitutional authority that Congress cannot impede on. Ok, then why did the President ever use FISA in the first place? Why did he pretend to adhere to it while refusing to do so?

Now you say: The President needed to bypass FISA to secure the nation. Ok, then why did the President *ever* apply for a FISA warrant? Why didn't the President make the case in 2002 that FISA was a threat to national security?

Now you say: Only terrorists need to worry about their civil liberties being intruded. You're PROBABLY right, because frankly I don't think George Bush cares what I said to my girlfriend this month. But that doesn't make checks and balances irrelevant. The Judicial check on Executive power isn't some senseless thing. It exists even if the Executive doesn't pose a realistic threat to anyone (which may or may not be the case). It's in place so that dangerous Executives can't excercise that power, and even good hearted Presidents should respect that constitutional check.

Posted by: Will | December 29, 2005 02:15 PM

How do rabbits "throw" dung? Anyway, love the way you somehow roped our support for Israel into your fevered imagination of how the US government (oops, sorry, just the Bush Administration) is spying on everyone, everything, all the time (tinfoil hats are on the right, btw). Methinks you need to get out more.

Posted by: D. | December 29, 2005 02:22 PM

Avedon Carol - "The Constitution, first and foremost, is structured to prevent executive power from becoming imperial power."

That's silliness on your part. The Constitution is structured first and foremost as a document of provisions intended to meet the goals of the Preamble. The Preamble overarches the rest of the document, including the only thing that some people focus on, the particular Amendments they favor in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU, for example, rejects the 2nd, 9th, and 10 Amendments.

In fact, lets refresh the knowledge of Leftist terrorist-huggers and anal worshippers of enemy "precious liberties"

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note nothing is in there about We the People hating powerful leaders. The Constitution of course, not that many liberals know this, succeeded the Articles of Confederation, which failed because of lack of coordinated Federalism and a weak Executive. The Constitution aimed to fix the lack of weak executive power. Some other observations:

1. There are 6 goals. 3 of those goals relate to providing Security - an acknowledgement of the Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke arguments on the need to establish security first in order for "rights" to have any meaning whatsoever.

2. The "Blessings of Liberty" are limited in scope to ourselves, "We the People", of America. They (liberties) do not flow naturally to Uruguayans, Somalis demanding in to get welfare and freebies for their large families, and they certainly don't flow to enemy or agents of the enemy that seek to destroy 3 of 6 of the goals of the Constitution by butchering or controlling "We the People". Later the Constitution writes exceptional language for only one crime - treason - reflecting that it is the highest crime, and how traitors acting as agents of the enemy are so dangerous. All dissent is not patriotic - not when it skirts (sedition) or directly crosses over to treason. (BTW -Transnational elites with their fingers in the justice systems of several countries hate accountability for treason because they only have loyalty to a cause or religion, not a people.)

3. A more perfect union? Yes, for We the People of the United States, not a goal Constitutionally directed at a more perfect union between Americans and other peoples. Not "We the People" of Blessed Mother Gaia or similar liberal drivel..Establish justice? Sure! Good idea as long as it doesn't preclude other goals of the Preamble.

Avedon - "The Bush-Cheney administration is trying to overturn that. This administration believes it trumps the Constitution. That's actually their argument."

Brainless Lefty projection of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Where specifically have they made that argument that Bushies trump the Constitution other than the whispering voices in your head you swear say they said it, and warn you the long dark night of Bush Fascism is spreading across the land???

Mill_of_MN -

"an aside -imho your slurs about Muslims, "lefties" and others are inaccurate and counterproductive. however, if you can't say what you think, what's the point of free political speech? i just think that stuff detracts from useful points you make."

In wartime when the stakes are high, you don't call the enemy (Islamoids) or their enablers (America-hating, Western Civ-hating Lefties) by kind words. Islamoids are a minority of Muslims, but a very significant minority. Call them radical Islamists, Death Cult Muslims, Islamofascists if you prefer. And while the whole religion is not befouled by such primitive evil, it is badly in need of Reformation and until then, DOES indirectly threaten our civilization, Europes, Israels, and Russia's through high breeding rate demographics, religious based violence, and refusal to assimilate. And threatens us indirectly by refusing to end their justifications and sympathy of other Muslims who use terorism to express their "just grievances" leading to killing infidels or despising all aspects of infidel culture. The social contract the Muslims made who moved to the West, whether they realize it or not as they shelter in Lefty multiculti excuses - is they must do more to coexist and contribute to society and social harmony than just extract money from jobs or welfare or technology our civilization enables them to get where Islamic civilization failed to deliver. They voluntarily immigrated to our civilization or were born into it as kids of immigrants - they have the same responsibilities as other immigrants if they expect to receive the same "rights".

Oh, and saying "in your humble opinion" that criticism of Lefties or Islamoids amount to "slurs" is classic passive-aggressive behavior, Mill_in_MN.

"These people are no serious threat to us or our way of life unless we turn them into that threat by indiscriminate brutality that we decry when done by others."

Classic Lefty multiculti. The Islamic masses that cleansed the ME and N Africa of Christianity and butchered 15 million infidels in the 20th Century are "no serious threat to our way of life" unless we "make them turn to brutality". That is fucking hysterically funny, Mill....

What the heck do you think Jihad is? The peaceful inner struggle that CAIR touts and says to ignore what the Koran says? What about the imposition of Sharia in lands they control to change subject people's way of life DON'T you understand? Do you read history? The two great external threats to our civilization have been Islamic hordes and invasion into the West by barbarians that do not accept Western society or values. The "Religion of Peace" is no threat unless we make them so by "oppressing them"??? That ignores 1300 years of head-chopping Jihad and religious conquest by the sword.

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 29, 2005 02:35 PM


Chris

You talk (and talk) but you don't listen. You attack, but you don't defened your arguments. This thread is littered with thoughtful comments and questions (see BerlinBabe and so many others) that you don't answer. People speak from genuine experience and all you can see are 'classic Liberals.'

I'm trying to follow your arguments, but all I hear is someone in love with the echo of their own voice.

Here's another question for you not to answer. Why are you so worried about how classic Liberals can't understand the Law or the Constitution or war? The question the rest of us are debating is why can't the President trust a Republican Congress to do proper oversight? Why can't he trust courts with majority Republican appointees to do their job competently?

Because there might be a Liberal in the room the nation is open to invasion and occupation by Islamic radicals?

You are blinded by fear.

Posted by: Bullsmith | December 29, 2005 03:23 PM

Funny how clowns here keep whining "Carter did it! Clinton did it!" when the very blog entry they're commenting on includes: "The Facts: Domestic Surveillance

The Bush administration has asserted that the authorization to conduct warrantless wiretapping on U.S. citizens in the United States was implicit in the legislation authorizing the use of force against al Qaeda, passed by Congress shortly after 9/11. Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle denies that claim, explaining in a Washington Post op-ed that in fact Congress specifically rejected the insertion of a clause that would have allowed the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force in the United States." (See also the news story about Daschle's revelation.)

Of course, in order to have an informed debate about this complex subject, we must first have an understanding of the specific facts involved, and the applicable laws.

What the Law Says

Title 50 of the United States Code, Chapter 36, states:

§ 1802

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this chapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers ... or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power...
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party ....

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally -
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute ...

(b) Defense -- It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Penalties -- An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

(d) Federal jurisdiction -- There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "covers the intentional collection of the communication of a particular, known U.S. person [defined as a citizen or lawful permanent resident] who is in the United States, all wiretaps in the United States .... The Act requires that all such surveillance be authorized by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or in certain limited circumstances, by the Attorney General." (See in particular the sections beginning on pages 10 and 26 of the PDF.)

For additional background on what National Security Agency has said about wiretapping and protecting Fourth Amendment rights, see this helpful compilation from the National Security Archive.

(Want to lead the Debate for a day? Click here.)

News Stories

The scoop first appeared on Dec. 16 in the New York Times, which revealed it had kept the information quiet at the administration's request for a year prior to publication. The Times also provided this primer on the NSA.

On Dec. 19, Bush came out on the offensive, while Democrats questioned the legality of the surveillance.

White House Elaborates on Authority for Eavesdropping, Post, 12/20/05

Spy Court Judge Quits in Protest, Post, 12/21/05

The Post's Bart Gellman sizes up a Republican claim that Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless spying, just like Bush did. Gellman points out a fundamental difference: the Carter and Clinton orders did not apply to U.S. citizens, who have the protection of the Fourth Amendment."

Silly microcephalic fools.

Posted by: King Dorko The Fish | December 29, 2005 03:23 PM

Messed up my post. Apparently that means I'm a seditionist lefty or something.

I meant to only paste the part about:

"The Post's Bart Gellman sizes up a Republican claim that Presidents Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless spying, just like Bush did. Gellman points out a fundamental difference: the Carter and Clinton orders did not apply to U.S. citizens, who have the protection of the Fourth Amendment.'"

Posted by: Ha! | December 29, 2005 03:29 PM

Chris,

Answer this.

Would you think it wrong if the Preznit used warrantless wiretapping to spy on American citizens - let's say american-born WASPS - who had no contacts or connections with turrusts, but were, say, anti-war protestors? Or perhaps Greenpeace? Or even maybe just members of a Quaker peace-rally group?

If there's more to this scandal than just emergency ticking-scenario wiretaps on your hated furrners calling outside of Murrikuh, would you think that wrong?

What, if anything, would you find wrong? Or is it impossible for the PReznit to do anything wrong?

Do you feel that there should be any limits whatsover on the power of the Executive? Do you favor a complete abolishment of all legal protections of american citizenry? Or is it just that you doubt that any "real Murrikuns" were wiretapped, and only them furrners were tapped and so it's no problem?

Posted by: Ford Prefect | December 29, 2005 03:33 PM

I am so very tired of right-wingnuts.

OK, say we catch ObL. The "Lefties" will protect his rights, or so it is said. What will the "Righties" do -- treat him like anybody else -- shout him down ; brand him a "Bush Hater" ; accelerate his Student Loans ; make him shop for cheaper car insurance; What !!!???

Posted by: GTexas | December 29, 2005 04:21 PM

Chris ....... Your analysis of the Constitution does not touch upon the structural power balance that was so critical to its authors and is arguably the primary key to its longevity and success. Do yourself a favor and follow the link Mr. Klapper provided and read Justice Jackson's opinion which speaks so clearly and precisely to the extent an limits of executive power provided by the Constitution.

James Klapper wrote:
Under the definitions of "United States person" does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power. An "agent of a foreign power" is anyone, citizen or otherwise, who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." Which means that people who do not help al Qaeda or other terrorists are safe from surveillance. Anyone who does, however, is a foreign agent and can be targeted for warrantless eavesdropping.

Then he wrote:
The constitutional basis is pretty simple: If it's domestic surveillance or intrusion of legal US residents then the subjects have rights which make warrants necessary in most cases. If it's surveillance of a foreign enemy or its agents, US residents or not, then warrants are not needed. FISA does support this distinction, in spite of its dubious legal basis, and presidents since Carter have used the system as an internal system of checks on surveillance while avoiding its problems with the seperation of powers through executive orders

James,
This is where the rubber hits the road. We are, of course, forced to speculate because we are not in fact in possession of the details of what the administration is in fact doing...its all highly classified. But lets take the two serious scenarios offered, phone numbers are derived from suspect terrorist cell phones or computers or papers or interrogations overseas, and phone numbers are derived from tracing and examining "patterns" in the linkages of calls to or from such numbers (one form of "data mining").

Suppose you went to school with Ali al Baraki, established a close friendship with him, maintained in subsequent years through occasional social and friendly letters and phone calls. He is arrested as a terrorist suspect in Pakistan and your phone number is discovered on his computer. Is that sufficient to make you an "agent of a foreign power" and justify a wiretap on your telephone outside of FISA. In other words, is that sufficient to suspend your 4th amendment rights forthwith, at the unreviewable and unknown discretion of the President or his delegated agent? Ultimately one must ask, if not probable cause then WHAT cause? Is mere paranoia sufficient?

There are a number of ways one could go about developing patterns and linkages based on either your telephone number or the suspect's telephone number. They might track back all of the calls made from your number and see the frequency with which you called the suspect's phone number and the length of such calls, they might examine all other calls made from your number to other overseas or domestic numbers and their lengths and frequency. They might start monitoring and recording the source phone number of all calls made to your number, their frequency and length, without necessarily monitoring the content. From the resulting patterns they may derive a list of other suspect numbers and examine those in the same way. Now any of these that are overseas numbers are fair game, well, legal would be the better term since the rest of the world would undoubtedly object to the word fair. But what of the domestic ones? Is this pattern sufficient to suspend their 4th amendment rights and begin monitoring the content of all calls from or to those domestic numbers?

As I said, the actual facts of the matter are very important, we don't know those, and the nature of the activity dictates that these must not be known. But when you say, "The Constitutional basis is pretty simple.", this is only true if we all first register with the government whether we are or are not agents of a foreign power. We don't, and therein lies the problem. Is the Supreme Court prepared to give such arbitrary discretion to the executive? I can't imagine it, I surely hope not.

My question to you is not whether they would look favorably on FISA or the War Powers Act, but do you think they would look favorably on the current actions apparently being taken through the NSA by the current administration?

Berlinbabe ....... You just keep right on thinking for yourself, we need more of you.

Feliz Ano Nuevo a todos.

Posted by: Cayambe | December 29, 2005 04:38 PM

Actually Avedon Carol, you didn't read my post very effectively, did you?
One, the New York Times is not the media I spoke of, or do you think they should call for an investigation in order to injure their own sources? ( You didn't think, as there are a lot of media players available to do just such a thing.)
Two, they aren't the primary culpable leaker. ( Unless you think they are part of the gathering of NSA Intel, working for the Bush administration ?)
Three, it appears you are the one mad at the New york Times, for not releasing the top secret information scoop a year earlier so you could get on with your Bush hating sooner. ( Not I )
Four, you really need to read what I wrote again, so you can clearly understand that I do not agree with your errors at all. ( Difficult for me to believe that you failed that initial realization. I rest assured your pretensive reply was retortive in nature with a false assumption concerning my feelings used as invalid cover for an agressive rebuttal.)
Time will certainly settle the matter, in my favor as before, as president is present for the President.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 29, 2005 05:58 PM

Avedon Carol :

" The real question is why they didn't blow the whistle over a year ago, when publishing the story might have done some good to hold them to account. "

Indeed it is an important question. You should think about it, and let all of us know what your conclusions are concerning this matter.
Let me give you a hint.
The conclusions don't bode well for the Bush haters.
Blind allegiance to unforgiving fantasy will no doubt remain, nonetheless.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 29, 2005 06:27 PM

A FormerBushSupporter:

"A formal Declaration of War is required to empower a President to take action to restrict the civil liberties of American citizens, should the need arise."

Bullshit.

The anti-war people fixate on this and usually go on and on about demanding Congress impeach this President or that one for "illegal war" for doing what Congress instructed and funded via other "use of force is agreed to" votes. Scholars and Congress on both sides say "use of force to kill enemy" is equivalent to war under the Constitution without getting into entangling International legalisms. It's asinine semantics on it's face, but Lefties keep it up based on their particular read of the Constitution - that the consensus of 50 years of the 3 branches of the Federal Gov't PLUS the consensus of Constitutional scholars rejects.

Too many people are ignorant of the Constitution outside the "Bill of Rights" which they and the ACLU say - tosses the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments out - as inconvenient to Leftist objectives. Plus not knowing the rest of it or what it's sometimes arcane language signifies.

The exact language on inferred "precious enemy civil liberties" and access to civilian Courts if foreign enemy, American agents of hostile foreign powers, or transnational organizations deadly hostile to America's interests act up like the Nazi Bund, Islamofascist-Americans, Commies, & Copperheads (Peace Democrats - 1861-65) is this:

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.

Don't even need War or various other semantic equivalents to war the Lefties hjave such heartburn over - for the President or Congress to clamp down on the enemy outside or the enemy within.

BerlinBabe - Let me get this right....You were serving to protect the precious Constitution and civil liberties of the
German people as well as defend America - by wiretapping the crap out of both sides of the Wall as well as monitoring and occasionally searching US Troops without warrant as part of the military intel function. Unless you were just a lower enlisted secretary or paper-pusher saying you were even out of that "loop". Your weapon, such that Vietnam-era females ever "did weapons" was in the other side of the city in an Armory gathering dust until you requaled.

Like many females, you define anger or wariness towards a hostile enemy as "fear"...unless you suddenly become threatened yourself. Then you become a "security mom" who redefines "unreasonable fear" as "just concern". The reason you didn't "fear" your duty and facing Ivan and the Vopos over your typewriter was it was seen as an all-or-nothing proposition. Peace, or total war where everyone was likely to die under M.A.D. And the Soviets and us were not sending unlawful combatants into one another's territory to nuke, head-chop hostages, etc.

All old Cold War grunts bought into that.

As for Bush, sorry about his domestic stuff. Same with Reagan. But being a member of the Owner Class vs. a lower enlisted upgrading her skills late in life means I focus more on security. I prefer a Centrist Democrat domestically, as I've said before, but the Left has taken over the Democrats enough that they simply can't be trusted on National Security unless a Dem candidate convinces the public that they care more about our rights and future than the rights of foes and their ACLU/Lefty pals.

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 29, 2005 06:40 PM

Bullsmith - "You talk (and talk) but you don't listen. You attack, but you don't defened your arguments. This thread is littered with thoughtful comments and questions (see BerlinBabe and so many others) that you don't answer."

Berlinbabe is a Cold War relic on food stamps. But I support her service!! Be it as a rear-etch clerk, a commissioned data pusher, whatever!

As for talk and talk, Bullsmith, what is your talk but the 1,000th time people have heard the slippery slope, love thine enemy Lefty talking points we have endured for the last 40 years??

As for the need to answer all those who love enemy civil liberties over American lives. No need.

Lenin, that icon of the America-haters said it best about the Jewish financiers backing communist revolution, the love of Soviet-enamoured aristocrats in academia, unions run by Commies, idealistic French and German political activists - "useful idiots" in regards to Oxfordites, and "capitalists will gladly sell us the rope by which we hang them" after a visit by banker Jakob Schiff asking for more liquidations of Orthodox priests in return for capital for Soviet arms factories....

Like Lenin, I am delighted that the Left is supplying the rope with which they will be hanged (not literally, I hope, unlike the Commies!) as enemy within supporting the rights and liberties of the Islamoids/Islamofascists over the safety of the American public. Keep sticking your necks out!!

One more big Islamoid attack enabled by the "civil liberties for the enemy!" bunch and they will be being frogmarched out of academia, the media, the influencer slots in the Democratic Party, and not tolerated in civil service or business circles...so as I think the Islamoids will attack again, the stripping of power from the Lefty sympathizers of Islamoid agents is just the silver lining.

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 29, 2005 07:43 PM

None of the civil liberties advocates - not a one - will confront the fact that surveillance on phone numbers and emails from captured cell phones and computers would never meet the probable cause threshold in the FISA court. Are you willing to cast aside the data from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad's cell phone and laptop? Skip the theoretical bullshit: yes or no?

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 29, 2005 10:27 PM

Chris, did you fail to answer me at http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2005/12/the_facts_domes.html#c12415734 because of some sort of cowardice?

Posted by: Flippu | December 29, 2005 10:28 PM

Chris ..... So you are a member of the "Owner Class" and therefore focus more on Security than a mere enlisted soul does. How come? Is your live more valuble to you than hers is to her? Or might it be that you have more economic assets to protect?

Yup ........ I knew there was a good justification for a progressive tax system and you have just confirmed it.

Posted by: Cayambe | December 30, 2005 01:53 AM

Flippu: "Chris, did you fail to answer me at "

I'll answer Flippu, even though you didn't ask me.


" Chris,
Answer this.
Would you think it wrong if the Preznit used warrantless wiretapping to spy on American citizens - let's say american-born WASPS - who had no contacts or connections with turrusts, but were, say, anti-war protestors? "

Clinton used the eye in the sky satellites to watch the WASP militia crews outside Oklahoma, after the OKC Murrah bombing. I'd say that's warrantless tapping at less than 1 meter resolution.Flippu- would you- did you think that was wrong ? If so, did you protest?

"Or perhaps Greenpeace? "
Did they blow up an SUV this week? How many logging trucks or cement mixers did they destroy this month? Did they "block access" to trees like the WASPS block acess to abortion clinics? If I name myself a color, then follow it with the word "peace", is that all it takes to prove I've never blown up a domestic piece of private property ?

"even maybe just members of a Quaker peace-rally group?"
Did the quakers saw down the telephone polls, dropping them onto the occassional passing electric Company truck on the way in to the city square?

"Ifthere's more to this scandal than just emergency ticking-scenario wiretaps on your hated furrners calling outside of Murrikuh, would you think that wrong? "

If there's more to the Barrett report, like FBI and IRS illegal uses by the Clinton presidency, (there actually is) do you find it wrong that Carl Levin and other democrats are blocking access to it, and redacting and blacking out huge portions of it, in order to cover up for democrats whom actually DID USE government agencies to attack their political opponents, and is that why the lefties are so " convinced" that Bush had to do it as well ? Do you find it right or wrong, or just plain coincidence, that when the BARRETT REPORT is due to be released in redacted and blacked out fashion, shaming the democrats and the Clinton presidency anyway for their illegal domestic attacks , surveillance, and harrasment of political opponents, that somehow imagining Bush has done something similar is a good enough reason to get in an uproar ? Is evidence of wrong doing less than or greater than partisan nut imaginings with no evidence when weighing the level of "grievances unredressed " ?

"What, if anything, would you find wrong? Or is it impossible for the PReznit to do anything wrong? "

Well, we have found wrongs on Clinton. Did I mention the Barrett report set for release on the 9th of January. Is it impossible that Clinton is the only of the two Presidents that have abused power in this fashion, and has been caught ?

"Do you feel that there should be any limits whatsover on the power of the Executive?"

Do you feel Clinton exceeded his Executive powers, and are you going to protest, or even read the Barrett report ?


"Do you favor a complete abolishment of all legal protections of american citizenry?"

Should it be illegal for Carl Levin to black out and redact large portions of the Barrett report, since it covers Clinton's abilishment of legal protections for the American citizenry ?

"Or is it just that you doubt that any "real Murrikuns" were wiretapped, "

Quite to the contrary, it appears you doubt that any real " people's of the world " would make a cause of wiretapping them to defend the USA a solid proposition of defense, wether or not they speak only Farsi, and have a left wing issued " friend of the continent and globe" stamp, or merely wail thrice a week aloud to friends and anyone on the other end of the phone whom will listen,"that this satanic cabal of oil hegemonic demon nazi leader needs to die now by lynching after courtmarshall, conviction, public flogging, and war criminal branding ." ( American or no American, USA citizen or not, maybe the overwhelming fear of the left has a basis for reality in it's gripping horror on the stomache and the mind ? ) Present company excepted, of course, of course, by all means.

"and only them furrners were tapped and so it's no problem?
"

I believe someone might perhaps want to wiretap those who shriek for death of this government and it's leader. I really don't think they give a pass to you just because you have some sort of rubber/glue badge that says you can get away with it, or at least plot, plan, foment, and work toward that goal, while claiming "domestic citizen immunity " and " it bounces of me and sticks to you " type thing.

Do you go for rubber/glue immunity Flippu ?

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 02:10 AM

People are probably ignoring me on this point, but yet again I say that energy is a big part of the whole mess.
Oil=money. Money is another form of power. Power corrupts..zzzzz. I don't care if you're a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Great Chickenhead-ist, whatever. You're gonna die anyway, and the longer you spend on your knees, the more of your life you waste, in my view. Our country spends billions annually on this that and whatever, if we'd started dropping 10 billion a year into alternative energy back in say, 1974, when the oil thing really hit us the first time, the sword-wielding america-hating, dress-wearing hordes would be herding goats etc. today. Instead, I think we've created an oil-fueled nightmare that will only be ended by reinventing our energy usage model from the ground up. Conservation, alternatives,
new technologies, these will feature heavily in the 21st century american path to the future....and, the sooner the better. Get Texaco et. al. out of office, and let's have some of those reforms....

Posted by: Bert | December 30, 2005 04:49 AM

Funny how Chris only answered questions with questions. Rather than answer if he felt anything Booshy does is wrong, he says, "Well, Clinton did something that I'm going to consider similar, even though 1) it's imaginary, 2) it's unrelated".

Guess he's deaf from all that oxycontin.

What's funny is how he vilifies Clinton, and says whatever he did (or the druggy righties say he did in their stupor) was wrong, but it's OK for Bush.

See, I ain't defending Clinton here, kiddypoo. I called for his impeachment on his crimes. Do you righty mucusballs call for Chimpy's on his?

Posted by: Flippu | December 30, 2005 09:43 AM

Righty mucusballs? Chimpy Abu-McHitlerBush? And you wonder why no one, outside of this lib echo chamber takes you guys seriously anymore?

Posted by: | December 30, 2005 10:01 AM

I like having a lib echo chamber. We point out all of Bush's flaws, and watch the Repubs sputter. They can't ignore us because our facts contradict their sophistic talking points.

Posted by: Turnabout | December 30, 2005 10:13 AM

Undoubtedly you must enjoy the Bush bashing since you do it with such regularity. That and a halfway decent candidate and a positive articulated agenda and a credible national security policy that emphasizes more than the rights of terrorists and enemy combatants just might win you an election. Believe it or not, some of us who respond in this column are not Bush voters nor Republicans; we're just sickened by the hand-wringing wusses that pass for Democratic leadership

With Bush's incompetence on FEMA/Homeland Security and his preposterous retention of tax cuts in the face of a widening deficit, one would think he would be easily defeated. But because you all seem to refuse to acknowledge even the existence of a terrorist threat, and can only whine about Cheney and oil and Bush and civil liberties, no one knows what you are actually FOR and so, while you revel in your Michael Moore conspiracies and morally righteous antiwar sentiment, the Republicans just keep on winning. Hey, Howard Dean makes you feel good; that and about 10 million more votes might win you an election.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 30, 2005 11:36 AM

Flippu : " See, I ain't defending Clinton here, kiddypoo. I called for his impeachment on his crimes. "

Oh really ? What crimes were those ?


Flippu "Do you righty mucusballs call for Chimpy's on his?"

Well, as soon as I get a listing of Clinton's crimes that you called for impeachment on :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
etc.

Use another post sheet as neccessary:

I'll take under consideration any High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the House carries forward in the next set of imaginary impeachment proceedings.Until then, all we have a list of crimes Clinton was Impeached for.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 11:57 AM

Open Question to Jersey, Silicon, and Chris in a probably futile attempt at staying on topic-

Do you think there should be wartime checks of power on Presidents and if so, which branch exerts oversight over those powers and what are those limits?

I agree that the Democratic party is lacking in a clear national security agenda, a fact that you three take enormous pleasure in pointing out. It would be disingenuous of all of you to enter this debate, which is about our current President's constitutional powers (not Clinton's) without outlining your alternative view.

Screaming: "What the President did is constitutional you ACLU loving terrorists" doesn't answer the utterly vital question: What can the President do that *isn't* constitutional? I am all ears gentlemen.

Posted by: Will | December 30, 2005 12:13 PM

Silicon Doc,

I'll be glad to tell you about Clinton. After, and only after, you explain whether or not you think the current President has committed anything unseemly, potentially illegal, and/or impeachable. I've already stated that I hold a president to a standard. I felt that Clinton broke the laws, and I feel that Bush needs to be held to the same standard. Do you feel that Clinton needed to be nailed but Bush did no wrong? Are you going to attempt to excuse Bush's actions based on your failure to throw Clinton out for things as well?

You whine so much about Clinton doing terrible things (and he did do some terrible things). But why do you gloss over the current administration's equally terrible actions? Why do you excuse them?

Stop playing these childish dodges about "I won't answer you until you run this fool's errand so I can change the subject to Clinton". Get over it, Clinton's out of office and can no longer damage the constitution. You can continue to press for his prosecution if you wish.

But we're talking about the current boys in office. Do you think that they did anything wrong? Do you think that they can do no wrong, because whatever they do is allowable because they said so? Do you feel that there are or should be limits on their authority?

Blah blah Clinton blah blah aside, do you have any problems with the authoritarian excesses of the current WH?

Posted by: Flippu | December 30, 2005 12:26 PM

Certainly not a check of power that restricts the ability to track down Jihadist terrorists. One would be more sanguine about congressional oversight if one actually believed that the national interest took precedent over political interest. Joe Lieberman's attempt to articulate this was, of course, instantly trashed by the usual partisan Democrats. So the state of things leads one to believe that anything beneficial to the president would be de facto opposed in Congress, especially in light of the heightened use of the filibuster in the Senate. Witness Harry Reid's "we killed the Patriot Act".

As far as what he can't do, where do you begin: burn books? ban protest? It's a long list, but it doesn't involve giving the jihadis even the slightest chance of success.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 30, 2005 12:42 PM

Fine, apart from the right to track down terrorists, which I agree with, are there limits? Is it OK fine for the gov't to use domestic warrantless spying to invade the privacy of non-terrorists who are merely political opposition? Is that OK?

If you read, you might see that the Patriot Act was 'stopped' because the only options allowed were Permanent or Cancelled. The Dems put forth a reasonable bill to extend it for a few months to have some time to review the actual uses and successes of it, rather than simply hand a blank check to the WH.

So it was "cancelled" and then a separate bill was quickly made to extend it separately. No-one "killed" it.

To be honest with you, most of America, barring the sickest of rightwingers, feels that it'd be stupid to give up entirely the ideas of freedom and privacy that make America what it is, just for an illusion of safety.

You can never be 100% safe. Why give up 50% or more of your freedom to be, what, 75% safe?

Would you prefer safety to freedom so much that you'd be willing to have every single man, woman, and child implanted with chips that recorded every single word, thought, every step they took, stripping them of the basic sense of individuality - would you have them forced to live under the orders of 'security' telling them where to go, what to wear, what to believe... just to be safe?

How much do you want to take from the average non-jihadist american citizen to make yourself think you're safe?

Posted by: Flippu | December 30, 2005 01:12 PM

I am not giving up any freedoms, that's the point. How do you make the leap from jihadists to every single man, woman and child? That is precisely where you guys go off the deep end. It's some kind of paranoia or egocentrism, that because they're tapping jihadist links they're somehow tapping innocent Americans in Peoria. Have you called Baluchistan lately? Got calls from Ramsi in Peshawar?

Check Rasmussen poll: 64% approve NSA surveillance.

Posted by: Jersey Independent | December 30, 2005 01:32 PM

Jersey said-

"Certainly not a check of power that restricts the ability to track down Jihadist terrorists. One would be more sanguine about congressional oversight if one actually believed that the national interest took precedent over political interest. Joe Lieberman's attempt to articulate this was, of course, instantly trashed by the usual partisan Democrats. So the state of things leads one to believe that anything beneficial to the president would be de facto opposed in Congress, especially in light of the heightened use of the filibuster in the Senate. Witness Harry Reid's "we killed the Patriot Act"."

The problem is without oversight you don't even know where "track[ing] down Jihadists" begins and infringing on the legal rights of perfectly innocent people begins. I agree, there should NOT be any legality that prevents the President from pursuing terrorists.

I was never under the impression that FISA represented a security roadblock. If you think it does, please explain why and we can have a reasonable discussion about changing FISA.

The vast majority of Democrats are open to articulated arguments that express national security concerns. If we need to be able to data mine Americans, and there are empirical and logical claims to support this, then the President is welcome to make those arguments, don't you agree Jersey? Were these arguments made in 2002? Have you ever wondered why not?

Just like the majority of Republicans would not pee on the 4th amendment or literally follow Bush off a bridge. It seems like neither side of this debate is willing to admit that the opposing viewpoint has a legitimate reason to take their stance. If you think national security trumps all then you should be able to make that argument without appealing to Bill Clinton of all people.

The democrats are not the only party that participates in political grandstanding. The patrior act was not "killed" by democrats because they are not the majority party. The Republicans who traitored "killed" it by extending its tenure. Just because Joe Lieberman is a democrat and agrees with you doesn't mean he's the only reasonable one in the bunch, it just means he's the only one that agrees with you.

My question to you: If the President has a virtually unlimited right to pursue terrorists in the interests of national security, do you think there should be oversight of this ability? If so, is it the judicial branch or the legislative branch and by what methods? If not, then how would you even know if the President is using it to deter terrorism? His word?

These seem like legitimate questions. I enjoy your participation.

Posted by: Will | December 30, 2005 02:01 PM

"I am not giving up any freedoms, that's the point. How do you make the leap from jihadists to every single man, woman and child? That is precisely where you guys go off the deep end. It's some kind of paranoia or egocentrism, that because they're tapping jihadist links they're somehow tapping innocent Americans in Peoria. Have you called Baluchistan lately? Got calls from Ramsi in Peshawar?"

The reason we KNOW that the wire taps only involve phone calls to Baluchistan and Peshawar is because there is oversight. We need not argue about the legitimacy of those kinds of wiretaps because they make sense. Americans don't just call up Peshawar, and if they do so for legitimate reasons then they won't be tapped or the proper authority will make sure their privacy isn't impinged upon.

This debate is not about the rights of people who call Peshwar, but more importantly about the presence or lack thereof of oversight in surveillance. If you think "The President said he only taps phone calls to Peshwar and Baluchistan" constitutes oversight, then say so.

If that constitutes oversight then I disagree with giving the President that power. Without oversight there is no way to *know* who the President is monitoring. Even if we accept that the President should be able to monitor phone calls to Baluchistan, what method do you suggest to make sure that Baluchistan doesn't mean Boston? Clearly you don't trust Congress to be rational enough to excercise oversight (in spite of the fact that over half of Congress shares a political party with the President and ignoring that somehow we are the "paranoid" ones if its the President we worry about and you are rational because you fear Congress?), so let's discuss reasonable judicial oversight.

Is FISA too restrictive? What ways can we amend FISA? Do you have any substantive suggestions?

Posted by: Will | December 30, 2005 02:25 PM

To Jersey Independent: I can't suggest a halfway decent candidate, but my positive agenda would be:

1. Apologize to the UN, admit we can't manage Iraq by our lonesome, get other countries troops to be terrorist targets.

2. Keep a 1/3 of our troops in Iraq, send a 1/3 to Afghanistan, and send 1/3 home.

3. Abolish Homeland Security and let the NSA, CIA, and FBI go back to doing their jobs.

4. Everybody gets health care, even if you're not working.

5. Balance the budget.

6. Fund social security.

Posted by: Turnabout | December 30, 2005 02:32 PM

Flippu - You don't read too well. The letter you are complaining about dissing Clinton was by SiliconDoc. I thought Clinton was flawed (the boy thought being incredibly smart would gloss over the lies he habitually told but he got caught a few times), but overall a pretty good President, about as good as the Democrats can do.

Predictably, you then blabber on about implanting people with RFID chips. Then you ask a question that people failed to ask as cities like NYC descended into squalor, fear, mild anarchy:

"You can never be 100% safe. Why give up 50% or more of your freedom to be, what, 75% safe?"

Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and many other noted political philosophers debated the organizing principle of a state and all, but especially the 1st 3 - that guided the Founders - concluded that liberties were impossible, virtually meaningless without providing safety and security to the masses.

Rudy Giuliani - right in the birthplace of both the ACLU and the shyster lawyer - refreshed the American public on why Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau said security was indispensible for liberties. His lawful society and crimefighting strategy revealed a point where if you deter and punish the thugs, wastrels and other law-breakers enough the public universally sees the city become better and more livable and THEIR liberties are augmented.

Lefties still don't see that connection, being under dogma that threatening a thugs liberties somehow threatens them.

In NYC, LA, and a growing number of cities adopting the Giuliani model, security has returned liberty to the law-abiding masses. The balance between security and liberty seems to be understood by the authorities and the public.

Will writes: "Do you think there should be wartime checks of power on Presidents and if so, which branch exerts oversight over those powers and what are those limits?"

Take a look back in the Constitution to all the other stuff besides the 7 Bill of Rights Amendments the Left likes. You will see Congress is the institution the Constitution intended to check the President in wartime conduct. Congress has (1)the power to vote war or use of force, (2)the power of the pursestrings to fund or defund wartime endeavors, (3)the power to impeach officials in the executive branch over war conduct, (4)the power to regulate the conduct and actions of members of the military throgh law, (5) the power to suspend habeas corpus and close down the civilian courts in times of insurrection, invasion, national emergency.

The Constitution also clearly separates civilian courts from the military courts that enforce wartime law on not just soldiers, but American civilians falling under their authority (See Ex Parte Quirin). Even without Congress or the President using their written Constitutional Powers to suspend habeas corpus, with civilian courts still in operation, US citizens forcefully conscripted are under solely military law for all things military in nature, and US civilians or foreigners resident here who are engaged in spying, sabotage, terrorism, or otherwise acting as agents of the enemy in wartime are subject to justice from military commissions.

And we have used that Congressional power to defund a war (vietnam), have drawn up articles of impeachment for wartime conduct (Andrew Johnson, Nixon over Cambodia), passed the UCMJ governing soldiers conduct and other regs, and quite importantly, have warned the courts off excessive meddling into Presidential and Congressional wartime powers. "In time of war, the law is silent", noted scholar and author of several books on wartime roles for the courts, William Reinquist said, repeating a Roman admonition that has persisted in practice in the West for 2,000 years.

The general inclination of the Courts to butt out reflects that the Founders understood that war cannot be fought or all decisions reviewed and approved by a miniscule minority of Americans, 0.3% of them - the lawyers - but requires instead most wartime decisions be made by the peoples elected representatives with no "right" of the Courts to stand above Congress or the President and veto their wartime roles.

Will - "What can the President do that *isn't* constitutional? I am all ears gentlemen."

The President's National Emergency and wartime powers are awesome, deliberately made so by the Constitution and by circumstances of being a global power and technology stripping away our protection of "two vast oceans" shielding us from enemy machinations. Congress must support actions, or they check the executive, as intended. Their power over an "insaaaaane", out of control, or badly incompetent President in wartime is of course the impeachment mechanism. Traditionally, leaders of Congress are consulted on all key steps, but not Congress as a body, because they leak secrets to the public and thus to the enemy. (This practice of restricting info to Congressional leadership only was started by Ben Franklin - yes, he of the 1759 platitude about liberty and security the libertarians and Lefties love so much while being clueless about Franklin's latter activities in wartime. Franklin helped form the Committee of Secret Correspondence which stopped the past practice of notifying all members of the Continental Congress of key developments because they were invariably leaked to the public, thence automatically to the Brits.)

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 30, 2005 02:43 PM

Chris,

Yes or no: Is it OK for the president to negate federal laws to wiretap American citizens without a proven (beforehand or retroactively under FISA) valid reason validated by the FISA court? Does the fact that they might be talking to someone outside the country make it OK? Do we assume, as your pal did up above, that Real Murrikuns never call Them Mooslim Countries?

Yes or No: Is it OK for the government to snoop into the lives of american-born citizens who are not related to terrorist groups, but are members of, say, non-Republican political groups? Is it OK for the president to use domestic surveillance to look into people's lives just because he wants to?

Posted by: Flippu | December 30, 2005 03:02 PM

RE: "Americans don't just call up Peshawar, and if they do so for legitimate reasons then they won't be tapped or the proper authority will make sure their privacy isn't impinged upon."

If FISA, the proper authority, is intentionally being avoided and undermined, how can you argue that the proper authority is going to make sure that oversight occurs?

Or are we just to assume that it's all OK because Big Bro says so?

Posted by: Flippu | December 30, 2005 03:05 PM

Chris Ford-

You said: "You will see Congress is the institution the Constitution intended to check the President in wartime conduct. Congress has (1)the power to vote war or use of force, (2)the power of the pursestrings to fund or defund wartime endeavors, (3)the power to impeach officials in the executive branch over war conduct, (4)the power to regulate the conduct and actions of members of the military throgh law, (5) the power to suspend habeas corpus and close down the civilian courts in times of insurrection, invasion, national emergency."

1) has been used and ignored. The failure of a declaration of war has not limited anyone's ability to treat this as a war and, consequently, treat civil liberties as secondary to national security. This is not a policy stance on the issue by me.
2) I doubt Congress can limit the President's wiretaps simply by cutting the funding to the CIA, the Pentagon, or the NSA because it would be like chopping off a head to save the body from an ear infection. Budget appropriations are broadsword measures when this specific issue seems to demand a scalpel.
3) Everyone who mentions the word "impeachment" is a liberal activist who supports terrorism and is probably a Jewish ACLU attorney anyways so we can't really take this one seriously (right Chris?). Besides, this legislature is Republican as is the President. It's an unlikely candidate for "oversight".
4) Irrelevant to the present issue. I'm interested in a way to give the President the powers he needs to defend our country so long as someone besides the President gets to watch. FISA seemed to be the kind of legislation that would do so, though you disagree. So we can count 4) out...
5)I'm not sure how this will restrain the executive...

So you've answered my question that there is oversight of executive powers and you think they are legitimate. Now, if you think bypassing FISA is legitimate (and within the President's constitutionally protected powers) what other methods do you suggest to insure that the President isn't listening to my phone calls? I have never called Iraq, Iran, or any other middle eastern country, so you might respond "The President only taps people who communicate with *the enemy*" but I might ask: How the hell do you know? Is it his word? Is it some other mechanism? I thought it was FISA, you are suggesting that we don't need FISA. What guarantees do I have?

I'm not challenging you, I'm asking. Maybe I was misinformed by this entire debacle, but if I thought FISA was the oversight and you are saying FISA is unconstitutional, unnecessary, unsafe, then what oversight is left? Suggestions?

Posted by: Will | December 30, 2005 03:15 PM

Thanks, guys, for the kind comments.

Chris, you can impugn me from now until Doomsday, all without knowing anything about my pre- or post-foodstamp financial standing. You can impugn my military service, while demanding that others do the dirty work for you. You can also impugn my education and career path, without knowing anything but that I attended a respected law school. You can brag about being a member of the "owner class," and smear the "lowly enlisted." These are the same "lowly enlisted" who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, getting their butts blown to Holy Hell, so you can sit here and snipe.

All this, and you still failed to answer my questions and those the other thoughtful folks on this blog have asked. You still fail to say what you were doing during the Cold War or Vietnam. You've failed to answer whether you ever bothered to enlist or gain a commission in the Armed Services. You've never once said you'd send your child to potential death in Iraq on Bush's behalf. And you still haven't said how you'd feel about President Hillary having these self-same powers you defend so vigorously on Bush's behalf.

You want us to believe you're a rigorous intellectual, who has thoroughly researched his positions, all while you compromise that desired image by using jingoistic epithets to describe those with whom you disagree. You refuse to defend those positions in an intellectually rigorous manner. And in this case, by "defend" and "rigorous" I mean in the academic sense - not the polemic sense.

Try to move beyond being terminally angry at the world, and start engaging others respectfully. Many of us "security moms" are far more concerned about knee-jerk partisanship and the dismantling of those foundational American principles I referred to earlier, than we are about the fact that bad guys exist in the world.

Of course they exist. They will always exist. But disrespecting the Constitution, laws and structure of the United States is not the way to go about dealing with them. Gutting our international standing is not going to somehow enhance that standing. And I have a news flash for you: Our standing was such during the Cold War - inspite of Vietnam - that Berliners who grumbled about my/our/US/Allied occupation of their city and presence in their country, still preferred to grumble to a US soldier, rather than a Soviet one.

So impugn away, my friend. It's your right, since this is still a free country. Just try to remember that the "lowly enlisted" are the shoulders on which you and the rest of the "owner-class" stand. Those "lowly enlisted" are the ones who are - depending on your point of view - either 1) defending with their lives your freedom to impugn, or 2) paying with their lives on behalf of your paranoia and this administration's hubris.

Posted by: BerlinBabe | December 30, 2005 03:22 PM

Flippu :

" Silicon Doc,
I'll be glad to tell you about Clinton.
...already stated that I hold a president to a standard. I felt that Clinton broke the laws.....Do you feel that Clinton needed to be nailed ....You whine so much about Clinton doing terrible things (and he did do some terrible things)...Blah blah Clinton blah blah aside.. "

Well, I don't see you telling me about Clinton's crimes, and am well aware it would never be done easily, depsite your professed willingness.

Let me try again, you can perhaps understand, since you almost held back the childish leftist insults this time.

I'll take under consideration any High Crimes and Misdemeanors that the House carries forward in the next set of imaginary impeachment proceedings.Until then, all we have is a list of crimes Clinton was Impeached for.

If that doesn't work for you, I'll remind you that you are not employed by the Justice Department of the USA, nor are you a member of the House or Senate. I don't think I'll go around pretending that I'm a legal expert, judge, jury, and sentencer, like so many others running around today.

Since you dismiss historical record as, what did you say... "1) it's imaginary, 2) it's unrelated "( to Chris )... have you thought about the FACT that Clinton was NOT held as criminal for the non warrant Satellite spying he did on the public after the OKC bombing? Need I remind you the of the well assisted ravenous republican vampiric aspirations of let's say, Dan Burton, at the time ?
If that doesn't tell you something, and you didn't read or reread my posts, think about THIS as well, along the same lines :

The New York Times didn't release the story for a whole year. Reportedly, they held at least one meeting with Bush, where he specifically requested it be withheld.

Now, did the press decide that "criminal behavior of the highest order" should be covered up for just a year, even as it had been occurring for several already ?
Noone on this side of sane since Jason Blair's revelations thinks the NYT is a stumper for republicans or Bush, or that the other "rogue" reporter with near achieved book aspirations (concerning this spying )is above their machinations.
Perhaps the left lunatics should take a look at motives and operandi, not of just those they hate, but of those they love and revere as well.
Shall we all conclude the paper of record is so pathetic and disconnected from politics and recent history that none of it's massive tentacles, back doors, phone lines, legal experts, former administration contacts, lifetime government bureaucrat reach,and employ could decipher the legality of such a thing, even as it met with the President secretly ?
If you're not following along properly, you may be a liberal for the rest of your life, and perhaps, if the neccessary middling yet insufficient wattage for breakout is present, you may be silently mumbling and cursing about backpressure for access stifling printed glory.
If you're saying to yourself what is he talking about, I'm afraid you're in for a rough ride till the end fall over the portside.

There is a substantial body of history concerning this present intel issue.

Have you noted what Carter's Attourney General, Griffin B. Bell, has said, in the spot when the latter law so oft now noted was passed ? :
>passage of the new law would not preclude the president from "using his powers granted under the Constitution to carry out foreign policy and intelligence activities," /" There was an agreement that FISA was not intended to displace the president's authority,"

For further refreshing on what I believe, I suggest you reread my first couple of postings, and try to understand, instead of just smarting off. You are most aware by now I am quite capable of returning in kind, albiet at a level of sophistication not yet here attempted by you.

Flippu : " After, and only after, you explain whether or not you think the current President has committed anything unseemly, potentially illegal, and/or impeachable. "

I'll suggest again, read my already posted texts. If you had, you perhaps wouldn't be saying such things, and having said it in such a fashion as you do, it appears Grandma Moses herself would be ensnared in your begging for admissions dragnet.

One certainly at this point, can safely wonder from my view whose game is going about, and not getting very far.

Finally, linking former warrantless intel gatherings, with the current warrantless intel gatherings, in a body of understanding standard government operating procedures, is a valid exercise, even if it winds up reminding us about the horrific mass of scandals emcompassing the entirety of the Clinton presidency, or elicits a sourpuss wincing remembrance of guilt from left, before the all too common reflexive knee jerk emotional demand arises that Clinton not be brought up, that he is no longer President,nor will he ever be First Lady with powers such as Hillary, and that is just not fair to examine how corrput the Execitve branch of government was under the Clinton cabal of crime, even as Clinton runs about defending his legacy and campaigning to return to the White House below his power hungry wild eyed suddenly right wing wife for a second crime wave.
Boy, that's a comforting thought, at least knowing that the Clinton's used the arms of law (IRS,FBI, etc. )of the governemt to go after their political enemies while in office ( Barrett report) , so they will surely, if the USA heads for the worst and is punished again by their presence, have no compunction about using the NSA for spying purposes foreign or domestic, even against our enemies not just theirs. Every forming dark cloud has a potential silver lining.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 03:38 PM

For once, I'd like to see an adult political conversation that didn't use the words "Lefty" or "Righty" in them.
Liberal bashing among the extreme conservatives seems to be an addiction or an obsessive/compulsive disorder. The response to everything is to blame Democrats, Leftists, and liberals for every problem, and every conversation veers away from the topic at hand to indulge their quixotical quest to bash the liberal menace.
Case in point: George Bush decides to ignore the judicial branch by using warrantless domestic surveillance on Americans. There is a Constitutional issue at stake that has nothing to do with right wing or left wing.
Instead of this issue being addressed, we get the usual attacks from the likes of D and Chris Ford upon the Left. Their stance is that anything George Bush does is right, and anything opposing George Bush is wrong. Because they are so close-minded as to accept anything else as being true, they distract from the conversation and the issue at hand by posting their usual straw man blatherings. Just read the contents of this page to see how little discussion there has been about George Bush tinkering with the Constitution, and how much distraction there has been from Bush's questionable legal wiretapping.
Fact of the matter is, the Bush Administration overreached itself with domestic surveillance after 9/11, and now the President is vulnerable to impeachment. Bush went overboard and overreacted to 9/11, and he will pay a price for that, no matter how many ranting apologists he has on his side.
The New York Times is not to blame for any national security breach. They did the right thing by exposing a governmental program that may very well be unlawful. To do such is patriotic, not unpatriotic. The unpatriotic people are the ones blaming the New York TImes for exercising a time-tested American value known as freedom of the press.

Posted by: ErrinF | December 30, 2005 04:32 PM

Chris F:

You've been a busy poster, thanks for your reply to mine on the 29th.

15 million infidels killed, 1300 years of head-chopping .... hmmm

50 million killed in WW II, involving western nations against each other, and the Soviet Union (not muslim) and Japan against Asia and the west - the Muslims were bit players in that tsunami of death.

the Spanish Inquisition was particularly charming in its treatment of nonbelievers of all types

the capture of North and South American by the westerns from indigenous populations involving millions of deaths involved no muslim nations

in current history, terrorists killed in 2001 fewer Americans than we kill by ourselves using handguns.

i'd suggest your view of history is simply limited, causing you to focus too much on small risks to US security. the focus on terrorists is overheated by some paranoids and cynical politicians; has warped our country as a result.

the one question you did not address - how does a policy of unlimited brutality win over people - we simply will not kill our way out of the problem we're having with a relative handful of nutcases among millions of Muslims who don't care to destroy the west.

scaling me as a lefty is silly by the way.
you haven't a clue where i scale on anything; stick to the issues, you're better off.

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | December 30, 2005 05:11 PM

Chris F:

You've been a busy poster, thanks for your reply to mine on the 29th.

15 million infidels killed, 1300 years of head-chopping .... hmmm

50 million killed in WW II, involving western nations against each other, and the Soviet Union (not muslim) and Japan against Asia and the west - the Muslims were bit players in that tsunami of death.

the Spanish Inquisition was particularly charming in its treatment of nonbelievers of all types

the capture of North and South American by the westerns from indigenous populations involving millions of deaths involved no muslim nations

in current history, terrorists killed in 2001 fewer Americans than we kill by ourselves using handguns.

i'd suggest your view of history is simply limited, causing you to focus too much on small risks to US security. the focus on terrorists is overheated by some paranoids and cynical politicians; has warped our country as a result.

the one question you did not address - how does a policy of unlimited brutality win over people - we simply will not kill our way out of the problem we're having with a relative handful of nutcases among millions of Muslims who don't care to destroy the west.

scaling me as a lefty is silly by the way.
you haven't a clue where i scale on anything; stick to the issues, you're better off.

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | December 30, 2005 05:13 PM

ErrinF,
I can agree with most of what you have just said. On the other hand you have omitted equal condemnation of the excesses on the other side.

As to your proposed remedy. I don't agree that impeachment is the proper one. Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial one. It does not by itself define constitutional boundaries for governments to follow in the future. The better remedy is thoughtful consideration of the inherent constitutional conflict between executive powers and the fourth amendment by the nine justices of the Supreme Court, which then binds both the executive and legislative branches of government into the future.

Posted by: Cayambe | December 30, 2005 05:39 PM

Oh boy, I can't let this one go by. I see Berlinbabe is shouting left wing, while bragging up bonafides that supposedly make her lifelong bureaucratic positioning one of objective thought. Analyzation however, yields something quite the opposite.
We'll first add the emotional component, replete with pity for ones position and geographic location when the weapon needed to defend oneself was across town. We'll forget battlefield hardening in this case, also denying the lefts sanctimonious cry that anyone supporting the USA get their ass over to Iraq or show some dogtags. Such an arrogant befuddled ideation forgets entirely the CIVILIAN control of the military our Constitution dictates, especially from a period when DRAFTING was the practice used to acquire sufficent forces.
I note anyone , under the same dogtag standard, not currently in the government, shouldn't be commenting upon it. We can toss that ridiculous whine out the window, unless we force the entire civilian populace to shut up immediately,concurrently noting the foreign nations Clinton fled to when his turn to serve came up, and the severe back injury Howard Dean fled with from any service duty on to the ski slopes, and additionally the overwhelming majority REPUBLICAN VOTE we see from the VOLUNTEER MILITARY we have today.
So, that packs that sick moronic gasbag of a stance in the hellhole it substantially deserves.

Berlinbabe : " Chris, you can impugn me from now until Doomsday, all without knowing anything about my pre- or post-foodstamp financial standing."

Hmm, expecting the end soon ? Would that be the apocalypse or perhaps a dreaded terror attack ? Considering your text, worries about an attack are minimal, at best, and assuming your dislike for non-Separation, we'll leave the apocalypse out of it.
Isn't it the left who whined incessantly that the US troops were on food stamps( Clinton legacy ), before Bush raised their wages and benefits every year and so many times that retention even during this Iraq war has skyrocketed more than covering recruitment issues.


" You can impugn my military service, while demanding that others do the dirty work for you. "

Adressed above sufficently, but there is more.
Noone demands that. We currently have a volunteer force. So far the left has screamed we cannot demand a draft, and even Charles Rangle voted against his own stupid stunt bill. Independents and Democrats are short in the VOLUNTEER ranks.
That certainly makes it beyond a shadow of a doubt that republicans and right wingers, and warhawks and Bush supporters MORE THAN SUFFICIENTLY cover their military duty quota.
ONE CANNOT SAY THE SAME FOR DEMOCRATS OR THE LEFT OR INDEPENDENTS.
Clearly, a person who did not agree with current military operations, but chose to initiate service for their country in deferrence to a patriotic adherence nonetheless, would show a quality of character to be admired. Find that ideation amonsgt detractors dictum, and you deserve a medal of honor. Quite telling, indeed.

"You can also impugn my education and career path, without knowing anything but that I attended a respected law school."

Certainly you intend to impugn him and his intellect later in your rant, but first you'll do some more ego repair and bragging.

" You can brag about being a member of the "owner class," and smear the "lowly enlisted." "

Oh, I was wrong, it was straight to attack.

"These are the same "lowly enlisted" who are in Iraq and Afghanistan, getting their butts blown to Holy Hell, so you can sit here and snipe. "

Oh, or so you can claim, with great encouragement to the forces as well, that they are getting blown to holy hell.
Shame on you. Quite ignorant of you, and hypocritical.

"All this, and you still failed to answer my questions and those the other thoughtful folks on this blog have asked."

Perhaps answers are in the eye of the beholder, quite often literally blinded across the aisle, or in snickering illiterate denial, no matter how unthoughtful the queries were to begin with.

" You still fail to say what you were doing during the Cold War or Vietnam. "

My guess is that's none of your business. I can wager with heavy odds, though, that he wasn't hanging out blocking traffic and getting stoned out of his mind while whining about Nam, or running around praising communism and condemning Reagan for his hard and brilliant stance that brought the wall down and brought you to safety as a result, or begging and shrieking that all US arms should be turned into plowshears.
Plenty on your side of the debate now STILL doing ALL of that.

"You've failed to answer whether you ever bothered to enlist or gain a commission in the Armed Services. "

I believe you were around for the DRAFT. Now - even volunteering during a draft is less than outright enlisting, as one hoped to avoid the nearly inevitable. By your post, it is at least a likely guess that you had a hand up for free, by way of connections, and perhaps your (son ?) with high ambitions is already recieving special treatment as well. Bragging upon his mere aspirations is an unlikely scenario.
HARDLY A POSITION TO CALL UPON OTHERS FROM.

" You've never once said you'd send your child to potential death in Iraq on Bush's behalf. "

Gee, I hate to let the insane emotional RANTERS know once again, that we have an ADULT( read ADULT, and not under their parents rsponsibility anymore) VOLUNTEER MILITARY, and therefore NOT A SINGLE PARENT IN THE USA CAN GIVE UP THEIR CHILD FOR IRAQ, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO. MICHAEL MOORE'S MOONBAT MOVIE APPARENTLY DECIEVES THE MINDS OF THE WEAK YEARS AFTER IT'S RELEASE, one would hope that someday these morons would think about what they're saying, instead of parroting the false peacenick left wing cuckoos ranting about from the Universities and the DNC backstreet talking points.

Allow me to add, it would be for THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not for (Bush), as the insane left wing ranting haters so often let slip through their emotionally soiled minds. A real patriot wouldn't screw up like that, but a lunatic Bush hater would.


" And you still haven't said how you'd feel about President Hillary having these self-same powers you defend so vigorously on Bush's behalf. "

Ahh, but I have, and have concluded that since Bill and Hill used the FBI and the IRS KNOWINGLY AGAINST POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE USA- AS WELL AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, they wouldn't bat an eye going after terrorists or "enemies" with the same or worse usurpations. That at least is strangely COMFORTING, since the left suffers from weak knees and utopian ideations of friendly enemy forces they can make love with not war, even as they rant about Rumsfeld having shook Saddams hand 20 some years before the democrat congresspersons and their leftist Hollywood counterparts went over there and did just that with intent to please, right before the current war, not with demands of standaway from Jordan and from Lebanon as Rumsfeld had demanded of Saddam.

"You want us to believe you're a rigorous intellectual, who has thoroughly researched his positions, all while you compromise that desired image by using jingoistic epithets to describe those with whom you disagree."

Ahh, so the mirror reflects well.

" You refuse to defend those positions in an intellectually rigorous manner."

Once again, mere opinion, and certainly not an objective one. Sounds like the bailing of a sinking vessel in fact.

" And in this case, by "defend" and "rigorous" I mean in the academic sense - not the polemic sense. "

Well, that might work for cheers from the gallery, but as far as actually being part of the debate, it falls back under that category of " smart aleck persoanl attacks".

"Try to move beyond being terminally angry at the world, and start engaging others respectfully."

Wow, another insult. You know, you haven't engaged him respectfully so far in your entire quagmire of a personal attacks here. It is clear you to me you are angry as well. When are you going to get to making some sort of point on topic?

" Many of us "security moms" are far more concerned about knee-jerk partisanship and the dismantling of those foundational American principles I referred to earlier, than we are about the fact that bad guys exist in the world. "

Ah, finally we have at least a notional positioning of balancing security with percieved privacies. Let's analyze.
Knee jerk partisanship has been shown on both sides here, but you apparently see only one side of that. If one were Independent, one could easily surmise that a lot of the lefts ranting and raving is just partisanship of the worst kind.
Accumulating the remainder of your ideation, it is quite clear you bear all the hallmarks of the left : The intense fear of a right wing takeover and loss of all, as well as a minimization of the widely known threat matrix.
Simple questions might be; " Do you believe the government was wasting it's time with radiation detectors in DC? Are you aware of the attempts of nuclear acquisition by Al qaeda and it's operatives ? "
( One hopes one doesn't have to ask if you "think 911 was an inside job " )


"Of course they exist. They will always exist."

Oh, good on the former.


" But disrespecting the Constitution, laws and structure of the United States is not the way to go about dealing with them. "

Hmmm, better tell Abe Lincoln about that habeus corpus priority. Let the Democrats know who interred 100,000 on our soil know.Better yet be sure to scream at Sen. Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and all the other dems who let your vision slide on this spying matter for 4 years, whil fully aware of it. Oh yes, remind them, that since your expertise is beyond reproach, they could have called for impeachment nearly 4 years ago when they were informed by law in their respective positions in congress.
Golly, do you wonder why they passed that big chance up ? Have they sold you out as well ?

"Gutting our international standing is not going to somehow enhance that standing."

Well, when have we ever had a standing in my lifetime ? Half the USA( the Democrats) have been wailing in my ear for decades now how the USA is wrong in everything it has done to the world since Vietnam. I mean the list is never-ending. If they haven't fomented hatred for the USA worldwide by their own 30 plus years of decrying the USA your name is mud.

" And I have a news flash for you: Our standing was such during the Cold War - inspite of Vietnam - that Berliners who grumbled about my/our/US/Allied occupation of their city and presence in their country, still preferred to grumble to a US soldier, rather than a Soviet one."

LOL - A likely responce, as if it would be news to a red-blooded American that commie soldiers were disliked more than those from the USA, BUT QUITE TELLINGLY, A LEFT WING USA HATER THINKS THEY'VE MADE A POINT WITH THAT, given their deep seated fantasy love for communism.
That, my darling, was an amazing outing you just perpetrated upon yourself.

"So impugn away, my friend."

Ahh, having exercised the concurrent right for yourself so well, no need to point out it's availability. I'll give you a credit though, for not demanding he stop. Perhaps you're not as left as many others.

"It's your right, since this is still a free country."

Another good sign, not sure how much longer you'll share that view, or perhaps it was a cliche slip of the tongue.

" Just try to remember that the "lowly enlisted" are the shoulders on which you and the rest of the "owner-class" stand. "

Yes, he'll remember to let them know you disapprove of them getting blown to hell.

" Those "lowly enlisted" are the ones who are - depending on your point of view - "

So much truer than you know. If they had to depend on you and yours, we'd all be dead by now.

" either 1) defending with their lives your freedom to impugn, "

Something you have done in your entire long diatribe, save for one lonely sentence, which I duly noted and celebrated, and delivered an analysis with my opinion on it.

" or 2) paying with their lives on behalf of your paranoia and this administration's hubris. "

Not sure how his paranioa has anything to do with it. Has he suddenly become Clinton's layover Tenet "slam dunk" talker? Is he the Joint Chiefs of Staff worried sick ?

As far as hubris goes, it's just another sick political hackword, used by a whining loser out of power.

Congratulations on a pathetic rant, nowhere near the intellectual, factual, legally analytical, massively informed postings of Chris ( and a few others on your side )whom you cry out against.

Let's close on your only real commentary by replaying it, so we can remain positive and wihdraw from sourpuss raving and personal meanderings.

" Many of us "security moms" are far more concerned about knee-jerk partisanship and the dismantling of those foundational American principles I referred to earlier, than we are about the fact that bad guys exist in the world. "

Well, all I can think to further say to that is your position will likely undergo a drastic change, if what we have been hearing is the roundabout truth about Al Qaeda.
"It's no threat at all " until something happens, right ? Strangely enough, the overwhelming majority of those in our government thought exactly that prior to 911, and now of course, that ideation is not held widely at all, and is in fact a very small minority, thankfully.

Posted by: SilioconDoc | December 30, 2005 05:47 PM

And Berlinbabe,
Really well said. I daresay you are doing that Red State school you went to proud.

Posted by: Cayambe | December 30, 2005 05:49 PM

ErrinF Dec. 30 :

" For once, I'd like to see an adult political conversation that didn't use the words "Lefty" or "Righty" in them. "

Well, then you blew it completely, didn't you. You merely ranted about right wingers and GWB. Let's pretend you're not a raging lefty, and then let's pretend you're an adult who appreciated that the majority of postings were well thought out intense position based on known news reportings and adult convictions.

Finally, let's pretend you noticed the left wingers who slung globballs like you claimed Chris did, and reprimanded him for, and let's pretend you reprimanded them as well, since it takes two sides to fight, and there are two sides to clean up.

Of course, since you came out hating righties and giving lefties a big fat pass, you really didn't just "stick to the issues ".

Maybe if you do, someday you'll find that great thread where noone lies, noone exagerrates, noone tells half truths and gives their unastute and unofficial opinion as irrefutable fact, and noone whines about the other side while pretending to be all for just good and dandy factual exchange.

Good luck.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 06:34 PM

| : " Is that really the government you desire? What if it is your famed boogeyman, Hillary Clinton doing such surveillance? Wouldn't you want Congressional oversight? Is it okay just because it is Bush who is President? "

Hillary Clinton was doing it. It's all coming out in the Barrett Report, set to be released on the 9th of January, 2006.
I shouldn't say it's all coming out becasue Democrat Carl Levin, and Dorgan,and one other have fought like heck to redact major portions of the report.
The left wing press has fought like heck to totally suppress the news concerning that as well, since the Barrett report is the last from the INDEPENDENT COUNSEL era of the Clintons, and could reportedly DESTROY a Hillary presidency attempt in '08.

I do wonder just how much the left, so intent on protecting civil liberties at this point in time, can silently and blindly excuse the abuse of by the Clintons of the power of the FBI, the IRS, and Justice Department , not to mention the other massive abuses the report covers, in blacked out ink, denied to the American people by penguin partisans like Carl Levin.

It is oh so ironic that the left asks the right this very thing right now, about would you be upset if Hillary did something, and this giant 21 million dollar final report, that has been covered up and delayed for years by democrats, is just ready to burst upon the scene, with just a tiny "pop" sound the mainstream media will immediately forget and cover over, and all the lefties can claim it is a figment of the imagination of right wing partisan Bush lovers.

LOL

It's so pathetic it's funny.
I know, most of you lefties think I'm lying about it. None of you have responded to it, even though I've mentioned it 5 times or so. You are sheeple, no doubt, brainwashed and in the hands of the corrupt.


"Prominent Democrats in Congress have spent much of the last decade in a campaign, successful so far, to suppress Barrett's report. Its disclosures could dig deeply into concealed scandals of the Clinton administration. "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/novak.cisneros/

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200511181743.asp

It's deep, it's real deep. It's a big democrat cover-up, and it's all about abuse of power.

"The informant said a regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department. Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice's public integrity office, determined to protect President Bill Clinton.

That triggered intensive efforts to get rid of Barrett and suppress his report by three of the toughest Democrats in Congress: Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman. At the same time, the powerhouse Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly -- representing not only Cisneros but also the Clintons -- was filing multiple suits with federal appellate judges supervising the independent counsel.

The sympathetic judges sealed everything concerned with the case, including the report. Barrett was instructed to remain deathly silent on pain of criminal prosecution. Yet Levin, as ranking Democrat of a Senate oversight committee, eight years ago gained access to the raw data of Barrett's prosecutorial effort after requesting it in a November 20, 1997, letter to the judges."

I guess, the demonrats are much better at covering up their own lawbreaking than the Bush administration is at keeping National Secrets out of the hands of the press, probably because it's the democrats that are blabbing the National Secrets.


| Time to ask yourself your own question :

" Is it okay just because it is Clinton ? "

A. _______________________________

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 06:53 PM

Interesting response, SiliconDoc. Good for you. It would have been more interesting if you'd actually said anything. Like Chris, you still don't answer in any substantive way, only with rants. That's unfortunate.

Hold down the fort, Cayambe. We need you.
(smile)

Posted by: BerlinBabe | December 30, 2005 07:00 PM

SiliconDoc-

I'm interested in this story but the two links you posted don't have anything interesting in them. Both are opinion columns and neither suggests nearly as much malfeance as you do. However, I'm all for opening up the Barret report. As the National Review article mentioned, this investigation cost me 20 million dollars. I'm asking some obvious questions like, if this story is so big then why did we pay 20 million in taxes to an incompetent prosecuter who can't even get an impartial panel of judges to release the records?

Since Bill Clinton isn't currently in office his indictment, which may or may not be justified, wouldn't affect my life one bit. It's unfortunate that the report isn't out in the public because I agree that Democrats and Republicans should be brought to justice.

What does any of that have to do with the NSA or the current debate though? Are you arguing that since it was ok for Clinton it is ok for Bush? Or are you more interested in making a bunch of hypocrits look like hypocrits (tough job)? Do you have any new tricks for 2006?

Let's stick to the issue. Your spat with BerlinBabe, and hers with you, is not the topic of the debate and you waste all our time.

Substance: Do you think there should be oversight and if so, who has this oversight and how is it implemented?

Posted by: Will | December 30, 2005 08:13 PM

Another jokester,

Will : " SiliconDoc-

I'm interested in this story but the two links you posted don't have anything interesting in them. "

LOL - Of course they don't, it's all about Clinton coruption and you aren't interested AT ALL.
You also don't have a search engine, and can't type "Barrett Report " yourself, and peruse some self-achieved information, and make pertinent commentary, actually looking like you might have a brain or be interested. Such poor lying. So shameless and barren and exposed.

"Both are opinion columns and neither suggests nearly as much malfeance as you do."

Everything is opinion nowadays my friend, right, just like you guys taught us, it's all in the point of view. I doubt you read them, and you certainly won't be the least bit interested when the slashed report finally surfaces. It will of course always be less than anyone ever proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's Clinton corruption, and it just can't possibly be any other way, according to you. There you are, now you know all you need to ever know about the Barrett report.

" However, I'm all for opening up the Barret report. "

Likely a bold-faced lie. If you were you would have fired off some e-mails demanding as much, to the named blockers and the head guy pushing for full release.
I can easily surmise you have done neither. You haven't even fired up a search engine.

"As the National Review article mentioned, this investigation cost me 20 million dollars."

Oh, you paid 20 million dollars to the Independent counsel operating account. That's amazing. I also think it's another lie, a pretty arrogant lie. Why do liberal Bush haters always lie ? I think it's because they need a dramatic flavor to spice up their looney tunes. The bigger the lie the better they think it sounds.

" I'm asking some obvious questions like, if this story is so big then why did we pay 20 million in taxes to an incompetent prosecuter "

Wow, that's quite a deduction Sherlock.You wasted your 20 million dollars. At least you can go about lying that Clinton never did anything wrong, because he was never caught, according to you, and before you have even a tiny inkling ( nothing interesting) , nor have read the report ( since it's not available ) you know how to grade the prosecutor you just learned about less than 5 minutes ago.
You people are so pathetic. Another bald faced multiple smart aleck lie.

I have renamed the Democrat/ left / Bush hating fool party of the USA.

I call them the SMART _ _ _ party.

That is EXACTLY what they are. It's one smart off after another. One lie piled upon another smarmy lip off followed by another emotionally charged overblown way out of bounds blathering blabberfuss falsehood. God it's pathetic.

"who can't even get an impartial panel of judges to release the records? "

Jimmy Carter's man is at the post. Did you read the links ? I highly doubt it. You clearly didn't as the named democrats blocking access and release are gone over in detail. What a bufoon you are.

Another disappointing spew of lies from the left, and not a single discourse on the actual crimes uncovered in the Clinton Administration. Wow.

Perfect "cover" for the rat crew I've grown to substantially dislike.

What a total waste of time. I never knew people could be such low life losers before I became involved in political discourse.

I will add it is almost always on the left, almost without exception. It is amazing how smarting off is considered a party platform in the USA.

I'm really sorry, I'll have to go through your posts now to see if I'm mistaken in any small way.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 30, 2005 08:52 PM


Posted by: Will | Dec 28, 2005 7:20:17 PM

"Since when is the court guilty until proven innocent? "

Oh I suppose when the Supreme Court in 2000 made a decision conerning the Presidential election, right ?

Has someone charged the FISA court with a crime ? Has someone claimed malfeasance upon the FISA court? Why did you ask such a foolish question ? Don't answer that, I KNOW why.

"If FISA denies the President a warrant, isn't it safe to say they have a pretty damn good reason for doing so? "

No, it isn't.

"If the President thinks the court is too restrictive he is welcome to take that case directly to the American public. "

You had better hope he doesn't. Polls show he WINS that argument by a SUBSTANTIAL margin.
Nonetheless, the American public won't be changing the law, even if they are on Bush' side. Right, you know that, don't you ? We don't live in the lefty communist stagnation dream society of direct democracy where we all spend 24/7/365 figuring out all the ins and out of every little piece of needed legislation and then castout citizenship quota vote of yea or nay because we know best.

"He failed to do so. Why is anyone defending him over this?"

Well, because he isn't supposed to take a secret plan for capturing terrorists by spying on them to the American Public so you idiots can voice your approval so Al Qaeda can have a huge heads up on things.

He is supposed to make it appear no such taps would ever occur because the American Idiot Left and Al Qaeda operatives like CAIR and INWO would never allow such a thing, and with that big fat false tree huggable comforting wall of world peace and lib safety in place, the terrorists start dialing like mad and get caught, and for 4 years we don't have any terror attacks that get through, just huge numbers of them that get stopped cold turkey.

Yes, President Bush is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than the left wing whining psychos we regular US citizens have to put up with.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 30, 2005 09:08 PM

Posted by: Will | Dec 29, 2005 2:15:06 PM

"If the President can demonstrate that FISA is ineffective to Congress, then he is welcome to do so."

Yes, it's called informing the Intel Committee and the head demonuts like Pelosi. Since they sucked it up for 4 years straight with a big fat thumbs up, that settles it.

Then some traitor bled like a blabbermouth doofus terrorist supporter to NYT, and a bunch of wackos aligned with Al Qaeda again, against the USA.

" If the President can demonstrate that he can exert Executive power and ignore legislation he is welcome to make his case before the Supreme Court. "

Well, he may or may not " be welcome " making a case, as that decision is up to the Supreme Court, however it appears as usual, the demonuttier left has it all backwards again, at least the ankle gnawing rabbletards of the demonut left have it backwards.

Try to open your mind in order to think clearly. Here's a new thought.

The Congress should not usurp the Powers of the Executive Branch, as that would VIOLATE the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution.

Furthermore, the ankle gnawing trolls shouldn't keep pretending the Congress has the right to do so.

"The checks and balances this country is founded on are neither arbitrary nor stupid. "

Wow. Too bad you don't know what they are.

"They serve a purpose that need not be mutually exclusive with evolving national security needs. If FISA really is based on questionable legal grounds, than the President should have said that out in the open so that the debate can occur in the legal community, presumably reaching the Supreme Court. "

Well, once again, blabbing about National Security matters " out in the open " is something the demolib wackos in those pretty white buildings in DC were hoping to avoid, since they almost got their butts fried to a toasty crisp by an incoming airplane missile 4 years ago, and apparently aren't convinced it was a one time only deal.
They kept their big fat Bush hate yappers shut about it for FOUR YEARS.

EVEN AFTER THAT, THE INSANE LEFT IS OFF TO THE STUPID RACES AGAIN.

"If the FISA court was too restrictive, than the American people, democrats and republicans, who actually *do* care about national security no matter how much you want to paint them as conservative automatons or liberal anti americans, will empower Congress to do the right thing. "

HINT - CONGRESS HAS BEEN DOING THE RIGHT THING. DUH.

"If the President presents a clear and reasonable case why FISA prohibits his ability to save America"

He already did. That's why the demomonkeys kept their partisan pieholes sealed so tightly for 4 years.

", than Ted Kennedy will be in the unfortunate position of the loan dissenter on national security."

Whatever. Now you know TK's vote on an imaginary nothing ?

"The President did not do those things. He acted clandestinely and has yet to explain why he did so."

Boy oh brother. Read up on this sometime would you ? He gave a couple speeches on it too already. Wow.

"Now you say: The President has constitutional authority that Congress cannot impede on. "

Not just now, it's been that way for over 200 years.

"Ok, then why did the President ever use FISA in the first place? "
It's called congressional appeasement, Frank Church commission, commie weak kneed democrat insanity, and opening up of America to the terror attacks in NYC in '93 and '01. Get a little history. The libs freaked out and smashed USA defensive powers 30 years ago. Since 911 we've had to start doing again what the damn foolish lefty nutballs stopped us from doing all along. That really has me angry. Now HUMINT and everything else is up from scratch. Damn demo commies. What a waste they are.

"Why did he pretend to adhere to it while refusing to do so?"

Because he is a superwise and massively excellent POTUS. He got 4 years of leftnuts and terrorists dialing like mad zombies because they all believed noone could take a snap recording of their illicit activites.

"Now you say: The President needed to bypass FISA to secure the nation. Ok, then why did the President *ever* apply for a FISA warrant? Why didn't the President make the case in 2002 that FISA was a threat to national security?"

We already went over that, you're repeating yourself.

"Now you say: Only terrorists need to worry about their civil liberties being intruded. You're PROBABLY right, because frankly I don't think George Bush cares what I said to my girlfriend this month. "

Frankly we know he doesn't care, and would much rather not know.
However, if you've been talking to her about "taking out " this right wing neocon nazi tyrannist Chimpey, it is perhaps likely that someone in NSA DOES HAVE AN INTEREST in what you've been saying, and doing then as well, and with whom else.

"
But that doesn't make checks and balances irrelevant."

Oh good. Then everything is fine.


"
The Judicial check on Executive power isn't some senseless thing. It exists even if the Executive doesn't pose a realistic threat to anyone (which may or may not be the case). It's in place so that dangerous Executives can't excercise that power, and even good hearted Presidents should respect that constitutional check."

Did you just call President Bush good-hearted ? I guess this little chat has brought you around. Glad to help.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 30, 2005 09:37 PM

"And Berlinbabe,
Really well said. I daresay you are doing that Red State school you went to proud.

Posted by: Cayambe | Dec 30, 2005 5:49:08 PM "

Wow, praising a long personal attack rant. Yeah, "well said" is about all you can say about it, it's like the comrade's wink at misbehavior.

How shameful.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 30, 2005 09:57 PM

"Substance: Do you think there should be oversight and if so, who has this oversight and how is it implemented?

Posted by: Will | Dec 30, 2005 8:13:26 PM "

Well, haven't you been paying attention ? The S Intel Committee, party whips, etc., have been participating in oversight for 4 years.

The libs:
"Note who has not spoken against the NSA program since the Times story broke. The list includes Harry Reid and Dick Durbin in the Senate; Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer in the House; and members of both intelligence committees. In other words, Democrats in the know either have supported the surveillance program or just kept their mouths shut. "

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/30/180703.html


There, does that help ?

Here's some MORE REAL SUBSTANCE from me, that so far has been oh so conveniently avoided by the left in this thread. So yes, this will be repetition, but one has to keep driving the hammer upside the head, hoping to help out those who are making fools of themselves. It's a big job, just like it was during the fake Plame leak "crime".

Ok, so the bigshot libs in the know have kept their yappers sealed shut for 4 years. ( unless one of them, and not an inside agent/ bureaucrat is the year 3 leaker ).
Now, we have the other very strange occurrance. NEW YORK TIMES kept their yapper sealed tight for a full year. Now, one has to imagine for how long the NYT has been yearning to match the Washington Post in their biggest lifetime scoop, "Deep Throat", a scoop so big and devastating it unseated Tricky Dick.
One can easily see that the NYT has been burning inside ever since then, to catch up with the Jones, and RIP a "nasty Republican criminal President " to shreds with an exclusive scoop, and save the American People from the horror of horrors.
Note, they failed on the "election scandals", so here was there chance, right ?
You lefties have all been shrieking it's a crime- a high crime and misdemeanor, and will blow Chimpy of his perch, hopefully with a democrat Congressional takeover in '06.
Well, what would any lefty be waiting for ? Nixon fell under pressure from his OWN PARTY, and we know ( or at least have been told by the left) that the right base and various flavors of the right are just so sorely down on Bush, just dying to do something, anything, and may not even vote as a way of protest.

Well ?

One can wiggle and waggle, but the real conclusion from these two "in our face" realities, is what exactly ?

Let me give a tiny clue.

Undaunted millions of wacko finger pointing spittle slinging raving lunatics spewed with ultimate factual basis and empirical data, and Constitutionally sound written in stone law and doctrine that leaking Valerie Plame's name was a crime of such high dungeon, violating the noted Act, and someone was going to fry with vein koolaid over it as lives were endangered and destroyed and it was absolutely clear it in and of itself violated every known law on the books at the time.

Well, remember those " right wing nut religious zealout Bush kissers " that kept telling you, it was not against the law, and indeed pointed out the numerous reasons why ?

Well, get ready for a replay. Life lessons are sometimes tough to catch on to, and indeed sometimes some never learn.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 30, 2005 10:35 PM

SiliconDoc - Wow! I really don't have to respond to Will, "BerlinBabe", or he/she Errin now.

Will seems nicer than the others, but when you write and explain things to him, you can imagine him having an iron grip in his mind of certain fixed ideas he came up with on pure emotion or ideology, and is reluctant to let go of, even if it is explained again and again. Best let Will see the stampede of Democrats that will come out and draw a line in the sand and say civil liberties means we must end all surveillance of the enemy on the chance that the computer analysis filters will pick up an innocent American Muslim or such. Yes, quite a stampede in the last two weeks, huh?

Will - Read my posts and silicondoc's posts again if you want answers, and you might also want to link to Tony Snows basic observations and go to Harvard Law Prof Charles Fried's Boston Globe article on the legalities of intercepting enemy or potential enemy signals intel:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/30/the_case_for_surveillance/

And you may wish to read Prof Robert F. Turners historical analysis of Article II wartime powers, which includes the hysterical notation that Ben Franklin of the trite 1759 platitude Lefties love so much "He who trades liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither" set up the Committee on Secret Correspondence indended on keeping critical war intel in only 5 hands in Congress because the rank and file in the Continental Congress couldn't be trusted with the liberty of getting critical info because they leaked to to the public and it became instant Brit knowledge once the public knew. 'Ol Ben was also hellbent for arrests and imprisonment for years without trial of key members of the enemy within, including his own son Richard. 'Ol Ben was well to the Right of Dubya in wartime, it seems. Stupid notions from 1759 peacetime Philly were discarded as idealistic and dangerous.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734

Your deconstruction of "near-war hero" BerlinBabe was hysterical. I thought Kerry was pretty pathetic with his tattered war hero bonafides, but BerlinBabe, if some 55+ year old, likely someone's grandma still qualifies as a babe, outdoes him. Here is this relic of 40 years ago who was a rear etch lower enlisted clerk not even given a weapon as part of her duty recounts how she bravely faced Russian troops and tanks....with NO FEAR! Yes the memory is seared, seared into her brain! Then she gets on the usual Lefty crap about any Iraq war supporter should "send their son or daughter to die", and demands - I guess so she knows other posters are the stellar soldier she once was - their service record so she can "assess" the validity of their comments. Sort of like how Kerry is a sack of shit who was despised by his Navy peers for the most part, but winning that Bronze Star and Silver Star makes all his soporific droning absolutely correct 35 years later, and excuses his consorting with the enemy in Paris. Berlinbabe just played the same "war hero" gambit Kerry and Murtha did to excuse their thoughts being vapid, except she has no real thoughts except as a Lefty thinking that regular America is scared to death of Hillary or a strong woman like Gov. Kathleen Blanco who know how to lead when the crap hits the fan. And she tries to deliver insults. There is something terribly sad about a lady who writes that her highpoint in life and credibility in writing on matters of war and peace comes from her time stuffing file cabinets 35-40 years ago.

PS, if HIllary can demonstrate as a woman that she can keep a clear, calm head in an emergency, and as a Democrat, demonstrate she is willing to robustly defend this country - she might win, because Bush has created a terrible domestic mess that may take 8 years to recover from. But the burden of proof is on her after watching the Blanco, Boxer, Pelosi, Mary Landreau meltdowns, and the doubts on whether or not she is a Centrist or still a 1960s bedwetting liberal kept under the covers by her handlers..

Errin of course you pegged right away. He/she always says that Labels of Left and Right are so meaningless because people with gifted insight (hint!) have transcended mere labels. Who then, that disclaimer out of the way, proceeds to talk like some Stalinist apparachnik. When pressed, Errin admits to being a "Progressive Libertarian" - meaning a new word because Errins crowd looks blankly at him/her when other labels were tried on people about to be talked to, and hence bored to tears:

"I see myself as sort of an ovo-lactarian environmental pacifist"
"I believe in what Buhkarin strived to achieve." "Bukharin ...OK Bukhain strove for the revolutionary middle path...OK, don't know him? You know Trotsky??" "No, Trotsky was not another black band leader like Duke, Count Basie, Cab Caloway and Dizzie!!"

"I might have some traits of a post modernist Soviet sympathizer born too late for the glory days of the class struggle, perhaps I draw on the post-McGovernite spirit, but now labels merely constrain me"

Errin's a piece of work. He/she is a reliable Lefty in their rant, but has added "Don't you DARE call me a Lefty!" to the usual "Don't You DARE question my Patriotism!".

Posted by: Chris Ford | December 31, 2005 02:28 AM

Most distressing today are reports of the Justice Dept now going after the source of the leak, with the WH spokesman comments about tipping off Bin Laden. This is clearly another attempt to shift the debate away from the issue of the president's assumption of this power. I cannot find one news report countering the WH assertion!
We all have assumed, have we not, that under FISA we would have secretly been engaged in extensive surveillence of this sort. Surely bin Laden et al would have assumed that this was happening without public notice- FISA specifically allows for it. It is a specious argument the WH is putting foreward and should be debunked directly by the reprter!

Posted by: JD | December 31, 2005 11:59 AM

Posted by: Bullsmith | Dec 28, 2005 10:49:47 PM


"Why didn't the President make his case before congress if he didn't like the laws?"

He did.FOR THE LOVE OF GOD !

Intel Committees and topdogs of each party. They agreed.
So far, only Mr. CoFR Rothschilds master race Banker Elite rich DEMOCRAT man Rockefeller ( the guy who got in trouble making the highly secretive intel committee a point of politcal partisanship during war, then blamed it on a staffer memo) has come up with a single letter (written in 2003,way over a year after being informed, and suspected of being a forgery) noting a vague "worry" over the situation.
That, my friend, is not a gigantic quagmire of partisan dissent, declaring the entire matter deviod of legal and Constitutional basis and therefore an unsealed can of high crime and misdemeanor whoop___ !

It leads me to my old conclusion. Even the Democrats in power can barely stand the parody and parading they have to do to maintain "ties" to their insane lib press constituents, and their now Michael Moorized madhatter marauding moron base.

" What genuine impediment did judicial oversight create? Paperwork? "

Well, besides the reported often 24 hour delay, missing of course the new terror plans as Al Qaeda hangs up and cackles, how many pieces of paperwork and big fancy lawyer wordings do you think a judge can sift through in a single night ? 2, 3, 5 , 10 ?
What about the reported paperwork the judge then has to fill out for each request? How long does that take ? 15 minutes ? 1-2 hours ? 3-5 in more complex areas ?
I guess on 9/12/2001 the whole Executive branch should have resigned themselves to months or years of paperwork before they could go after 60,000 CIA terrorlist.

"They're the government. They can deal with paperwork."

Ah, endorsement of cumbersome bureaucracy. Excellent. More of same old worthless time consuming shuffling that destroys the rain forests of the world and the timberlines of the USA,and keeps the Katrina peeps in tents and tarps for example, while Alqaeda makes mad dialings and sends off a dozen encrypted emails to the Nations libraries ( like they did for the 911 plot) that go completely undetected.

I guess for some reason I prefer "REAL TIME" intelligence gathering. Golly, I'm so technologically progressive. It's so embarrassing.

Yeah, what's wrong with REAL TIME ?

That's the latest "trend" for everything else under the sun, isn't it ?

I guess, if we're bogged down coddling leftist suppression of technology and computer science and digital gateways for our frontline defense while some robed moron shuffles around some papers, we can always excuse the failure by noting " our technology wasn't up to par, and information sharing is in the early 1980's stage ", "the FBI's computer systems don't match and don't interface, and our communications collapsed entirely" - and on and on...but at least that good 'ol FISA file cabinet will have 100,000 rubber stamped papers burned to a cinder or infected with smallpox or nuclear radiation, and we can sift through the rubble and confirm what we missed through delay, a few years later- with the proper NSA,DIA,CIA,HHS,cogressional OHSA safety regulations in place and properly monitored through a body of independent oversight invewstigators.

Makes me think of Able-Danger, you know, the front end tech group of the Military Industrial Complex that Jamie Gorelick banned from the 911 Commission, the same one that had Mohammed Atta and at least 3 others pegged dead to rights on our soil a long time before 911.
They used, " gasp ! " , a powerful SUPERCOMPUTER MEGASNOOPER! ( like the ones Clintons sold to China for 50 million in campaign funds) and sucked all the public info out of the entire world on Al Qaeda and their nasties, including of course USA LOCAL DATA...( the picture of Atta was from some sort of business transaction whose Company base was California ).

GEE- GUESS WHEN THAT WAS DONE ? OH YEAH- DURING THE SLICK WILLIE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION !
Oh, that's domestic spying, isn't it ?
Well, apparently so, since some loon lawyer ordered the whole shebang deleted, in order to protect the sensitive sensibilities of the USA domestic lib wacko citizens and democrat denizen demons of congress.

Oh my, the depth of miscalculation.
Now we have the insane never learned their lesson crew out making tsunami sized waves, demanding we dismantle the latest incarnation of protection.

"Are you telling me the Republican leadership of the house and senate cannot be trusted to defend the American people or to fulfil their duties of oversight as required by the constitution?"

Umm, I believe "we" are telling you they have been doing that ( defending the USA successfully so far), and so we have the left, THE LEFT commie traitor democrats, who kept their raging pieholes sealed shut for 4 years concerning the " grave breach of all rights known to mankind " now looming before us in the media morons scandalscape .

Now are you telling me, the Democrat zombies like Pelosi and Durbin ( the new Tricky Dick ), and Rockefeller, and the others "failed miserably","missed their chance to get Bushchimpy canned! ", and now are only waking up and working up to their "responsibilities " to check and balance, to "oversee", a responsibility they shouldered for 4 years and "blew it entirely and miserably without question " ?

"Jeepers, we better vote these out!"

Well, good luck. There's this thing called imcumbency rate, and even though the dems are always whining and disgruntled, they never seem to move steam lately when it comes to voting out their own feckless retards that don't agree with them.

" "Lefties" don't "hate and loath the people who protect us" "

I don't know, Berlinbabe said they're all blown to hell.

I suppose if someone supported them, they migh used the phrase " blown sky high " ( physically correct) or "to Kingdom Come" (morally correct) or to "high Heaven " ( physically and morally correct ) -

but ever the dark dank hater - the left sends them to Hell... ( obviously for all those "murders and terrorizing young women and children, and war crimes " they're committing, they deserve to go to "holy hell"). Right ? No ?


"You seem to be the one with all the hating and the loathing."

Hmm, that's interesting. One side is nearly braindead, and underinformed or uninformed or in blatantly ridiculous denial ( see your first question, and the follow on smart aleck ones ) , and still asking silly questions because of it, and they think the other side is hateful.

You know, I've never heard any teacher say "there's no such thing as a stupid question " ( although I do recall one asking the class what kind of tree they would be, if they were to be a tree- LOL ), because of course we all know there are many such stupid questions, and of course we know frustrated parents get sick of answering their childrens "stupid questions" at times, and many of us get sick of hearing the press people's "stupid questions" ( we call 'em softballs, amongst other things).
OVERALL, I wouldn't be surprised if stupid questions ( yes, there really are some, especially once you're an adult, and don't need tender toddler coddling, supposedly, anymore), that get asked all the time from a certain political side lately, cause a lot of anger and frustration. Could it be some sort of Evil Left Wing Plot, to drive the enemy into "anger antics " ?
If it were, would we have a name for it ? ( that was probably a stupid question, LOL)

Trolling, baiting, rhetorical query, statement in the form of a question, partisan attack query....

"How very Christian of you."

Oh, well, I'm not so sure Jesus suffered dumbalecks with unerring patience, because the libs told me that kind of perfection is all a fantasy anyway, something only "a new commie utopia" can eliminate, with the "perfect supreme being of pure democratic government", which of course we are reminded, would shutdown the realtime wiretapping of suspected terrorists, because if just one, just one Tookie were to be caught up in the net, after reforming their never admitted evil ways that probably didn't happen anyhow, that one would be "one too many ".

( Yes, there are stupid platitudes as well, ones that don't make any sense in a functioning modern society of the 21st century, and likely never made sense at anytime , anyplace in the entire world ever, but never mind that, the left follows them like spotted owls( oh so wise and fluttering on wings of freedom above) straight into the burning down ahsen flaming cindered forest fire of terrorism, all the while claiming a tiny spark never hurt anyone ever again, not even Smokey the Bear.


PS: Please don't whine about length, I expect the left to be able to read since they derisively claim Chimpy can't and won't.Thanks.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | December 31, 2005 01:47 PM

Posted by: Bert | Dec 29, 2005 4:01:27 AM

"I still say the centerpiece for the whole song and dance is energy... if we didn't need oil, we'd be a heck of a lot better off and we wouldn't have Exxon/Enron/Etc. trying to run the country."

Well, there goes plastics and condoms, modern medical science, car parts, computers and monitors,IUD's, and every Chinese Walmart trinket ever sold to man in the last 20 years.TV's too. Even Game stations, joysticks, speakers, everything but hemp products, basically.
Yep- if we didn't need oil we'd be a whole lot better off. (gag!)

" Alternative technologies exist that are in heavy development in countries like Japan that definitely merit closer attention, and some progressive investors."

Oh, glad that fantasy is running full steam ahead. Funny how those meritorious NUO ( new universe order) technologies aren't named.

"Energy independence, good for america, good for everybody else.."

Yes, that will be great for oil soaked nations like Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, not to mention the hundreds of millions of arabs that will die in the sand as soon as it happens(from lack of oil revenues).

"..if NASA can send the shuttle hundreds of miles into space at 30,000 MPH or whatever on hydrogen,"

That's liquid hydrogen, supercooled approaching absolute zero. Is your hottie girlfriend going to keep the beastie "Stang" all heated up when you take her for a fast 380 mph road race ? Hows that electric nighttime 4 Kilowatt hydrogen refrigeration bill looking for the times when you're not impressing with rubber and the road?
Oh, yeah, one more thing, that jetfire exhaust might be a bit much for the car behind you, since the oil laden plastic front end will likely ignite.

"and
there's no reason we can't figure out how to design some type of engine that'll let you burn it in your own car, or just use electics with fuel cells and scrap the internal combustion engine completely. "

Yes, the fuel cell uses "hydrogen" - more correctly long chain hydrocarbon molecules to run- more commonly known as OIL,or it's various flavoids- known as propane, natural gas, ETC...


"This IS the TWENTY-FIRST century, after all, no time like the present to take out the garbage..."

Hmm, well, I guess were not quite up to Back To The Future's garbage eating flux capacitor Delorean model 0X .


Too bad Kennedy Jr. blocked the huge propeller wind generating farm off his nimby "Kennedy Family Compound" coast.

Redford railed against the wind farms in Cali- because of VULTURES getting whacked in the blades.

All the loon left shutdown Nuke plant building 30 years ago.

The new Bush haters whipped up a fury of crush the initiative for clean burning coal power generation, inspired by Bush.

Enviro freaks lurk in the dark edges, slamming away at chemical processes and heavy earth metals it takes to produce solar panels, ready to pounce for a hugely costly " disposal" regime, since the panels lose effective over 10 years.

Thermocoupled earth energy renewable "heat exchange" type systems cost half a million bucks- and digging a 10 or 15 foot diameter 200 foot deep hole is another "environmental" problem, and a local city issue that seems laughable on the face of it.

Oil is still used for electric generating plants, but it's the greedy republicans who want that ended, so we can save it for more important things, like your keyboard keys,especially the "W" key.

The demorats just blocked ANWR again, and block every other gigantic oil pool across the USA they can, including massive shale oil deposits in Colorado,Wyoming and Utah.

So, we have again, the jackassed loons of the left blocking evey damned energy source available, including oil, in favor of " the Japan fantasy that really need some progressive investors. " ( we are supposed to believe- with mega billionaires of the left like George Sorros running around, that there just aren't any rich "progressives".)

I'm surprised you didn't wail " The @#$@%^%^& oil barrons of the Bush cabal have been blocking 200 mpg carbs and every other Tesla free energy invention since they took over with the Jews! "

HINT : The evil oil swimming in $$$$$$$ barrons of oppression will be among the first greedy suck up all the business monopolists as soon as some new can do technology comes to fruition.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 31, 2005 03:40 PM

Posted by: Bert | Dec 30, 2005 4:49:08 AM

"People are probably ignoring me on this point, but yet again I say that energy is a big part of the whole mess."

Ok, so should we take all the oil laden insulation off the telephone wires, so tapping can't occur, but rust and uselessness can ?

Or, maybe starve out the entire middle east( no oil for the world- new lib cheap energy for everyone!), kinda like Afghanistan has been for decades becuase it has no domestic energy production ?

"Oil=money. Money is another form of power. Power corrupts..zzzzz. I don't care if you're a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Great Chickenhead-ist, whatever."

Well, or a Canadian- that's their biggest export. Mexico as well, lotsa $$ for it there, and the great lefty worshipped Venezuela would be an unknown craphole if this new plan of yours was actually implemented.

" You're gonna die anyway, and the longer you spend on your knees, the more of your life you waste, in my view."

Tell Monica Lewinsky that, or in fact remind yourself while you're in that "hole prayer position" for that supernew free energy source that will save the world.

Maybe your just on your knees crying while you cuss out the oil barrons who've blocked all that new free energy technology because of their greed and powermongering.

You know, maybe you should get off your knees and go punch a few democrats and other green freaks in the nose, for blocking nuke reactor power, clean burning coal, coastal prop generaton, etc, etc, etc,...

Yeah, stop wasting your life, and get on with energy independence, by PUNCHING THE LEFT IN THE SCHNOCKER.
(figuratively, of course)

" Our country spends billions annually on this that and whatever, if we'd started dropping 10 billion a year into alternative energy back in say, 1974, when the oil thing really hit us the first time, the sword-wielding america-hating, dress-wearing hordes would be herding goats etc. today. "

Well, that's not very nice. I guess you lefties really don't give a damn about anyone but yourselves, and not very effectively yourselves for that matter.

You wouldn't share the great new technology with all the 3rd worlders ? That would mean oil was burning to the point of the last drop...in the rest of the world.

"Instead, I think we've created an oil-fueled nightmare that will only be ended by reinventing our energy usage model from the ground up."

If we built 500 brand new nuke plants, we could juice up the entire fleet of American electric autos.
Oh yeah, that's right, the left loons already blocked our oil independence energy miracle, called NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE GD ARROGANT ASSNINNIES !!!!!!!!!!!!

BLIND SHEEPLE !!!!!!!

Ok, I've calmed down.

" Conservation, alternatives,
new technologies, these will feature heavily in the 21st century american path to the future....and, the sooner the better. "

Ok, maybe I haven't calmed down. Right here in Iliinois were 69% nuclear power for electric generation. Why isn't it 100% or nearly so all over the USA ?
NOONE DIED AT 3 MILE ISLAND.
50 PEOPLE DIED FROM CHERNOBYL.

That means the death toll over energy rises above that level in the dem controlled blue ghettos of Chicago alone, where cappin' some gank that didn't pay the juice bill has left 96 dead recently.


"Get Texaco et. al. out of office, and let's have some of those reforms...."

Oh boy, another Bush hater wacko. If we could get rid of you people we'd already be energy independent. Instead, we have a lib enviro quagmire.

Why is it that the pinheads on your side, swarmed more numerous than the fruitflies of Paris Island inside the gigantic TAX SUBSIDIZED UNIVERSITY LAB AND largest RESEARCH sector IN THE entire USA SYSTEM...why is it that you pinheaded morons haven't come up with this "groundsaving" supertechnology you all so conveniently claim is somewhere off in the distance because none of you has the brain enough to make it happen ?

Why is that ? You left lemmings control the ENTIRE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM in the whole USA ( save Bob Jones U. ), the ENTIRE PUBLIC U SYSTEM, AND ALL THE GREAT LABS SUPPORTED AND BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS AND PUMPED FULL OF BILLIONS OF TAX FED DOLLARS EVERY YEAR...

But, you can't, in all your vainglorious education, come up with that fantasy you all seem to demand someone else come up with.

WELL GUESS WHAT MR LEFTY- YOU LIBS ARE IN THE DRIVER SEAT - IN THE ONLY REAL PLACE RESEARCH OCCURS IN THE USA AT A LARGE- GIGANTIC LEVEL - ITS CALLED THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF THE USA - AND YOU LIBS RUN IT !

NOW GET ON THE JOB !

Until you crack the nut, do us all a favor and quit pointing the finger in some OTHER direction, would you please?

Thanks, I feel better. My inner child really needed that.

Posted by: Silicondoc | December 31, 2005 04:27 PM

Again, there wasn't wiretapping, it was / is electronic surveillance of the RF spectrum of international calls. Again, we are fortunate that we have (so far) the security ensured by those who have served and are serving at the pointy end of the spear to complain about alleged abuses of civil liberties. And, it is because of (lack of fear) and those surveillance activities and that were not conducted by previous guardians of freedom that 9/11 did occur. But, I do not live in fear, but I am concerned about allowing individuals (to "lead" this country) who only continually carp about alleged civil liberties abuses without doing anything to increase security.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | December 31, 2005 07:12 PM

Posted by: gonzo | Dec 28, 2005 10:34:39

" War.. Remind me again when Congress declared war..? Certainly not in response to the 9.11 attacks; this is political rhetoric to cover for unrestricted federal power, period."

Remind you ? Ok, I'll remind you.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. >

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
...

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) > In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
______________________________________


Ok, that should be a sufficient reminder.

So, we can take that absolute statement by you:
" ... Certainly not in response to the 9.11 attacks; this is political rhetoric to cover for unrestricted federal power, period."

And WE CAN TOSS IT IN THE UNINFORMED CRAP BIN OF OUTRIGHT LIES.

So, should I waste time on the rest of your opinionated incorrect spew?


"36,000 innocent americans die every year in the US from influenza - where is your outrage? Ten times the deaths. No one to blame? "

Well, more than that many try to save their lives. Suppose it might be different if 3,000 people were slaughtered in one day, SINCE THAT'S 1,095,000 A YEAR ?

Haven't the troop haters convinced you yet that the 2,177 US military deaths have them "ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED " ?

I guess not. I guess you suddenly forgot about the endless crying whine about the 2,177 troop deaths.

"Do you remember the bunker hit during Gluf War 1 that killed over 400 men, women, children? Well, that's different - it was war, right?"

No, that's the SAME THING. It was WAR on 911, and then as well.


" We can do it to them, that's upstanding, patriotic. They can't do it to us. "

Well, apparently you are a war death whiner. No wonder you asked "where is the outrage for influenza deaths. By the way, they can do it to us.

Didn't you quack somewhere that the USSR could destroy all life on our continent ?

" Freedom of speech? That is restricted by the Sedition act - you can't legally speak out against the US government. "

LOL - Of course- the Seditionist crew has deleted your posting, that's why I'm Svengali and am replying to your "grievance" with my mental acuities that pull your idiot notions from the phantom e-ther print.
You fool ! When you still read your whine, it's merely an MKULTA illusion, the CIA controls your mind.

"And most recently, an Iowa woman was charged with TERRORISM b/c she threatened to shoot a police officer. Puh-leeze. "

Oh, well that's what I think about your Iowa woman story. Puhhhleeease.

"War is convenient.. and in this case, it hasn't been authorized in Iraq by Congress."

WRONG AGAIN- SEE ABOVE MR. WRONG TOO OFTEN.

" Using that as an argument to authorize unrestricted presidential power is a shortcut to fascism."

Thank your idiot democrat congress who totally supported Congressional Public Law 107-40.

HECK - GO READ IT - SO YOU DON'T NEED TO BE REMINDED AGAIN.


" Let's cut to the chase and just declare the ends justify the means"

Well, since your braindead as far as declarations of war, and certainly equally uninformed as to other legislative actions and oversight, how about you cut to the chase and just say: " I'm a fool, and I hate Bush, Michael Moore made me."


" "They" can't stand the idea of oversight, pure and simple. "

They had oversight. How many updated oversights did they have in 4 years? It occurred every 45 days for 4 years so do some math for once in your life.


"*soapbox mode off*"

Well, thank God for that. I suggest next time the soapbox "feeling" arises, you jam the soap in your mouth instead- like Mommy used to, but then go a step further and tip your head back- IN A MUCH NEEDED ATTEMPT TO CLEAR THE BRAINWASHING.

However, if you must, would you like to rant and rave about the Clinton's destruction of the Constitution and US citizens God given rights by their intrusive ramming of IRS audits on their political enemies ( head of the IRS at the time was Hillary's college girlfriend ), like the women who came out after Bill raped them, for instance ?

Go for it !

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 1, 2006 12:41 AM

Posted by: BeanerECMO | Dec 31, 2005 7:12:12 PM

"Again, there wasn't wiretapping, it was / is electronic surveillance of the RF spectrum of international calls."

Yes sir. Be it noted, though, that we're dealing with the general public, many of whom are not radio frequency spectrum hamm buffs.

Pointing out a computer sifts through initially, therefore not neccessarily exposing the scared leftwings rants to a set of human ears, might mollify the fearful backlashers, whom Scully and Mulder cannot assure safety from the beesting.

Some are actually phoning in open lines on C-Span to tell the world they were just talking to a good Bush hating friend or sibling, and were "only kidding".

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 1, 2006 01:16 PM

Posted by: JD | Dec 31, 2005 11:59:44 AM

"Most distressing today are reports of the Justice Dept now going after the source of the leak, with the WH spokesman comments about tipping off Bin Laden."

Oh gawd that's terrible. You mean the crime of disclosing National Secrets might actually be persued ? Golly, that's terrible. Damn that Libby- he's started a very bad trend !!!!! #$%^&'en Rove- you know he's in on it too !

I don't see why democrat insiders can't blab all the government classified and top secret stuff to the New York Times. I think we ought to hire Sandy Berger to do it.

" This is clearly another attempt to shift the debate away from the issue of the president's assumption of this power."

I suppose so. It's shifted you right away, you no longer think Bush did anything wrong. That WH spokesperson has one heckuva voice cadence !

" I cannot find one news report countering the WH assertion! "

Of course not, it's mass hypnosis. No wait, it's the silencing fear instilled by the very mention of the investigation ! Yeah, this regime owns the press through fear now.
I guess they'ell have to apply for an Alger Hiss all top secret free card, so they can diddle daddle with their foreign bureau access to leaders of other nations.

Gosh this is so cool. Maybe they can gain inroads to the fallen Batthists - or even Al Qaeda in Iraq with some juicy info those Moore's minutemen need a line on for trade. Heck Sandy Berger can offer that post Millenium 2000 defense against terrorism assessment, that should be worth something.

"We all have assumed, have we not, that under FISA we would have secretly been engaged in extensive surveillence of this sort."

Hmm. Not so sure. Why is everyone so shocked? BTW "We" whiteeyes ? Are you one of them ?

" Surely bin Laden et al would have assumed that this was happening without public notice- FISA specifically allows for it. "

Yeah, he assumed it as well when his cellphone was tracked right ? Oh, no wait- he didn't. He didn't dump that until it was leaked he was tracked.
Not so sure those banished Saudi's have the proper paranioa in place. They need more of a left wing nutjob view of things. Maybe he figured Allah was keeping the line safe, kinda like Pat Robertson thinks about his African diamond mine bankroll. You know how those religious kooks are when it comes to science.

"It is a specious argument the WH is putting foreward and should be debunked directly by the reprter! "

Golly, the reporter calling the WH spokesperson a liar? I'm not so sure that's too bright an idea when their cellphone and blackberry are wide open to WH snooping. What if they order triple extra sugar in their Starbucks ?

Maybe Scott McClellan is smart enough to point out the Brooklyn Bridge Al Qaeda expert - busted by Bush "criminal spying"- just seemed to not figure what you figure he shoulda figured for sure already.

Come to think of it, how did you figure ?

Here's what I figure. The best the skum can do it is keep it short or keep it encrypted, be it foreign language or some sort of generic code like the banana is ripe for cereal.

Seems mailings are x-rayed as well. Cd's get picked up somehow.

So they really don't have many options, do they ?

What do you expect them to do, record coded farts onto a 78LP of Elvis' first release, and send that off to the desert hoping it doesn't warp ?

Have you thought about anything ? You know, in terms of reality- put yourself "in the enemies shoes " - get to KNOW THEM, you know - like you wailing left lunatics claim the Bushie neocons shoulda done after 911 ?

Ya think maybe they dial quick and keep it short. Not talk much, keep the cells "blind" ? Send that internet message on an obscure messager ? Ya think ?

Maybe that's what NSA thinks. Maybe that's why Chimpy said " We have to move very quickly sometimes."

Hell, I don't know - maybe they scribe a secret message into the woven fabric of a towelhead cover, and that's why it's taken 'em so long to strike again.

You do remember the reports on the CIA trying to deduce any hidden messages in the bin Laden videos, though don't you ?

I suppose, if it ain't just pablum for newsspeak, maybe the CIA caught 'em pulling some crap like that once or twice- or- for you leftnuts> " actually trained em up on how to do it when they hired and paid em to fight the USSR in Afghnaistan ".

You lefties do any thinking, or is it just a kinda glazed over repetition of good jabby talking points, even if many recently reported facts completely debunk the base assumption ?

The confessed Brooklyn Bridge Al qaeda operative was stung with this. His laywer is now reportedly trying to get a lawsuit going because of it, but it's not clear he can since the towelhead made a plea bargain.( cracked and spilled the beans without CIA waterboarding )

So with that in mind, "didn't they assume it was going on ", and "shouldn't the reporter debunk that damn WH spokesperson", doesn't seem to awfully bright right now.

Need I repeat myself again ? Should I blab about cellphones abandoned after leaks again ?

You want to redact any of your statement, or should we just assume you're as full of it for real as you falsely assume the Chimpster is ?

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 1, 2006 01:57 PM

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | Dec 29, 2005 1:02:14 PM

"Giving terrorists practice against real Americans in uniform is much better training than what occurred in Afghanistan before we invaded. "

Oh really. So, when 19 Qaeda took flight lessons and flew some airliners into USA buildings, with that Qaeda training bin laden instilled in Afghanistan, much better would have been dying at the bad end of USA overwhelming firepower, or getting dogchained in Abu Grhaib, or skidding along the edge of a city and lofting in a hit what you will mortar ?

"Remember too, that you can't kill your way to victory in this "war on terrorism". "

You can't ? Democrat Truman "killed his way to victory " when he nuked in million degree hellfire a couple hundred thousand japs in seconds. Those Kamikazee human bombs that worshipped the emperor as a god suddenly stopped.

"Substantially more than 1 million Vietnamese died during that conflict, and the end result wasn't a US success."

Hmm, Dresden was carpet bombed, and there came demoralization and surrender.
Do you libbies live life comparing everything to Vietnam ? You ought to rent the movie " The Big Lebowsky " - and pay attention when "The Dude" tells his best buddy " It's got nothing to do with Vietnam, M'yaaan ."

Any wars you can think of - where killing the enemy resulted in victory ? I suppose I'd have to ask you leave vietnam out of it in your answer, if you can manage that.

" If there are as you speculate, 10's of millions of Muslims who would join the anti-west movement, do you propose to kill them all, and let G-d sort it out? "

Well, either that, or make sure the Mullah's issue the end of the Fatwah.That would leave 100 milion religious freaks off the hook.
We have real recent ARAB/MUSLIM info on that sort of thing with your best friend of the Carter NoHell Peacenic Prize left "Yassar Arafat", and his little ditty on holy war fatwah's.
It's not about Vietnam, m'yaann.

Alternately, recently it appears a domestic backlash against the wacko towelheads is a good thing as well. See the last Bush supersuccess called 80% showing up for voting in that place where people like you told us the mongrels could never want or handle a democratic vote, and astonishingly, the Bathe insurgents declared war on Qaeda jihad that day.
Did that knockle your noggin at all ?

"These people are no serious threat to us or our way of life"

Oh boy, when all else fails declare the homefront SAFE.
Clinton tried that CRAP. He tried it ever since Feb. 26th 1993 when 1500 Americans were injured and 6 died at WTC NYC.
"They're all in jail," he declared, and all you libs believed him, until- well you still believe him, but it just doesn't pan out that way.
Now Clarke and Sandy Burglar told us they figured it out that its was Bin Laden, sometime - like 1999 or early or late 2000 or some crap- whatever they babbled in the open 911 commission hearings.
I'm glad you, the internet text hacker, have figured out all the experts are wrong, and terror attacks never occur, and Qaeda hasn't been trying to buy nukes from former USSR satellite areas, or even from his substantial support base in precarious Pakistan.
Good job ! I think we can issue you a Carter Peanut Prize for that heady intellectual altruism !
Congratulations! You and Kerry can go make love with Muslim fanatics while Bush swaggers around with Falwell, and we can all live happily ever after.
Be sure to demand the federal government immediately stop all radiation monitoring in the DC area, since they're wasting our time and our tax dollars.
I'm sure Ramsey Clark will give you your one vote you deserve.

" unless we turn them into that threat by indiscriminate brutality that we decry when done by others. "

Well, I'm glad you understand bin laden's point of view. Funny how it's our point of view as well, isn't it ? Fits our reaction to 911 to a tee, huh.

OH MY GOD ! DID I JUST SAY THAT ? WE ARE LIKE THE TERRORISTS.
Golly, just think, even Israel has that attitude.
Well, you've captured the world with that one.
Can we issue another accolade or acclaim your highest insight before the masses now ?

Golly, this is great, we finally have the lib understanding across enemy lines the lefty loons have been demanding we understand for so long.
OH HAPPY DAYS !
I THINK WORLD PEACE IS NOW GOING TO BREAK OUT !
KUMBA-SHA-ALLAH AND ALL THAT JAZZ !


"an aside -imho your slurs about Muslims, "lefties" and others are inaccurate and counterproductive."

Oh, the race card. Good job, Jesse has a reason for the smearin' season too. I'm so glad you didn't stoop to it like that other fellow did. (gag)
Golly being a lefty is a pain lately isn't it. That's too bad.
Being an other is tough as well, whatever that is.

" however, if you can't say what you think, what's the point of free political speech? "

Well, I suppose if you can't attempt censorship or smear the other side for smearing the other side, what's the use of free speech ?

"i just think that stuff detracts from useful points you make."

I just think you pointing it out puts you in the same category, and even worse, because you sanctimoniously demand a higher standard than you are willing to keep yourself to.
It's a lot of fun pretending to be on the moral highground as you point out your opponent is a dirty rotten scoundrel for not being on the moral highground, because they are critical of others. LOL


" let the debate flourish. "

Well, if you reply, I sure hope that happens.

"happy new year
Mill_of_Mn "

Yes. Merry Christmas too.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 1, 2006 03:04 PM


SiliconDoc

Wow. Your words rebut themselves. Over and over and over again.

Are there other people on your planet?

Posted by: Bullsmith | January 1, 2006 05:06 PM

Bullsmith

No wow for you.

Just keep reading, you'll have zero reponse, but it will sink into your thick skull anyway.

Common reaction from the left wing hacks, while the sensible people appreciate every word and phrase.

Nothing new. The planet of the libtard circus has many whom claim they are from "Utopia", and lately "Fruitopia".

You actually sounded like Berlinbabe in response. No matter. I considered your other comments worthless as well.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 1, 2006 08:54 PM

Wow. Were Chris Ford and Silicon Doc this delusional and out-of-this-world before Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews, or are they victims of hysteria-inducing reactionary radio programs? What a couple of nutcases.
Again, I am an independent voter. I hold no association to the Left or liberalism. Liberalism is an old idea. I am a progressive and do not like old ideas. The Left embodies some socialist aspects. I am a libertarian and do not like socialism. You can take me for my word, or you can believe the accusations of a bunch of Don Quixote wannabes that see every windmill as a liberal giant and label any opposition as part of the liberal menace.
What's amazing is the amount of illogical conclusions made in response to my previous post:
One illogical conclusion is that I am of the Left because I oppose some of the extreme right wingers here. The logical conclusion would be that the world is complex enough for somebody to be a centrist and at the same time be opposed to the Right or the Left.
Another illogical conclusion is that there was some emphasis for me to attack the Left wing extremists if I was going to attack the Right wing extremists. Since when is that my responsibility? If my post was targetted to the reactionary wackos around here, so be it. Liberal wackos are a moot point; Bad behavior on the Left does not excuse bad behavior on the Right, and vice versa. In other words, I can easily focus on one side rather than the other, and whatever points I make aren't suddenly illegitimate because I didn't spread the wealth in my accusation. Truth is, I don't see many extreme liberal types around here that are as belligerent and misrepresentative as the likes of Chris Ford and Silicon Doc. I don't see rants from the left wingers here as debased and delusional as what some of these right wingers put forth as posts.
One other illogical conclusion is that my criticism of extreme right wing conduct is necessarily adversarial. I genuinely think conservatism will suffer from all the demagoguery, sophistry, and hysteria put forth by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier, and Bill O'Reilly, to name a few. The Right will pay a price in 2006 and beyond if they don't get their house in better order.
Again, I challenge people like Chris Ford and Silicon Doc to make their arguments without obsessing about Lefties. I make my arguments without obsessing about Righties. Yes, my current argument is being made against those of extreme views in the Right, but that's perfectly legitimate for me to do such; It does not constitute obsessing about Righties. Please do me a favor and don't respond with any more illogical conclusions about me or the point I am trying to make here. Read the posts of Chris Ford and Silicon Doc if you want to know what obsession is about; You'll see that my posts pale in comparison.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 2, 2006 04:10 PM

Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 2, 2006 4:10:06 PM

I presented dozens of rebuttals and ideas, and commentary on the topics.

You're a complete turd for addressing absolutely none of it, just like the other loser mindless moron right before you.

Why did you even post?

This is just as much a waste of time.

The ball is in your courts - and none of you have any responses.

I did not spend the whoe time- nor even the half playing left attack.

Your response is merely because you obviously see I am correct, and have absolutely no way to agrue against my dozens of major points.

You're pathetic- absolutely pathetic.

Now I've joined you.

I hope none of you morons replies unless you address the tpoics again, but that's asking too much after I put the last nail in every coffin of lies you presented- and you have no rebutal, so just forget it.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 2, 2006 09:12 PM

Um, you're not making any sense, Silicon Doc. And your assumptions are a great example of pure egomania.
I haven't read much of your posts because they come off as pure partisan liberal bashing without any real arguments being made. I didn't realize you were actually making any points beyond frothing at the mouth about Leftists. I've read some of your posts and have found NOTHING to respond to beyond the rantings of a Rush Limbaugh fanatic on speed. I certainly never came to the conclusion that I was being addressed and had to respond to you point for point. I didn't even realize you had a point. And here you are claiming that I've somehow backed down from arguing with you when all I did was mention you a few times in one post, and even then only in conjunction with Chris Ford as examples of what's wrong with the right wing these days.
While we're at it, Silicon Doc, you are a complete hypocrite. You've addressed nothing I've said, and expect me to address everything you've said. The only coffin you've nailed is your own. Maybe you've fooled yourself into thinking your posts are anything more than one-sided rants, but the rest of us aren't so delusional. Well, maybe Chris Ford is.
But how about this, oh great debater: Care to sum up what great arguments you've been making about the President's questionably legal surveillance program? Your 'colorful' posts are a bit hard to follow, and I've seen nothing but responses from you to others, not an actual position of your own. If you really want to debate so badly, let me know what your position in this debate is exactly, and I'll let you know if I disagree with it. Otherwise, you are just thumping your chest and wasting my time, gratifiying your 'inner child' at the expense of the rest of us.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 2, 2006 10:52 PM

YOU ARE SO FULL OF IT. YOU EVEN LIE WHEN WHINING ABOUT OTHER POSTERS.
HERE'S WHEN YOU WAILED.

Posted by: ErrinF | Dec 30, 2005 4:32:27 PM

"Instead of this issue being addressed, we get the usual attacks from the likes of D and Chris Ford upon the Left.
..Just read the contents of this page to see how little discussion there has been about George Bush "

NOW I'M GOING TO POST WHAT CHRIS AND D SAID ******BEFORE***** YOU WHINED THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS THE POINTS.

Chris: No, curiously enough we got the architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, partially through "invading his privacy" by wiretapping
__________________________

(correcting another chatter on the FACTS above)

(below explaining the constitutional rules associated with assessing any "violations")

Chris: Part of the problem is people whose understanding of the Cosnstitution begins and ends with the Bill of Rights. Who omit the goals of the Preamble, Article I, Article II, Article IV Section for in favor of an anal, absolute reading of the 4th and other Amendments they think ovveride the rest of the Constitution. There are checks, but separation of powers and equality of power does not mean it takes two branches to take any action (Congress doesn't vote on the acceptability of each SCOTUS decision, the SCOTUS doesn't sign off on the budget, Congress doesn't meddle in Presidential pardons, etc,) The President upholds the Constitution, which also means honoring it's totality over overemphasis on a single part to the detriment of the whole. Lincoln famously opined on this. And all final power is not in lawyers and courts hands. Only Israel, which lacks a Constitution BTW, places it's Supreme Court above it's executive and legislative branches.
______________________

( a history lesson for you below ErrinF )

Chris: Preamble, the commitment to defend the States from invasion or hostile foreign power actions, and Western Civ tradition - which holds "in time of war, the law is silent" as Wartime Constitutional Scholar William Reinquist was fond of reminding his colleagues. And traditionally dealt with those in sympathy with the enemy as Republican Lincoln dealt with the Peace Democrats (better known in history as the seditious Copperheads).


(and now some solid information on the views of the AMERICAN PUBLIC, the ones you LOONS claim to HOLD- BUT WHICH YOU DO NOT- CITED AND SOURCED BY D )

d: Why the Dems won't push for impeachment (at least the ones up for re-election in '06):

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news


( SO YOU SEE ERRINF - ALL YOU HAVE DONE THE WHOLE TIME IS CARP YOUR ASS OFF- WHILE LYING ABOUT THOSE WHO'VE ACTUALLY ADDED INFORMATION AND EVEN HISTORICAL CONTEXT )

NOW- LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT A FREAK YOU HAVE ON THE LEFT- THE GUY PASSED OVER BECAUSE HE WAS SUCH A RANTING LOON - AND ON YOUR SIDE- YOU DARED NOT MENTION HIS TEXT LEST SOMEONE SLAP YOU WITH IT- AND STOP YOUR "CHRIS AND D AND SILICONDOC" WHINING !

THERE IS A CERTAIN INDEPENDENT FASHION TO HIM- EVEN LIBERTARIAN- SO DON'T CLAIM YOU'RE NOT THE SAME THING. YOU ARE A BUSH HATING FREAK AS WELL.
HIS NAME IS QUITE FITTING.

"Cowardly American "

"In the case of the Bush freaks, however, a new twist has been added ... The hysterically entertaining image of a stalwart Bush protecting America is redolent of a furious rabbit, throwing small balls of its own dung at an advancing coyote in the hopes that the coyote would bother his cousins one rabbit burrow over.

Welcome to the new Reich!

Heil Bush!

And like the Führer, Bush and Cheney love to hide in underground bunkers."

I see when I click through to the linked site- it has a flag that sarcastically displays the words " DRAFT YOUNG REPUBLICANS".

NOW ERRINF - I WILL NOT CLAIM - THAT ALL THAT IDIOT DID WAS RANT ABOUT THE RIGHT- BECAUSE HE DID MORE THAN THAT. BUT THEN SO DID CHRIS D AND MYSELF.

BUT YOU ERRINF- ALONG WITH A FEW OTHER LEFTIES HERE - FIT YOUR COMPLAINT BETTER THAN ANY RIGHT WING POSTER IN HERE.

I EXPECT YOUR WHINE, HOWEVER- TO BE REPEATED EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU EVER POST IN THIS FORUM.
OTHERWISE, YOUR BLANK MIND WOULD BE EXPOSED.

LATER

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 2, 2006 11:09 PM

Well, I'll be... I searched though the posts here and you did indeed respond to me at some point, Silicon Doc. I still stand by my calling you a hypocrite, though, as you didn't respond to my last post very adequately at all, yet demanded your post be responded to word for word. I'll post what I can in response to your earlier response to me, if only to remove an excuse for you to be bitchy about not being responded to. Here goes:

"ErrinF Dec. 30 :
'For once, I'd like to see an adult political conversation that didn't use the words "Lefty" or "Righty" in them.'

Well, then you blew it completely, didn't you. You merely ranted about right wingers and GWB. Let's pretend you're not a raging lefty, and then let's pretend you're an adult who appreciated that the majority of postings were well thought out intense position based on known news reportings and adult convictions.
Finally, let's pretend you noticed the left wingers who slung globballs like you claimed Chris did, and reprimanded him for, and let's pretend you reprimanded them as well, since it takes two sides to fight, and there are two sides to clean up.
Of course, since you came out hating righties and giving lefties a big fat pass, you really didn't just "stick to the issues ".
Maybe if you do, someday you'll find that great thread where noone lies, noone exagerrates, noone tells half truths and gives their unastute and unofficial opinion as irrefutable fact, and noone whines about the other side while pretending to be all for just good and dandy factual exchange.
Good luck.
Posted by: SiliconDoc | Dec 30, 2005 6:34:32 PM

Okay, where to begin on your ridiculous points. How about this?
1) You have no proof that I am a Leftist. All you have proof of is me saying we should have adult debates here without Lefty and Righty being mentioned. Just because I am arguing against partisanship does not suddenly make me a partisan. According to your logic, for me to even broach the topic of partisanship instantly makes me a partisan. That's not logical.
2) Since when is there an emphasis for me to lay blame equally between on the Left as well as the Right when it comes to partisan accusations? Two wrongs do not make a right. If the reactionary extremists around here do something wrong, the actions of liberal extremists will in no way make them right. I'm sick of the Right hiding behind the Left, and vice versa. You yourself quoted me saying that it would be nice to remove 'Lefty' and 'Righty' from the debate. That I mentioned labeling people 'Righty' as being wrong is hardly giving a pass to the Left. If I focused on the Right wing more than the Left, it is because demagoguery among the Right is more prevalent, what with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews. One only needs to read the posts of Silicon Doc and Chris Ford here to see why I focussed more on the Right wing extremists than the Left wing extremists.
3)Again, I can focus on Chris Ford's rants, and that leaves me no impetus to focus on somebody's rants from the opposite side. That you claim I have some sort of journalistic responsibility to argue against all sides has no basis whatsoever in reality. If Chris Ford says something way out and wrong, that's all on him. What the next guy says or doesn't say does not take Chris Ford or Silicon Doc off the hook from what they have said. Once again, we have somebody from the Right hiding behind the Left, in that you claim none of my points about conservative extremists are valid because I didn't focus on the liberal extremists enough. GMAFB! There's much more group think and sophistry in the Right than there is in the Left. I don't have to dole out the criticism 50/50 because the demagoguery is not 50/50 between the Left and the Right, that is, not as long as the Right props up blowhards the likes of Ann Coultier, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly (to name a few).
4)Your closing remarks are pathetic. Just because reactionary talk radio is juvenile and hateful does not mean the rest of us don't know how to carry on an adult debate. Problem is, there's too many disruptive children like Chris Ford and Silicon Doc for us to have much adult debate. Believe it or not, we can act civil and debate without resorting to cheap tricks, baseless attacks, and hysterical conduct.
There you go, oh fearless one. Somehow, I gathered the courage to take you on in debate. I look forward to the ludicrous response I will get from you in return.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 2, 2006 11:30 PM

Damn, Silicon Doc, you didn't even give me time to search through your many posts to see what the hell you were talking about. I finally found a response you had made to me before, and I just responded to it, only to find a new post from you that makes very little sense. It is still unclear what I am being accused of by you. What's even more unclear is what exactly your position is on all of this.. I asked you specifically to state what your position was so I could know if I was going to debate it or agree with it, and here you are NOT doing that at all, but merely continuing to gratify your inner child.
Seriously, I see my name mentioned in your posts, but are you talking to me or yourself? Enough with the friggin' straw man diatribes, Doc... get to the point so we can debate. Instead, you only validate my earlier point that people like you depend too much on distraction and demagoguery when debating, and don't spend any real time addressing the real issues. You have single-handedly surpassed Chris Ford when it comes to counterproductivity. Please... let's 'debate' some more. : )

Posted by: ErrinF | January 2, 2006 11:45 PM

While we're on what I said in an earlier post...
"Liberal bashing among the extreme conservatives seems to be an addiction or an obsessive/compulsive disorder. The response to everything is to blame Democrats, Leftists, and liberals for every problem, and every conversation veers away from the topic at hand to indulge their quixotical quest to bash the liberal menace."
Posted by: ErrinF | Dec 30, 2005 4:32:27 PM

Silicon Doc, you are proving everything I said earlier, and then some. You cling to liberal bashing like a security blanket. Face facts: You're addicted to whatever weird little rush you get from going off on anti-Leftist diatribes. Again, I can be critical of the Right wing more than the Left wing when it comes to partisan bashing because there's much more people like you among the Right than there are among the Left. Probably because the Left doesn't suffer from the persecution complex the Right suffers from. Deny that all you want, but it's the truth.
And don't try to turn things around and say I am guilty of being partisan merely because I am being critical of one side. According to that circular logic, no criticism is ever acceptable, as even bringing up the criticism makes the critic guilty of what they say; That's like calling me a murderer for being critical about murderers. If I encounter anybody on the Left as idiotic and belligerent as you, I assure you I will give them an equally hard time.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 3, 2006 12:02 AM

Posted by: Chris Ford | Dec 31, 2005 2:28:18 AM

Yes, thanks, and more that drives them mad, ditto back to you. ( Yes, lefties, I got that from Rush. )


Did you see the latest pot kettle massive hypocrisy ? I can't even believe the person posted it.
__________________________________________
Were Chris Ford and Silicon Doc this delusional and out-of-this-world before Rush Limbaugh and FOXnews, or are they victims of hysteria-inducing reactionary radio programs? What a couple of nutcases.
Again, I am an independent voter. I hold no association to the Left or liberalism. Liberalism is an old idea. I am a progressive and do not like old ideas. The Left embodies some socialist aspects. I am a libertarian and do not like socialism. You can take me for my word, or you can believe the accusations of a bunch of Don Quixote wannabes that see every windmill as a liberal giant and label any opposition as part of the liberal menace.

One illogical conclusion is that I am of the Left because I oppose some of the extreme right wingers here.

LOL- (ALL OF THEM, BY ERRINF STANDARDS)

Another illogical conclusion is that there was some emphasis for me to attack the Left wing extremists if I was going to attack the Right wing extremists. Since when is that my responsibility?

LOL- ( SINCE NEVER- YOU AGREE WITH THEM)

If my post was targetted to the reactionary wackos around here, so be it.

LOL- JUST HALF OF THE REACTIONARY WACKOS

Liberal wackos are a moot point;

LOL- OH- THAT'S WHY HALF WAS TARGETTED

Bad behavior on the Left does not excuse bad behavior on the Right, and vice versa. In other words, I can easily focus on one side rather than the other,

LOL-

and whatever points I make aren't suddenly illegitimate because I didn't spread the wealth in my accusation.

LOL- WHAT POINTS ?

Truth is, I don't see many extreme liberal types around here that are as belligerent and misrepresentative as the likes of Chris Ford and Silicon Doc.

LOL- I WONDER WHY THAT IS ?

I don't see rants from the left wingers here as debased and delusional as what some of these right wingers put forth as posts.

LOL- JUST PURE BUSH HATE, FROM BUSH ASSKISSERS.

One other illogical conclusion is that my criticism of extreme right wing conduct is necessarily adversarial.

LOL- NO - IT'S TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT ! ROFLMAO

I genuinely think conservatism will suffer from all the demagoguery, sophistry, and hysteria put forth by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier, and Bill O'Reilly, to name a few.

LOL -WELL, SINCE RUSH LIMBAUGH LOFTED THE RIGHT TO VICTORY, WRONG AGAIN LEFT WING VOMIT HATER !

The Right will pay a price in 2006 and beyond if they don't get their house in better order.

LOL - BUT YOU HOPE NOT- SINCE THE RIGHT IS CLOSER TO YOU, THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERTARAIN, THAN THE WACKO LEFT.

Again, I challenge people like Chris Ford and Silicon Doc to make their arguments without obsessing about Lefties.

LOL- CAN YOU POST WITHOUT OBSSESSING ABOUT US ?

I make my arguments without obsessing about Righties.

LOL

Yes, my current argument is being made against those of extreme views in the Right, but that's perfectly legitimate for me to do such;

ROFLMAO -"SPECIAL RULES FOR SPECIAL PEEPS"

It does not constitute obsessing about Righties.

LOL - OH MAN!

Please do me a favor and don't respond with any more illogical conclusions about me or the point I am trying to make here.

LOL - OH SORRY, IT MUST BE MY RIGHT WING ZEALOUTRY THAT CAUSED THIS RESPONSE.

Read the posts of Chris Ford and Silicon Doc if you want to know what obsession is about; You'll see that my posts pale in comparison.
Posted by: ErrinF | Jan 2, 2006 4:10:06 PM

LOL- YOUR POSTS PALE IN COMPARISON - YES- ROFLMAO

_________________________________________

LOL - TOTALLY IN DENIAL.

I see how the Jersey Independent responded.Quite sane, as a real independent is most likely to be on this topic, not willing to give in for a party hack quack that endangers anyones life in the USA.

Furthermore, I don't see real right wing zealouts in here. Apparently the left wackos don't enounter them often enough, or they'ed know what one is like.
You just can't explain to these people that Zell Miller and Lieberman are the standard democrat type we "always had", and that the republicans in fact are less right and farther toward the center and left than they have ever been, and there just isn't "wacko control" going on in the republican party, even though "the wackos" have taken over the democrats ( cetainly as far as the public discourse goes ), and thankfully we see how the "voting caves" once they are called on it, at least to some degree.

These lefties pretend the republicans are some Pre-New-Deal destroyers of DOE,SS,DHS, and all the rest.

ErrinF is the "progressive anti-welfare and all that" that wants all that destroyed, for real. LOL

Do we let ErrinF know that if she is what she keeps claiming, she is the "right wing wacko " ?

Oh man. I guess I'm glad the politicians are whom they are, because they sure seem to me to lie a lot less than the wackos I encounter from the general public.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 12:57 AM

Well, ErrinF, maybe, after I repost it right here for you:

ErrinF the wacko: " If you really want to debate so badly, let me know what your position in this debate is exactly, and I'll let you know if I disagree with it. "

You know, you still haven't figured out if you disagree with me ? ROFLMAO.
YOU ARE A PURE SMART ASS WACK LEFTY.

My position on the issue was my very first post, you moronic goofball.

Here, I'll repost my stance from the FIRST POST I MADE in full for you, you braindead dweeb!

_______________________________________
"So many "reporters" seem to forget that the Congress should not abridge the Constitution in their legislation, and if they do, checks and balances need to correct that.
I hear the 1968 law makes explicit exceptions for the President as concerned Foreign Intelligence gathering, written by the Congress, duly noting their inability to rewrite the Constitution with a legislative bill.
I note further the hate Bush press never mentions either of these facts. Our founders realized, and as has been practiced for more than 200 years, that Congress cannot keep a secret, and therefore left Intel gathering to the Executive branch.
Congress can write up all sorts of legislation, but if they attempt to usurp Presidential powers inherent in the Constitution, and practiced for hundreds of years, why then it is THEY, not the President whom deserves a sharp reprimand.
Bush haters will never come to this conclusion.
However, the outcome has already been written on this case, and the Bush haters will be disappointed, just as they were told the Plame leak was not a breaking of the law, even by those who wrote the law, two full years before the Libby fibbed to Fitzpatrick fiasco.
One doesn't need to wonder, either, where the Bush haters are when it comes to the latest Intel leak, the one concerning this very topic, and why they aren't raging and blazing a trail calling for the head(s) of the leaker(s) this time.
So pathetically slanted is the left press nowadays, and so overwrought with ideations and feverish postulations ( see the above column replete with dozens of referrences, none of which cover the three most important aspects, the Constitution, 1968 law and Congress' lack of Amendment), that this reader no longer respects them, their opinions, or their obtuse methodology of hiding the truth while baffling with fluff and blather.
A shameful condition, indeed.
Now, where is the call for the investigation into the leaker(s) of this most highly secretive Intel gathering ?
The IMMENSE SHAME of the silence in that area tells the story better than my critiques can.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | Dec 29, 2005 7:25:44 AM
"
_________________________________________

I am happy to report, ErrinF , that investigation into the leaker has been launched by the Justice Department !

If you're still wondering what my position is, there is no help for you.

Could I have put it any clearer?

You left wing wackos were wrong on the Plame leak matter, and you are wrong on this as well. Thousands of you run about lying, just as you did during the manufacture of the Plame scandal, which properly should have ended up with Joe Wilson in prison, for colluding with the foreign power of France ( France paid for the fake yellowcake Niger papers(which Wilson saw 8 months ahead of time), owns the 2 national Niger mines, and Joe Wilson found attempted purchases of yelowcake in 1998(large amount) and 1999(400 tons) by Saddam Hussein, and reported that to the CIA, then lied in his J. 6th article to all of us, and lied about his wife's recommendation, and lied and perjured himself in front of the Senate Intel Committee.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wniger19.xml

As I was saying, you were wrong on the Plame leak, and you're wrong on this.

I'll copy some other text I have already posted- so you can't claim my position wasn't clear all along, and we can just assume then you're a very poor reader, or just a very,very mean person.

_________________________________________

Avedon Carol :

" The real question is why they didn't blow the whistle over a year ago, when publishing the story might have done some good to hold them to account. "

Indeed it is an important question. You should think about it, and let all of us know what your conclusions are concerning this matter.
Let me give you a hint.
The conclusions don't bode well for the Bush haters.
Blind allegiance to unforgiving fantasy will no doubt remain, nonetheless.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | Dec 29, 2005 6:27:20 PM
______________________________________

That should immediately make you think ErrinF, that if it was so illegal or wrong, why wasn't it reported right away ?
The answer is isn't so illegal or wrong.
The blind allegiance part is for the braindead left zombies in denial. They won't understand that comment. They probably won't understand the first part either. Maybe you just don't get it. I guess I better post some more.

___________________________________

This next part is right above your first whiney post about left and right. I guess it really irked you I brought up Clinton, your corrupt political God.

______________________________________

Finally, linking former warrantless intel gatherings, with the current warrantless intel gatherings, in a body of understanding standard government operating procedures, is a valid exercise, even if it winds up reminding us about the horrific mass of scandals emcompassing the entirety of the Clinton presidency, or elicits a sourpuss wincing remembrance of guilt from left, before the all too common reflexive knee jerk emotional demand arises that Clinton not be brought up, that he is no longer President,nor will he ever be First Lady with powers such as Hillary, and that is just not fair to examine how corrput the Execitve branch of government was under the Clinton cabal of crime, even as Clinton runs about defending his legacy and campaigning to return to the White House below his power hungry wild eyed suddenly right wing wife for a second crime wave.
Boy, that's a comforting thought, at least knowing that the Clinton's used the arms of law (IRS,FBI, etc. )of the governemt to go after their political enemies while in office ( Barrett report) , so they will surely, if the USA heads for the worst and is punished again by their presence, have no compunction about using the NSA for spying purposes foreign or domestic, even against our enemies not just theirs. Every forming dark cloud has a potential silver lining.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | Dec 30, 2005 3:38:22 P
________________________________________

There did that help you ? See, I endorsed the sick corrupt Clinton regime redux, with the Shill Hill at the Till, and said it's nice to know they will do the NSA spying as well.

That means that no matter if a Great Republican President exerts his Executive Powers, or some foul lying gasbag hack whore couple like the Clinton's do it, I'm all for it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to make you look bad having to explain these prior postings to you, but I have a strange feeling you still won't get it. I've had to deal with low life hacks like you for years, and they always challenge debate, but then never start a debate, so I have to do all the work to start up one, by complying with their request ( yours in this case was what's my position ), and then they piddle out like moronic goofballs anyway. ( Because that's what they are all the time anyhow, like you. Good luck trying to prove me wrong. To do that would mean you'd have to keep your word.)

Oh yes and BTW- I have copied and responded to nearly every word you wrote- line for line with your text in my reply - but you have the lying ass bullshit idiot statement like this one:

"While we're at it, Silicon Doc, you are a complete hypocrite. You've addressed nothing I've said, and expect me to address everything you've said"

LOL - you're a fool. You just said you didn't know what my position was on all this, and if you did, you'd debate- but then next you say I expect you to address everything I've said. you are so lost in your lies you cannot get out of them.

READ WHAT I WROTE BEFORE YOU WENT INTO YOUR HATE SILICONDOC MODE YOU LOSING IDIOT.

THEN BRING YOUR DEBATE WACKO TURD.

I'M STILL WAITING- BUT YOU'LL PROBALBY WANT TO DEFEND YOUR PERSONAL INSANITIES INSTEAD.

WHATEVER.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 01:39 AM

I'll remind you ErrinF, I'm not the only one who called you on your BS right bashing. I guess I need to shot you another, since your braindead quaff is thinking " Chris, that right wing jackbooted thug did too."

NOT JUST HE, WRONG AGAIN LOSER.

"ErrinF,
I can agree with most of what you have just said. On the other hand you have omitted equal condemnation of the excesses on the other side.
Posted by: Cayambe | Dec 30, 2005 5:39:30 PM "

Cayambe is aligned with Berlinbabe, another closet left wing wacko.

Now, back to the debate you challenged. If you can claim you understand my position, because you actually read my posts, we can probably start.
I provided several links as well. Maybe you should read a few of those, it might help you. I believe there are at least 4 on the spying issues, which include referrences to Slick Willies warrantless tappings, never charged, which is of course a solid reason why these won't be either.
You left loons don't get that. You have
fits about "whining about Clinton". The government operates on a continuing basis. What wasn't illegal last administration likely isn't this one. Use your damned noggin and stop whining about being bashed.

I see in your former texts, way up the page, you were wailing and moaning about Rush, O'Reilly, and Right wing radio.

You are a left wing loser hack. There is no doubt about it.

Now, time for you to address the debate as you said you would, when you claimed if you knew my position, you would debate. Later you whined you didn't have time to read my posts, so didn't know.

Now you have my posts reposted to you, and know my position.

STILL WAITING....

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 02:04 AM

ErrinF,

I see you ranted some more trying to defend your indefensible position. You are truly a one sided turd.

"I don't have to dole out the criticism 50/50 because the demagoguery is not 50/50 between the Left and the Right, that is, not as long as the Right props up blowhards the likes of Ann Coultier, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly (to name a few)."

Let's name a few wacko blowhards propped up on the left, shall we?
Al Franken, Michael Moore, Molly Ivins , Cindy Sheehan, David Corn, Greg Palast, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Noam Chompsky, Ward Churchill, George Galloway, George Sorros, Scott Ritter, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Phil Donahue, Jesse Jackson, Katie Couric, need more?

Alan Colmes, Ellis Hennikin, Amy Goodwin, Daniel Schorr, Noah Adams, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, David Icke, Chris Matthews, Norman Solomon, Donald Kaul, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, AJ Dionne , Michael Kinsley, Alexander Cockburn, Eric Alterman, Ellen Goodwin, Robert Scheer, Richard Cohen, David North, David Brock, Neal Gabler, Bill Press...

Well, I could go on for quite some time.

So, you pieces of crap should stop propping up your left wing wackos, then we wouldn't have so many of you running around thinking you're something else, but still being such rude lying gasbags of disruption.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 02:43 AM

"Digital data packets flying around cyberspace from server to server; ... None of these data packets contain complete information. ...
What does one use to originate an FISA warrant? MAC address maybe?
...
The way the technology works, the target can be anywhere in the world and using any hardware and succeed in evading scrutiny.
.....
We need to be watching ALL TRAFFIC.
So, how do you do that?
Posted by: astronerd | Dec 28, 2005 12:27:13 PM "

Very good post IMO. This comes more to the real problem the government is faced with. AS has been mentioned in prior posting, the CLINTON administration had a progrma called "ECHELON" in place, to deal with the very issue you mention.
It has since been renamed, but it snooped data packets, and the left wing wack jobs in the silent on the side at that time, had a fit over it.
Their complaints about it are all over the " what really happened on 911 " websites.

The real answer, as we have already seen, is that the government is going to snoop what it needs to, and the informed democrats are going to support it and shut their mouths for years on end, because they know very well it is neccessary and a responsible,legal thing to do.

What we have now is a big flubb-up with the seditious, traitorous, illegal leak to the NYT, and we have an investigation, as we SHOULD HAVE, and believe me, if they figure out whom it was- that whom IS GOING TO PRISON.

In the mean time, we will have this as usual, hyperactive, overstated, lunatic sensationalism pumping the left press media like mad, all for ratings and advertising sales and patisan attacks, and we'll have plenty of democrats posturing and pretending like mad devils they just can't abide with this kind of NSA stuff.

( But when it gets down to brass tacks, all that whining will sudenly "FLOP" , just like it did on the 403-3 vote for "immediate withdrawal".)

I guess the vast left wing wacko lying out in public insincere democrat talking head posters can take some sort of "comfort" in the fact that EXACTLY 3 DEMOCRATS IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BELIEVES IN WHAT THEY CONSTANTLY PRESENT AS THEIR PARTY POSITION.

This issue is really no different at all.

It's just like the call for war giving President Bush the determination on enemy connections that had 1, I repeat, 1 vote against it ( public law xxx-40) , that I posted a link to earlier.
Smarter democrats realize that's why the left feverishly attempts to "prove" that Iraq had "nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 911".

They pushed under ties in the OKC Murrah building bombing, and went after "right wing militia - with spy satellites- and no warrants - under Clinton years", as I have already pointed out, and even covered over Timothy McVeighs bombing partners trips and meeting with Ramsey Yousef , and thick Iraq former republican guard involvement,Moussaoiu seen with McVeigh at the local Hotel in OKC 1 week before the bombing, among other mideasterners seen in public with McVeigh, even reported publicly, then quashed, and dozens of other linkages and court testimony connecting it all to Abu Sayeff - a Qaeda funded Islamo Terror group based in the Phillipines, and Iraq intelligence attending the meetings as well. Iraq Intelligence, not just in Prague, as well in Khartoum Sudan (aspirin factory or co-Sarin plant- pick your side ), but also the fact that in the 1993 WTC bombing, two got away and one republican guard tattooed bomber, fled straight to Bagdad and was setup by Saddam and his Intel Head son, Quasay- with an apartment and a continuous stipend (free salary).
Even former Clinton CIA head James Woolsey agrees with all the above.

The lies we have to put up with, to maintain Clinton errors and government ease in prosecutions and general public passification are quite incredible, but don't ever expect the LEFT to figure it this way. The lies the left claim come from the government, are the very ones the left totally supports, and helps the government disseminate in various fashion and form, under the guise of politcal correct dictums or Bush hate rhetoric.

It is absolutely pathetic. Saddam Hussein was Gulf War 91's ENEMY OF THE USA, add ten years of sanctions, and Osama bin Ladens hatred developed over our attack on Saddam in '91, our troops on the Saudi peninsula because of it - and the dead Iraqis, and you've got a tie to Saddam so close the liberals can catch VD just thinking about it.
Everything is therefore said to try to minimize and destroy any thought whatsoever of this.
It's really terribly sick.
Somehow- we are supposed to believe that some caved moron just pissed off about our war with Iraq in '91, and our troops in the area, is more a threat than the head of the NATION we attacked and repelled, who suffered for a decade plus directly under the aftermath...
IT IS BY ALL SANE ESTIMATION ABSOLUTELY A PREPOSTEROUS POSITION.

But, that's how big fat lies work in politics, nowadays. Nothing is too incredible or wacky to try to pull off.

The democrats have had to tell Howard Dean ( their DNC HEAD appointment), with all his wacky rhetoric, to "shut the hell up ".
Just like the democrats openly backlashed against Murtha, before his BS rhetoric took a big crash in the vote.
The hardcore left talking head liars claim the Hhouse res. wasn't what murtha said, but in reality it was exactly that, as it takes six months to drawn down the forces, which of course amounts to an immediate pullout.
The wacky liars of the left can make distinctions that have no difference in reality, all so they can blowhard a big fat lie all over the airwaves and cables and satellites, over and over again, and get a lot of government officals to just accede to their insanity, just so they'ell shut up and go away.
( Often how Bush feels about it, and how he and his administration reacts to the wacky partisan diatribical lies- ignoring them for months on end. )

Well, the left finds they can turn minds and make mush of reality, so they keep pumping up the lie volume.

It is really a pathetic method of one of the two National major Parties in the USA.
But then, they swore vengeance for the attacks on Clinton. They have certainly kept their promise.

In the end, they will secretly totally support the NSA spying, hoping to reasonably save their own skins in DC and around the big cities of the USA.

If the wacky left unhinged loons ever take over completely and destroy that saving grace still on the democrat side, well then we can all imagine what the real fallout will be, and it won't be pretty for the USA, or for the democrats.

I know I've gone on quite a while, but ErrinF wanted to know more about "my position" on things.

I want to re-emphasize I thought astronerds comment was very appropriate and on par. The government is going to do what it needs to, and is doing it so far, and we are lucky they are. We can only hope they remain successful, and aren't crushed like they were in decades past up to before 911, with the fanatic Church Commission, basically now REVERSED ENTIRELY, because it left the USA extremely vulnerable.

Good luck to us all.

Posted by: Silicondoc | January 3, 2006 11:19 AM

The debate about what powers are granted to the President under FISA, the Patriot Act, or other acts of Congress misses the central point: the American people have an absolute and sovereign right to be secure in their "person...papers and effects", as spelled out in the Fourth Amendment. To argue that that "penumbra" of powers granted to the commander-in-chief trumps the explicit requirement of judicial issuance of search warrants carries the convoluted, activist logic of Rowe v Wade to an absurd level. One can argue about what constitutes "probable" cause or a "unreasonable" seizure or even if a warrant may be obtained ex post facto -- what can't be argued is whether a warrant is required.

The President may not violate the Fourth Amendment nor may Congress give the President the power to violate the Fourth Amendment -- Congress simply doesn't have that authority. The only way warrantless searches can be permitted in the United States is through a joint resolution of Congress passed by two-thirds majority in each house and submitted for the ratification of three-quarters of the states' legislatures. (It's either that or have the states call for a constitutional convention)

The President did not take an oath to protect Americans against terrorists -- he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I watched him do it...twice he raised his hand....on the steps of the Capitol....in front of God and country. If he feels he can't live up to that oath, then he should resign his office. That is what an honorable man would do.

Posted by: shavenhaircut | January 3, 2006 11:51 AM

SiliconDoc-

Sorry for taking so long to respond. My football team lost its bowl game this week and it drove me to drink, probably because I'm so depressed from you exposing me for the liar/America hater/Clinton lover/ACLU attorney/etc. that I apparently am. Oh well, I'll live.

But more importantly let's talk about your post:

Silicon Doc said:

"LOL - Of course they don't, it's all about Clinton coruption and you aren't interested AT ALL.
You also don't have a search engine, and can't type "Barrett Report " yourself, and peruse some self-achieved information, and make pertinent commentary, actually looking like you might have a brain or be interested. Such poor lying. So shameless and barren and exposed."

I did some super yahoo search for Barrett Report which revealed a lot of opinion articles about it from Townhall, freerepublic, some Novak pinings on it (which you already provided, and I did read) etc. Is there a big liberal conspiracy to hide this stuff? If we take Novak on his word it certainly seems like there is one. Are members of the Republican party willing participants? Your guy Tony Snow over at Townhall thinks so http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

I will apologize about not knowing of this Barrett Report. I do not read Townhall, or Richard Novak's columns (I think the New York Times charges for them). My two republican Senators and my Representative now have my full approval to pursue this issue without a peep of dissent from me.

"Everything is opinion nowadays my friend, right, just like you guys taught us, it's all in the point of view. I doubt you read them, and you certainly won't be the least bit interested when the slashed report finally surfaces. It will of course always be less than anyone ever proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's Clinton corruption, and it just can't possibly be any other way, according to you. There you are, now you know all you need to ever know about the Barrett report."

I did read the links and, although they were from admittadly biased points of view, neither explained any specific malfeance on Clinton's part. If Tom Delay is innocent until proven guilty, then so is Mr. Clinton. Again, I could care less about Mr. or Mrs. Clintons political careers, especially if they were willing participants in tax fraud. I am to blame for not informing myself on this issue. I am not disputing anything said in those articles or by you about the Barrett Report. K?

"Likely a bold-faced lie. If you were you would have fired off some e-mails demanding as much, to the named blockers and the head guy pushing for full release.
I can easily surmise you have done neither. You haven't even fired up a search engine."

By that standard I'm not outraged about pretty much anything. You're right, I did not email anyone demanding this report get published, just like I didn't email anyone when the NSA surveillance story leaked. I did do the search engine for you though, sweetheart.

"Oh, you paid 20 million dollars to the Independent counsel operating account. That's amazing. I also think it's another lie, a pretty arrogant lie. Why do liberal Bush haters always lie ? I think it's because they need a dramatic flavor to spice up their looney tunes. The bigger the lie the better they think it sounds."

Have you ever accused the government of spending money frivolously? When you read a panel of judges was "sympathetic" (Novak's words, not mine) towards sealing the report, you assume the judges are liberal henchmen. Now you have a complaint with the judicial system. You are free to air those grievences, though please not with me because I do not share those concerns. If Scooter Libby is exonerated I will not assume it was because the presiding judge was a henchman. Was it possible the judges were presented with legally compelling evidence to silence the prosecutor?

Even if they *are* henchmen, again, you have my full permission to rant about a Barrett Report because I'll support opening it.

"Wow, that's quite a deduction Sherlock.You wasted your 20 million dollars. At least you can go about lying that Clinton never did anything wrong, because he was never caught, according to you, and before you have even a tiny inkling ( nothing interesting) , nor have read the report ( since it's not available ) you know how to grade the prosecutor you just learned about less than 5 minutes ago.
You people are so pathetic. Another bald faced multiple smart aleck lie."

I know only what you tell me, friend. A prosecutor was given, according to you, irrefutable evidence that Bill Clinton did something terribly wrong. He presented that irrefutable evidence to a panel of judges who decided his presentation of that evidence was lacking. If the evidence is, as you say, irrefutable, then the only possible conclusion I can make is that this prosecutor failed to convince judges with irrefutable evidence. He is either in on the scam or dangerously incompetent. Is this not a reasonable conclusion?

"I have renamed the Democrat/ left / Bush hating fool party of the USA.

I call them the SMART _ _ _ party."

Coolness.

"That is EXACTLY what they are. It's one smart off after another. One lie piled upon another smarmy lip off followed by another emotionally charged overblown way out of bounds blathering blabberfuss falsehood. God it's pathetic."

Ok.

"Jimmy Carter's man is at the post. Did you read the links ? I highly doubt it. You clearly didn't as the named democrats blocking access and release are gone over in detail. What a bufoon you are."

Neither of the links you provided mentions Jimmy Carter. You are welcome to double check them both. One of the articles even suggests that my position, that this investigation might be a big waste of money, may be justified. Did YOU read the links? Byron York: "It is also a setback for taxpayers. Barrett has so far spent about $20 million in public funds on the investigation. If it is not released, there will be no way for the public to determine whether such an enormous expenditure was justified, or whether Barrett wasted the taxpayers' money." That gives me one more reason to support the opening of this report. I want to know whether the tax moneys were spent responsibly, just like your boy Byron York. You should read his article.

"Another disappointing spew of lies from the left, and not a single discourse on the actual crimes uncovered in the Clinton Administration. Wow."

Your complaint about the Barrett Report was that it wasn't released which means we don't know the "actual crimes uncovered" (which seems to be why you are so worked up). I will have a discourse about Clinton's prior malfeance. Do you want me to admit that Clinton cheated on his wife and lied to the nation? Ok. Done deal. Why do you think I am married to this man? Because I disagree with you on OVERSIGHT?

"Perfect "cover" for the rat crew I've grown to substantially dislike."

K.

"What a total waste of time. I never knew people could be such low life losers before I became involved in political discourse."

Alright.

"I will add it is almost always on the left, almost without exception. It is amazing how smarting off is considered a party platform in the USA."

Ok. You are a hypocrite.

"Oh I suppose when the Supreme Court in 2000 made a decision conerning the Presidential election, right ?"

Did I say the Supreme Court got things wrong in 2000? Have you provided an example of the FISA court getting it wrong, and if so, why is your solution to bypass the FISA rather then to fix FISA? Let's say I agree with your solution, that FISA needs to be bypassed. Why do you continue to snake the bigger question: If the President NEEDS to bypass FISA what kind of oversight entity will replace it?

"Has someone charged the FISA court with a crime ? Has someone claimed malfeasance upon the FISA court? Why did you ask such a foolish question ? Don't answer that, I KNOW why."

My quote was more concerned with why people have insisted that the FISA court prevents the President from pursuing terrorists because it has refused warrants in the past. Isn't the courts entire existence justified by its ability to restrict warrants? Why do we assume that the court had poor reasons for refusing those warrants? Do you have the cases? If you think FISA fouled up then present the evidence; you don't get to take its incompetence for granted.

"No, it isn't."

Because courts are ineffective? Because George Bush is infallible? Because FISA would only restrict warrants that pursued terrorists? What claim are you making here? Do you have a problem with the judicial system or just FISA? Do you think a President can be trusted to issue oversight over itself?

"You had better hope he doesn't. Polls show he WINS that argument by a SUBSTANTIAL margin."

Then you have to wonder why he hasn't? I am not in love with FISA. I am in love with checks and balances and oversight (isn't that cute?). He wins the argument that national security is important because there isn't much of an argument. Now as to the more important question of whether he gets to be the one to define the word "bad guy" for this presidency and every one afterwards, not so much.

"Nonetheless, the American public won't be changing the law, even if they are on Bush' side. Right, you know that, don't you ? We don't live in the lefty communist stagnation dream society of direct democracy where we all spend 24/7/365 figuring out all the ins and out of every little piece of needed legislation and then castout citizenship quota vote of yea or nay because we know best."

Ok, this seems like you now have a problem with the legislative process. Did you have a problem with it in 2000? When Bush claimed a mandate did you call him an idiot and dutifully point out that the will of the people is not served by the electoral process?

"Well, because he isn't supposed to take a secret plan for capturing terrorists by spying on them to the American Public so you idiots can voice your approval so Al Qaeda can have a huge heads up on things."

If he sticks to FISA there is no story! I didn't know FISA existed until I found out it had been bypassed. I'll remain happily ignorant about the finer points of our war on terror just so long as I have *some* assurances that this war is being pursued lawfully. The President's word does not constitute oversight.

"He is supposed to make it appear no such taps would ever occur because the American Idiot Left and Al Qaeda operatives like CAIR and INWO would never allow such a thing, and with that big fat false tree huggable comforting wall of world peace and lib safety in place, the terrorists start dialing like mad and get caught, and for 4 years we don't have any terror attacks that get through, just huge numbers of them that get stopped cold turkey."

If you think the left is so loony, which I would have to agree if they said pursuing domestic terrorists violated their unalienable rights (which I don't think it does), then why would anyone agree with them? Why would CAIR or INWO have any kind of power over you if they are so insane? Do you think the American public is stupid or just too liberal? Most Americans take seriously national security.

"Yes, President Bush is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than the left wing whining psychos we regular US citizens have to put up with."

Alright. You are in love with this man. I do not care.

"Yes, it's called informing the Intel Committee and the head demonuts like Pelosi. Since they sucked it up for 4 years straight with a big fat thumbs up, that settles it."

That does not constitute oversight to me. That is my opinion and I am welcome to it. Informing a bunch of helpless and incompetent people, who aren't even allowed to ask competent people on the subject, does not give anyone but the President the final authority over surveillance. What could the Intel committee do? Could it tell Bush no? Maybe I need to familiarize myself with the panel more, but it seems that no one in it has said they were an oversight role. Even if Rockefeller's letter was a forgery, do you think it would have been treated differnetly? What oversight?

"Then some traitor bled like a blabbermouth doofus terrorist supporter to NYT, and a bunch of wackos aligned with Al Qaeda again, against the USA."

Ok.

"Well, he may or may not " be welcome " making a case, as that decision is up to the Supreme Court, however it appears as usual, the demonuttier left has it all backwards again, at least the ankle gnawing rabbletards of the demonut left have it backwards."

That would be oversight and I would be pleased if the Supreme Court heard his case. Even if they took his side and admitted his surveillance wouldn't end my world. I have no problem with domestic surveillance. I like warrants though. Surely we can have domestic surveillance that effectively curbs terrorism with warrants.

"Try to open your mind in order to think clearly. Here's a new thought.

The Congress should not usurp the Powers of the Executive Branch, as that would VIOLATE the Separation of Powers contained in the Constitution."

Did they? In 1978 (or was it '72)? Why wait over 2 decades to declare the unconstitutionality of the law? Is it only unconstitutional today? I don't want to usurp the President's powers, but I am positive that spying on whomever he damn well feels like is not in the President's power. You say the President only spies on terrorists. How do you know that? Because he told you?

"Furthermore, the ankle gnawing trolls shouldn't keep pretending the Congress has the right to do so."

The President seemed to think they did as well... he utilized FISA.

"Wow. Too bad you don't know what they are."

I'm learning.

"Well, once again, blabbing about National Security matters " out in the open " is something the demolib wackos in those pretty white buildings in DC were hoping to avoid, since they almost got their butts fried to a toasty crisp by an incoming airplane missile 4 years ago, and apparently aren't convinced it was a one time only deal.
They kept their big fat Bush hate yappers shut about it for FOUR YEARS."

I'll rephrase my original point that got you so worked up. I think if the President believes he needs to do something to protect this country, then this country and this legislature will empower him to do so. I do not need to know what those measures are because it might not be in national security interests to publish those measures for allies and enemies alike to read. But there must be some third party involved that makes distinctions between, among other things, private information that would be useful for national security and private information that would not be.

"EVEN AFTER THAT, THE INSANE LEFT IS OFF TO THE STUPID RACES AGAIN."

I am so crazy!

"HINT - CONGRESS HAS BEEN DOING THE RIGHT THING. DUH."

By inaction? Why is that the right thing? Were they empowered to "do" anything? Nobody told the judiciary, apparently.

"He already did. That's why the demomonkeys kept their partisan pieholes sealed so tightly for 4 years."

At least one has alleged that he didn't keep his piehole sealed and yet nothing happened. This, again, would constitute non-oversight.

"Whatever. Now you know TK's vote on an imaginary nothing ?"

I was trying to use the point to illustrate that I have no problem with national security, but since I'm a liar and demonlib etc. you won't take me at face value. That's fine. I know super liberals who take up the fight of absolutes between national security and civil liberties will lose because unsecured nations cannot establish civil liberties for their constituents. I am not one of those people. I do not think civil liberties and national security are mutually exclusive.

"Boy oh brother. Read up on this sometime would you ? He gave a couple speeches on it too already. Wow."

Ok? Saying that the court is too slow isn't a reason when we know the warrants can be issued retroactively. Using broad terms about national security bla bla bla is not an "explanation" of why he needed to bypass FISA. Saying "I need to bypass FISA because the enemy is evolving" or some other trite bullshit is not an explanation. FISA may be too restrictive. Why? Because it denies warrants that could be used to pursue terrorists? Ok, which warrant? Did Bush disagree with a specific refused warrant? Did he mention one in his speech?

"Not just now, it's been that way for over 200 years."

Wrong wrong wrong. It wasn't that way 20 years ago, and it wasn't that way the hundreds of other times the President went to FISA for a warrant.

"It's called congressional appeasement, Frank Church commission, commie weak kneed democrat insanity, and opening up of America to the terror attacks in NYC in '93 and '01. Get a little history. The libs freaked out and smashed USA defensive powers 30 years ago. Since 911 we've had to start doing again what the damn foolish lefty nutballs stopped us from doing all along. That really has me angry. Now HUMINT and everything else is up from scratch. Damn demo commies. What a waste they are."

YES OR NO: DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT GETS TO DECIDE WHO THE ENEMY OF THE COUNTRY IS? IF SO, HOW DO YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S ENEMY IS YOURS?

"Because he is a superwise and massively excellent POTUS. He got 4 years of leftnuts and terrorists dialing like mad zombies because they all believed noone could take a snap recording of their illicit activites."

Are you suggesting that getting leftnuts to dial like mad zombies makes him an excellent POTUS and why? Is merely being a leftie an "illicit activity"? If so, this is precisely why you and the President cannot be trusted to monitor yourselves.

"We already went over that, you're repeating yourself."

Yet you refuse to offer one substantive reason why the President needed to bypass FISA to save you. Ok, we know you think the President has inalienable executive rights to spy on Americans without a warrant (we disagree). This doesn't explain why the President went to FISA at all. Neither did he in his speeches. Neither has he since. Is FISA too slow? Ok we know that claim is false because warrants are applied retroactively. Is it too restrictive? You assume that FISA had bad reasons for denying warrants to the President. Could you be wrong?

"Frankly we know he doesn't care, and would much rather not know.
However, if you've been talking to her about "taking out " this right wing neocon nazi tyrannist Chimpey, it is perhaps likely that someone in NSA DOES HAVE AN INTEREST in what you've been saying, and doing then as well, and with whom else."

AGAIN, HOW DO I KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LISTENING TO ME TALK TO MY GIRLFRIEND ABOUT NON-NATIONAL SECURITY RELATED ISSUES? BECAUSE HE TOLD ME SO? THIS IS NOT OVERSIGHT.

"Oh good. Then everything is fine."

Not especially.

"Did you just call President Bush good-hearted ? I guess this little chat has brought you around. Glad to help."

I never needed to be brought around. I do not think George Bush is some evil maniacle person. I do not think this is a conspiracy against Green Peace, or that domestic surveillance is always unconstitutional, or even that the President has anything other then my security interests at heart when he spies on people. However, I cannot afford either him or any future President the right to decide who is worth spieing on without an impartial third party involved. ANY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT's "enemy" may not be MY enemy. There has to be some entity to distinguish the two that is not the President.

I enjoy this. Keep at it.

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2006 01:44 PM

Posted by: shavenhaircut | Jan 3, 2006 11:51:40 AM


"The debate about what powers are granted to the President under FISA,"

Powers are "taken" from the President under FISA- not "granted" to him.

" the Patriot Act, or other acts of Congress misses the central point:"

Laws have LIMITED powers - due to TECHNOLOGY, prior to the patriot act. If you limit legal powers- and then unlimit them, you aren't granting "NEW" powers- you are "RESTORING POWERS THAT WERE DENIED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME".

SO, YOU HAVE IT 180 DEGREES BACKWARDS, like th rest of the LEFT.

" the American people have an absolute and sovereign right to be secure in their "person...papers and effects", as spelled out in the Fourth Amendment."

Well, sorry, it isn't absolute. It's a right against "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures.

( ANOTHER POSTER ALREADY POINTED THAT OUT- ABOVE - AT LEAST ONE DID - IT MAY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE)
This is how, by changing the words and meanings of things, simple truths can be turned into " LEFT WING QUACKING LIES OF ENORMOUS FOOLISHNESS ".

That's ok, I know bullshit when it's fed to me.


To argue that that "penumbra" of powers granted to the commander-in-chief trumps the explicit requirement of judicial issuance of search warrants carries the convoluted, activist logic of Rowe v Wade to an absurd level.

Well, that's a nice opinion. Send it in Ceriatori to th3e Supreme Court for consideration.
In the mean time I'm sure the USA will function on several hundreds of years that FLY DIRECTLY IN THE FACE OF YOUR DEVOUTLY REASONED POSITION, AND IN FACT ARE QUITE THE OPPOSITE, IN PRACTICE, WITH NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OVER THE MULTITITUDE OF PRESIDENCIES.

" One can argue about what constitutes "probable" cause or a "unreasonable" seizure or even if a warrant may be obtained ex post facto -- "

Ok, so do I call you, "Your Honor" ?

"what can't be argued is whether a warrant is required. "

Oh, I guess I should call you " Supreme United Nations World Ruler Overlord by usa Treaty Honor". If it were- you could overturn a couple hundred years of rulings, against you.

Posted by: shavenhaircut | Jan 3, 2006 11:51:40 AM

Yes, nice opinion. Very good. Also wrong.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 02:22 PM

"That's ok, I know bullshit when it's fed to me."

That's funny.

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2006 02:37 PM

Chris Ford-

"Will seems nicer than the others, but when you write and explain things to him, you can imagine him having an iron grip in his mind of certain fixed ideas he came up with on pure emotion or ideology, and is reluctant to let go of, even if it is explained again and again. Best let Will see the stampede of Democrats that will come out and draw a line in the sand and say civil liberties means we must end all surveillance of the enemy on the chance that the computer analysis filters will pick up an innocent American Muslim or such. Yes, quite a stampede in the last two weeks, huh?"

I'll take what I can get. Thanks for admitting I'm civil. Now as to your straw man of Democrats stampeding to defend my civil liberties? Why would I agree with someone that says civil liberties means we cannot domestically spy on people? Have I endorsed this position anywhere in this thread? What on earth gave you the idea that I am against domestic spying?

I read the link http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/30/the_case_for_surveillance/ and found it interesting. It is probably irrelevant to my concern. The author Charles Fried describes a surveillance method, mining vast amounts of information, that probably yields national security results and probably does not violate people's civil liberties. This is precisely the type of method I support. However, this doesn't answer the better question of who decides which words are entered into a computer search. Does it mine for words like "Bomb" "Tower" or "Terrorist" or words like "Liberal" and "Vote"? This is important.

I read the http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007734 link and I think it's a good article. The claim is late, however. IF this President thought FISA was unconstitutional he never argued as much. Do you think the President SHOULD have any restriction on intelligence gathering? Do you think the President has a right to the information on your computer even if you are not a security threat nor related to one?

I don't know why anyone could possibly disagree with the following: The President should not be allowed to monitor political opponents even if they present no national security threat.

Disagree?

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2006 03:09 PM

Well, I just spent a nice time replying to you Will, and the thing blew off the whole reply. I'll try once more.


Posted by: Will | Jan 3, 2006 1:44:48 PM
SiliconDoc-

Sorry for taking so long to respond. My football team lost its bowl game this week and it drove me to drink, probably because I'm so depressed from you exposing me for the liar/America hater/Clinton lover/ACLU attorney/etc. that I apparently am. Oh well, I'll live.

LOL - Ok.

Silicon Doc said:
"LOL - Of course they don't, it's all about Clinton coruption and you aren't interested AT ALL.

Will- I did some super yahoo search for Barrett Report which revealed a lot of opinion articles about it from Townhall, freerepublic, some Novak pinings on it (which you already provided, and I did read) etc.

Ok, good !

Will - Is there a big liberal conspiracy to hide this stuff? If we take Novak on his word it certainly seems like there is one.

Yes, it certainly does. We will see on the 12th, if it is released, what the mainstream media does with it.

Will- Are members of the Republican party willing participants? Your guy Tony Snow over at Townhall thinks so http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html

I disagree entirely. They were "duped" it seems. Republicans shouldn't trust conniving democrats.

Will - I will apologize about not knowing of this Barrett Report.

No need for that ! I objected to the feigned interest, etc.

Will- My two republican Senators and my Representative now have my full approval to pursue this issue without a peep of dissent from me.

LOL - That means no encouragement either. also means you won't be complaining to the Levin, the Waxman, or the Dorgan. LOL ok.


Will- I did read the links and, although they were from admittadly biased points of view, neither explained any specific malfeance on Clinton's part.

Well, of course a little history is all that is needed. O'reilly came out about the IRS instrusions. So did 5 Clinton raped/ or assualted women. So did other non friendly bureaucrats, and fired travel office workers.
A few books have been written by FBI officals testifying to the same.
We do have public affidavits as well.

" If Tom Delay is innocent until proven guilty, then so is Mr. Clinton. "

Well, only in a legally binding sense. Otherwise, as the public, we have our own conclusions. Those can either way on either person noted. We have found innocents on death row. Not even convictions means the accused committed the crime sentenced for.

To be a reasonable adult, and not a partisan hackchild, one MUST admit and be aware of these truths, and be willing to work within the area of logic and deduction for conclusive discourse.

" I am to blame for not informing myself on this issue. I am not disputing anything said in those articles or by you about the Barrett Report. K? "

Ok, cool.


You're right, I did not email anyone .....I did do the search engine for you though, sweetheart.

LOL - good enough.


"Have you ever accused the government of spending money frivolously? "

Uhhh...hmm no I don't think so.Just the $800.00 toilet seat. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know what the expenses should be. It's not logical.
I have complained about long investigations, and insufficient information on outcomes and case facts.

Will- ...you assume the judges are liberal henchmen. "

Nope, the head Lib has been identified. 3 powerful congressional demos hammering away is not an easy thing to resist.

" If Scooter Libby is exonerated I will not assume it was because the presiding judge was a henchman."

Look, we have a body of facts. I read the entire indictment 4-5 times. If Fitz can explain the initial FBI query by releasing it, I'll easily be able to deduce wether or not Libby is guilty. Fitz already got caught lying himself.
What the case outcome is, becomes more of a tit tat this for that whatever thing.
To convince me otherwise, I certainly need more from Fitz, release the transcript Fitz.
Clearly this is not the initial crime crap we heard shrieked and cackled about in endless lies by the left.
I do not share your sentiment about the judge. Facts do matter, in each instance, and some overall arching this case that case equality is ridiculous.
I base my estimations on KNOWN FACTS.

" Was it possible the judges were presented with legally compelling evidence to silence the prosecutor? "

No, it's not. It's a politcal ploy. We know it's political, by whom did it, and by what portion is leak reported to have been hatcheted.

"Even if they *are* henchmen, again, you have my full permission to rant about a Barrett Report because I'll support opening it."

Ok, you admit it looks like a hatchet job, I don't need your permission, and I expect you to rant as well when it comes out.


Will- " I know only what you tell me, friend. "

LOL - Hardly. If that were the case we would be in agreement.

" A prosecutor was given, according to you, irrefutable evidence that Bill Clinton did something terribly wrong. "

Yes, well not given, but you got a jist of it.

Will-"He presented that irrefutable evidence to a panel of judges who decided his presentation of that evidence was lacking. "

Umm, no. The Panel of judges merely are the wall blocking release of the report of the investigation and prosecutions related to the long expanded investigation.

Will- "If the evidence is, as you say, irrefutable, then the only possible conclusion I can make is that this prosecutor failed to convince judges with irrefutable evidence."

Yer off in orbit friend.


" He is either in on the scam or dangerously incompetent. Is this not a reasonable conclusion? "

Umm, the reasonable conclusion is Levin, Waxman , and Dorgan, plied a good persuasion to seal up some of the report.

"I have renamed the Democrat/ left / Bush hating fool party of the USA.
I call them the SMART _ _ _ party."

Will- Coolness.

LOL


"That is EXACTLY what they are.

Will - Ok.

LOL We agree.

"Neither of the links you provided mentions Jimmy Carter."

Ok well those aren't the only two we have.
The top Judge of the three is a lefty hack.


Will >link Q> whether such an enormous expenditure was justified, or whether Barrett wasted the taxpayers' money."


Will- That gives me one more reason to support the opening of this report. I want to know whether the tax moneys were spent responsibly...

I present a decently fair set of links Will. Since the left lib press is silent, Bryon was a good one for you, huh, you right wing tightwad..lol. ( oh wait- the lefties whined all the Starr money- what was it- 60 million - was wasted)
LOL


"wasn't released which means we don't know the "actual crimes uncovered" (which seems to be why you are so worked up)."

No we do, we have the concurrent trials and sentencings. Seven known in the slammer, that I'm aware of, related to Barrett.
Many more total in the Clinton Admin.
37 or some such number, along with 121 that fled the USA to avoid imprisonment and testifying.

What will be interesting is, the gritty details, for the facts found, even if only lesser knowns were imprisoned or charged, or not charged based on deals or legalized reasonings( flights, etc).

Will- I will have a discourse about Clinton's prior malfeance. Do you want me to admit that Clinton cheated on his wife and lied to the nation? Ok. Done deal.

ROFLMAO - PURE LEFT WING PABBLE. WHAT A SHAME.

Will- Why do you think I am married to this man?

LOL - Years of experience.

Will- "Because I disagree with you on OVERSIGHT?"

Your opinion on oversight later is a hoot, only driving the secret admiration further.


Will- Ok. You are a hypocrite.

LOL


Will- Did I say the Supreme Court got things wrong in 2000?

Yes, you did, didn't you.

Will... why is your solution to bypass the FISA rather then to fix FISA?

It's not "broke".

Will- Let's say I agree with your solution, that FISA needs to be bypassed.

LOL - It not my solution- it is the governments, and you can disagree all you like, but i'll accept the governments determinations over yours, since they make more sense.

Will-"Why do you continue to snake the bigger question: If the President NEEDS to bypass FISA what kind of oversight entity will replace it?"

BECAUSE WILL I INCORRECTLY ASSUME YOU ARE AWARE OF THE OVERSIGHT THAT HAS BEEN OCCURRING - WITH THE FISA COURT AND WITH THE VARIOUS BODIES IN THE CONGRES OF THE UNITED STATES.
I GIVE YOU WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT WILL.


" Isn't the courts entire existence justified by its ability to restrict warrants? "

NO, IT'S BASICALLY A PAPERWORK BODY.

wILL- Why do we assume that the court had poor reasons for refusing those warrants?


Because we have absolute proof it is so.

Will- Do you have the cases?

YES TWO I KNOW OF AND HAVE MENTIONED- AND HAVE BEEN REPORTED WIDELY.

Will- If you think FISA fouled up then present the evidence; you don't get to take its incompetence for granted.

You're all twisted around in your statements. Brooklyn Bridge and New Hampshire nuclear power plant are here because FISA was bypassed.
ALSO: Without the Patriot Act, even bypassing Fisa would have resulted in those 2 calamities going forward.


Will- "Because courts are ineffective? "

The court is effective for what it was designed for. Trying to make someone use it outside of it's pervue is NOT keeping it effective.

"Because George Bush is infallible? "

LOL - He's the new Pope ?

Will - Because FISA would only restrict warrants that pursued terrorists? What claim are you making here?

Wow.Keep trying, you'll catch on someday.

"Do you have a problem with the judicial system or just FISA? "

Uhh- the judicial system IS messed up.
I don't have a problem with FISA.

"Do you think a President can be trusted to issue oversight over itself?"

LOL - oh man.
Do you think that is actually what has happened?
LOL - Well do you port ? Do you ?


"Then you have to wonder why he hasn't? "

HE HAS. HE GAVE SPEECHES. THE POLLS ARE IN. YOU WACKOS LOST. THE RIGHT WING JESUS BIBLE THUMPING NAZI NEOCON TYRANNY USURPING RIGHT BASTARD BUSHIES AND THEIR OIL BARRON WORLD POWERS WON.

WILL-I am not in love with FISA.

ROFLMAO- you need a date.

Will- I am in love with checks and balances and oversight (isn't that cute?).

LOL - yes . Ok, let's try again, do you think there have been ANY checks and balances here on this issue ?

IF NOT WHY NOT ?

WILL- Now as to the more important question of whether he gets to be the one to define the word "bad guy" for this presidency and every one afterwards, not so much.

SIGH- Public Law 107-40
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. >
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and...
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) > In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons ****************************************************he determines **********************************planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
_________________________________________-

"HE DETERMINES" -

HE DETERMINES JOE.

SILICON "Nonetheless, the American public won't be changing the law, even if they are on Bush' side. Right, you know that, don't you ? We don't live in the lefty communist stagnation dream society of direct democracy where we all spend 24/7/365 figuring out all the ins and out of every little piece of needed legislation and then castout citizenship quota vote of yea or nay because we know best."

WILL- Ok, this seems like you now have a problem with the legislative process.

ROFLMAO- Yes, the one the libbies want but don't have. The one we have, no.

Will- Did you have a problem with it in 2000? When Bush claimed a mandate did you call him an idiot-

No, absolutely not ! LOL - I compared his vote percentage with clinton's vote percentage, and since Bushes was WAY higher, and Clinton claimed a mandate, Bush had an even LARGER mandate.

Will- and dutifully point out that the will of the people is not served by the electoral process?

No, that's what you commies want- ignored weakened states, consilidated powerful centers to run roughshod over everyone else, slowing developement and drawing the pols away from the real people, the citizens. You wacko commies are power hunger mongers of tyranny. No respect for the Constitution.

Silicon "Well, because he isn't supposed to take a secret plan for capturing terrorists by spying on them to the American Public so you idiots can voice your approval so Al Qaeda can have a huge heads up on things."

Will- If he sticks to FISA there is no story!

No, if the traitor didn't seditiously leak top secret national security, there is no story.

Will- I didn't know FISA existed until I found out it had been bypassed.

Well, that makes you an expert on it. LOL - Boy, the government should cave to your will any minute now, I feel the ground moving.

Will- I'll remain happily ignorant about the finer points of our war on terror just so long as I have *some* assurances that this war is being pursued lawfully.

LOL - golly, it is. There you are, you have one, now you only need a few more.


Will- The President's word does not constitute oversight."

LOL - oh my. Poor poor wibbies.

Silicon "He is supposed to make it appear no such taps would ever occur because the American Idiot Left and Al Qaeda operatives like CAIR and INWO would never allow such a thing, and with that big fat false tree huggable comforting wall of world peace and lib safety in place, the terrorists start dialing like mad and get caught, and for 4 years we don't have any terror attacks that get through, just huge numbers of them that get stopped cold turkey."

WILL- If you think the left is so loony, which I would have to agree if they said pursuing domestic terrorists violated their unalienable rights (which I don't think it does), then why would anyone agree with them? Why would CAIR or INWO have any kind of power ...

WILL, THEY ARE SEARACHING LITTLE OLD LADIES AND BABIES AT THE AIRPORTS. ITS INSANE. THE LEFT SAID NO PROFILING. THEY HAVE POWER WILL.

SILICON "Yes, President Bush is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than the left wing whining psychos we regular US citizens have to put up with."

WILL- Alright. You are in love with this man. I do not care.

Will, when he is so much slicker than the fools realize, it's not my fault. I deal with liberal idiots all the time. How can I possibly think they are smarter than Bush ?
Libs can be presented the same thing a dozen times, and three seconds later, according them, they have no idea about it- like they never heard it 12 times in a row. They have SERIOUS MENTAL PROBLEMS.

SILICON -called informing the Intel Committee and the head demonuts like Pelosi. Since they sucked it up for 4 years straight with a big fat thumbs up, that settles it."

Will- That does not constitute oversight to me. That is my opinion and I am welcome to it.

OH MY GOD! IT'S A MIRACLE ! WILL ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE GIGANTIC 800,000,000,000,000,000 ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM !

WHOO HOO - HE FUKKIN DID IT! OH FUKKIN EHHHHHHHHHHHHH! WOOOOO WOOOO

roflmao - but poor willies opinion is not a pretty one- oh thats not up to willie wonkies standard....

Will
inforrming a bunch of helpless and incompetent people, who aren't even allowed to ask competent people on the subject, does not give anyone but the President the final authority over surveillance. What could the Intel committee do? Could it tell Bush

silicon Yes it could.


will
Maybe I need to familiarize myself with the panel more,

OH GAWD, MAYBE SO FOR GOD SAKES OH JESUS CHRIST THAT WOULD BE FUKKIN WONDERFUL HELL YES- OH SHIT THEN YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE AN OPINION HOLY FKKIN GAWD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if Rockefeller's letter was a forgery, do you think it would have been treated differnetly?

DIFFERNETLY IS ROCKEFELLER SAYING NO FUCKING WAY. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.


WILL
What oversight?

THE FISA REPORTED TO AS WELL WILL. DID YOU KNOW THAT WILL ? I'VE ONLY TOLD YOU 400 TIMES NOW. HAS IT ACTUALLY HIT THE GREY SKULL MATTER YET ?

"Then some traitor bled like a blabbermouth doofus terrorist supporter to NYT, and a bunch of wackos aligned with Al Qaeda again, against the USA."

Ok.

OH GOOD WE FINALLY AGREE.

WILLt would be oversight and I would be pleased if the Supreme Court heard his case.

Will, we will just have to have you reform the government. George Washington did it, why can't you.


will
Surely we can have domestic surveillance that effectively curbs terrorism with warrants.

Well Will, I guess you'll have to travel to DC and explain to all those lawyers and lifetime intel committe members and the godamned FISA lifetime judges- the entire fukkin justice depatartment filled with lifetime bureaucrats- the nsa- the fbi- the cia and the fukkin house of representatives how that is to be done.
our nation is a goner without you.

Ya think ya wanna run it by one of us before you go there though, you know get a little practice on the topic first?

WILL

I'm learning.


lol- thank god for that.

........y and this legislature will empower him to do so.

THEY DID MORON.
I do not need to know what those measures are because it might not be in national security interests to publish those measures for allies and enemies alike to read.

I TOLD YOU WHAT THEY ARE VERY ROUGHLY, IT
HAS BEEN REPORTED.

But there must be some third party involved

FISA COURT- 45 DAYS REVIEWS- JUSTICE DEPARTMENT- CONGRESS- NSA RULES AND REGS

THATS 4 OTHER BODIES- FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF 5


"EVEN AFTER THAT, THE INSANE LEFT IS OFF TO THE STUPID RACES AGAIN."

I am so crazy!

LOL- Yes Will.

"HINT - CONGRESS HAS BEEN DOING THE RIGHT THING. DUH."

By inaction? Why is that the right thing? Were they empowered to "do" anything? Nobody told the judiciary, apparently.

OH MY GOD!~ ROFLMAO

At least one has alleged that he didn't keep his piehole sealed and yet nothing happened.

ROFLMAO - THE LETTER? I HAVE READ THE ROCKEFELLER LETTER- IT HAS BEEN RELEASED OR LEAKED- I READ IT - I EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BONEHEADS HANDWRITING LOOKS LIKE NOW- I READ IT WILL- HAVE YOU READ IT ?
This, again, would constitute non-oversight.

"Whatever. Now you know TK's vote on an imaginary nothing ?"

I was trying to use the point to illustrate that I have no problem with national security, but since I'm a liar and demonlib etc. you won't take me at face value.

FACE VALUE IS A PRETTY CHEAP SHOT.

That's fine. I know super liberals who take up the fight of absolutes between national security and civil liberties will lose because unsecured nations cannot establish civil liberties for their constituents. I am not one of those people. I do not think civil liberties and national security are mutually exclusive.

THANK GOD FOR THAT. SUPER.

Ok? Saying that the court is too slow isn't a reason when we know the warrants can be issued retroactively.
NOT IF THEY CANT BE GRANTED

FISA may be too restrictive.
AHH, OH BOY- MAYBE THAT SHOULD HAVE COME BEFORE ISSUE WARRANTS RETRACTIVELY- YA THINK THERE YA FUKKIN EINSTIEN ?

Why? Because it denies warrants that could be used to pursue terrorists? Ok, which warrant? Did Bush disagree with a specific refused warrant? Did he mention one in his speech?

TWO I KNOW OF
HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY MENTIONED FOR GODS SAKES. FOR ONE LETS GO WITH THE FUKKIN BROOOKLYN BRIDGE BOMB GUY.

"Not just now, it's been that way for over 200 years."

Wrong wrong wrong. It wasn't that way 20 years ago, and it wasn't that way the hundreds of other times the President went to FISA for a warrant.

OH DEAR JESUS, HELP ME O LORD GOD.
OK WILL,
It was that way, and the damned libbies and congress wanted some baked goods for free-

"It's called congressional appeasement, Frank Church commission, commie weak kneed democrat insanity, and opening up of America to the terror attacks in NYC in '93 and '01. Get a little history. The libs freaked out and smashed USA defensive powers 30 years ago. Since 911 we've had to start doing again what the damn foolish lefty nutballs stopped us from doing all along. That really has me angry. Now HUMINT and everything else is up from scratch. Damn demo commies. What a waste they are."

YES OR NO: DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT GETS TO DECIDE WHO THE ENEMY OF THE COUNTRY IS?

YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
YES GOD CHRST SAKES FOR GOD SAKES YES!
FOR THE FINAL FUCKING TIME YES!

PUBLIC LAW 107-40 WAR DECLARATION- THE GODDAMNED BUSH MONKEY GETS TO DECIDE WHO IS THE FUCKING - ENEMY- HE THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE BUSH THE CHRISTIAN WORSHIPPER AND RELIGIOUS ZEALOUT UNDER THE WORD OF JESUS , BUSH DETERMINES- YES THE CONGRESS DECLARED HIM OLLIE OLLIE OXEN FREE !!!!!!!!!

WILL-
IF SO, HOW DO YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT'S ENEMY IS YOURS?

SILICON- OK- ANOTHER HOLE PRAYER TIME, EXCUSE ME I NEED A CONFESSION AS WELL.
Gee - umm-- Will- uhh- because umm-- its IRAQ ? !! ?!!

YEAH- YES THATS EXACTLY WHY!

I AM SO TOALLY CONVINCED.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

"Because he is a superwise and massively excellent POTUS. He got 4 years of leftnuts and terrorists dialing like mad zombies because they all believed noone could take a snap recording of their illicit activites."

Are you suggesting that getting leftnuts to dial like mad zombies makes him an excellent POTUS and why? Is merely being a leftie an "illicit activity"?

WELL, yes it really is lately. The lefties
are calling in to C Span begging the public to believe they were just kidding over the phone with their buds.
They are scared shitless.
They should not have been screaming for chimpeys death over the land line- and certainly not over the cell- thats satellite capture ! - hell - if the signal goes over a geostationary orbitting area- not directly above the USA - ( wmhmamaaa_) heck thats out of country babie! foreign call!

Will
If so, this is precisely why you and the President cannot be trusted to monitor yourselves.

ROFLMAO - WILL- I AM CALLING THE BABYSITTER NOW.


WILL
Yet you refuse to offer one substantive reason why the President needed to bypass FISA to save you.

FISA REFUSES THE WARRANTS. DOES THAT COUNT AS ONE ?
HOW ABOUT THE LAW WAS MADE SO HE COULD BYPASS IT, THATS TWO.


WILL
Ok, we know you think the President has inalienable executive rights to spy on Americans without a warrant

NO WILL, WE KNOW YOU THINK THAT. I KNOW THE LAW. I KNOW THE RULES.

YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE CONGRESS OR ANY 'JUDICIAL" "DONE ANY OVERSIGHT" - TO WHICH YOU SAY "IT DIDNT HAPPEN AND ITS NO DAMN GOOD I DONT ACECEPT IT- ITS MY OPINION AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO IT !"

SO WILLIE - YOU ARE LIKE A LITTLE CHILD,
WHO'SE CHOMPIN DOWN ON THE SUCKER IN FRONT OF MOMMIE WHILE SCREAMING I HAVENT SPOILED MY SUPPER.


(we disagree).

LOL- OH YOU FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT- WELL YOU ARE FASTER THAN ERRINF.


WILL
This doesn't explain why the President went to FISA at all. Neither did he in his speeches. Neither has he since. Is FISA too slow?

FISA IS APPROPRIATE FOR SOME THINGS, VIRGINIA.
FISA IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OTHERS.
FISA IS TOO SLOW IN SOME CASES VIRGINIA
IN OTHERS IT IS NOT.
ITS NUANCED YOU BIG HUNKA KERRY LIB YOU, ITS NOT BLACK AND WHITE LIKE THOSE GODDAMNED NEOCON LOSERS ALWAYS THIN IT IS.


WILL
Ok we know that claim is false because warrants are applied retroactively. Is it too restrictive?

HOLY CHRIST DUDE- YOU;RE INSANE.

You assume that FISA had bad reasons for denying warrants to the President. Could you be wrong?

NO I'M NOT WRONG, SO NO I CAN'T BE.

WE HAVE SEVERAL PROOFS. THIS IS LIKE THE 3RD TIME YOU'VE GONE OVER THE SAME SHIT WILL.

Get past fukkin 3rd grade please.


AGAIN, HOW DO I KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LISTENING TO ME TALK TO MY GIRLFRIEND ABOUT NON-NATIONAL SECURITY RELATED ISSUES?

Will, you've never known. Gay boy who first ran the FBI did it son. you will never know, FISA or no FISA.

"Oh good. Then everything is fine."

Not especially.


roflmao


silicon
"Did you just call President Bush good-hearted ? I guess this little chat has brought you around. Glad to help."

will
I never needed to be brought around. I do not think George Bush is some evil maniacle person. I do not think this is a conspiracy against Green Peace, or that domestic surveillance is always unconstitutional, or even that the President has anything other then my security interests at heart when he spies on people.

roflmao - yeah - yep- sure...

However, I cannot afford either him or any future President the right to decide who is worth spieing on without an impartial third party involved.

OH DEAR GOD- WILL WILL NOW IMPLEMENT HIS PERFECT SOLUTION - WILLS PERFECT SOLUTION IS GWB WILL GO TO THE FISA COURT PERIOD. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY BUSHY CAN SATISFY WILL THE BONEHEADED LIBERAL BLOWHARD.
LET IT BE WRITTEN, NOW LET IT BE DONE.

"NY PARTICULAR PRESIDENT's "enemy" may not be MY enemy. "

ROFLMAO - THAT MAY BE A SLICK WILLIE PROBLEM WILL. YES, THAT WAS A SLICK WILLIE PROBLEM.
THAT COULD BE A SLICK WILLETTE PROBLEM VERY SOON AGAIN.


CONGRESS AND FISA ARE NOT AN ENTITY.
here has to be some entity to distinguish the two that is not the President.

LOL

I enjoy this. Keep at it.

Posted by: Will | Jan 3, 2006 1:44:48 PM

WILL- THATS IT- YOU ARE A LONGER WINDED BASTARD THAN ME.

Thanks for the replies.
I was nicer before the damn E ate everything, but I made it through.

Will, good luck fella. ( Don't talk about takin; out this @#$#$%^& gov. over the phone m'yaan ! )

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 07:12 PM

Seriously, Silicon Doc, you have subjected yourself willingly to so much right wing propoganda that you have gone over the deep end. Do yourself a favor and turn off your radio for good.
After all that ranting and raving from you, I still have no idea what argument you're making concerning surveillance, though I can guess you are blindly defending Bush because he can do no wrong in your reactionary eyes. Your behavior is so extreme and delusional as to be a complete waste of my time. It is a shame that honest conservatives have to have the likes of you in their party. Rush Limbaugh is a demagogue that incites hysteria for political purposes, and you are a perfect example of that. You really think such conduct is going to lead you to victory? You're in for a rough year, you dittohead lemming...

Posted by: ErrinF | January 3, 2006 07:20 PM

The spastic idiocy of Silicon Doc is truly a milestone in partisan histrionics. I simply don't see this type of behavior here outside of the right wing extremist fringe. The first defense seems to always be that the left wing has it's equal share of extremists, but experience tells me it is the right wing that cultivates this extremism much more than the left wing, through the use of propogandic radio shows and 'fair and balanced' news like FOXnews (fair and balanced means they are deliberately slanting the news and opinion shows to the right, balancing the perceived notion of the rest of media being slanted to the left; I don't think that's fair at all, because any left bias in the media is not deliberate like the right bias imposed by FOXnews).
I for one have no association with the Right or Left, as I prefer independent politics and thought. If there were a bunch of left wing extremists here obfuscating any real discussion of the issues, I'd take them to task as well. Truth is, there aren't. The few bad seeds around here distracting from any adult debate happen to be of the right wing reactionary type, namely Chris Ford and Silicon Doc. As an independent voter, I honestly feel that the Republicans and the extreme right wing cultivate a culture of propoganda and hysteria that churns out nutcases the likes of Ford and Doc. I'm tired of any and all political debate being warped by the sophistry of these jerks. It is pure and utter demagoguery these dittohead types are buying into, which means all truth and logic goes out the door. To have that element in the national debate means that misrepresentation and manipulation rule the day. Sophistry leads to amorality and chaos, no matter what side is provoking it. The world would be a much better place without radio demagogues and their hysterical extremist followers, be they right, left, or somewhere in-between.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 3, 2006 07:48 PM

To: ErrinF

From: Master

As I have said in an earlier post, "I am Svengali ", and I have perfectly predicted Errinf's stupid left wing lib reply whereby she broke her own word, and failed to debate, and failed to admit she understands my position, and then of course, she ranted about Rush and radio, and declared my position to be for Bush.
roflmao

I OWN HER. SHE IS UNDER MY COMMAND. I HAVE HER IN A DEEP TRANCE, AND YOU SEE, I HAVE MADE HER DO MY WILL, AND LIE AND BREAK HER OWN WORD, JUST AS I PREDICTED.
LOL

Ok, now onto her assumptive delusion she added, as a mere parcel required in her "I hate the solid quintessential geniuses" who make me look like the idiot lying word breaker I am.

ErrinF said, amongst other disturbed hate directed toward the political right :

" You really think such conduct is going to lead you to victory? You're in for a rough year, you dittohead lemming... "


Well, honestly, I am very curious to see the left wing win, especially in the '08 election, but '06 would be cool as well.

The rabid left wing idiot loons are now shocked, perhaps horrified, distraut, taken aback in disbelief, their claws are extending, while they shriek aloud " liar liar, that bastard lied, now we've got him !".
LOL

It's really very simple. It's a selfish curiosity. I recall some of the rights attacks on Clinton beginning at the time of the breaking Lewinsky scandal.
Well, of course, I soon learned the truth wasn't always required, as much as I thought it certainly should have been. I defended Clinton against false right wing attacks, for quite some time.
Now I see, the left- as it had sworn, was going to go for vengeance on the right, as Bush entered office. Well, they've outdone themselves, so much so in fact, that they've become insane in many cases.
So, the little experiment I'm waiting for, is to see the left win, and then determine if the lying loopy left suddenly becomes sane, and if the right wing goes off in a tilt of lies and false attacks.
I'm geniunely curious.
I know it's a really selfish thing to desire, the Nations leadership for my own personal experimental observational analysis.

So you see ErrinF, I really can't lose. I like my government. I liked my last government. I know the USA is the Greatest Nation on the Face of the Earth.
I'm not worried sick about it being destroyed by democrats or republicans.
I don't believe it has been destroyed.
I don't believe it's weak.
I don't believe it's corrupt.

Where I live , the TRUTH wins !

I know better than to buy anything else.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 08:17 PM

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/rock-cheney2.html

That's the Rockefeller letter, which I have read. Do you think that letter represents the extent to which the bypartisan panel could excercise its authority over the President?

Informing the head of the FISC that he is spying on people does not constitute oversight.

That a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was never briefed on the wiretapping suggests a lack of oversight.

Pat Roberts, current chairman, has not disagreed with the above account publicly. Ok? That suggests a lack of oversight.

There is no judicial oversight.

The legislative oversight is suspect, at best.

The Justice Department and the NSA, two of the entities you say have oversight, both have vested interests in not reporting inhouse malfeance on their part.

Congress, the 3rd you mentioned, is ineffective.

The President approves of the process every 45 days. To whom? The ineffective Senate Intelligence Committee? Himself? The DoJ? The NSA? Alberto Gonzales? All are either in-house or ineffective. Why would this constitute any substantive oversight?

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2006 08:37 PM

Will,

Do you think that letter represents the extent to which the bypartisan panel could excercise its authority over the President?

Of course not.

"Informing the head of the FISC that he is spying on people does not constitute oversight. "

LOL- your partisan minimized slurr.

"That a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was never briefed on the wiretapping suggests a lack of oversight."

No, it doesn't.

"Pat Roberts, current chairman, has not disagreed with the above account publicly. Ok? That suggests a lack of oversight."

No, not ok. Not publicly disagreeing is very much different than agreeing. Endorsing is different than not commenting.

"There is no judicial oversight."
LOL - Still stuck in the quagmire ?


"The legislative oversight is suspect, at best."

No, it's suspect at worst.
Of course, you assume the worst, in spite of facts that are already acquired by you, that indicate it is not at it's worst.

"The Justice Department and the NSA, two of the entities you say have oversight, both have vested interests in not reporting inhouse malfeance on their part."

Oh, so the Justice Department, has no interest in making sure the laws are followed. LOL You say that because of how corupt Janet Reno was ? LOL
You claim the same with the NSA. So, what makes you think a FISA court has any interest in it the following the law?
NSA already stopped excess data at least once, and yes that has been reported on. What was their reason for doing that ? I suppose you could come up with some conspiracy theory that they did that to prove- just in case something slipped out, that they were following things properly.
Right? That's it, isn't it ?
You like the wacky left wing idea I just gave you. I'm sure you'll use it as an argument.

The secret FISA court is on the 6th floor, in a signal proof enclosure. What makes you think they are honest ? Do you have any reason to believe so ? Have you ever reviewed their documents ? Has anyone ever had access ?

"Congress, the 3rd you mentioned, is ineffective."

Your opinion of course, since they won't do your direct will, and close down the whole thing. Effective to you is immediate ending of warrantless NSA gathering.
Nothing less will do. That obviously is NOT the opinion of the congresspeople. That has already been pointed out, and if you read what you claim you did, you KNOW that.


"The President approves of the process every 45 days."

Are you sure ?

"To whom? The ineffective Senate Intelligence Committee? Himself? The DoJ? The NSA? Alberto Gonzales?"

LOL- Maybe you should find out.

" All are either in-house or ineffective. Why would this constitute any substantive oversight? "

Why would the SEALED, SOUNDPROOF, SIGNALPROOF, FISA COURT BE EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT ?

THEY RELEASE ONE STAT SET. THAT'S IT.

WHY IS FISA EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT ?

HUH ?

HOW EFFECTIVE IS A RUBBER STAMP , THAT YOU CANNOT EVER SEE ?

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 3, 2006 09:57 PM

I mention the letter because it is an example of an attempt by one of its members to dissent that was not heeded. It shows that the leading Democrat is not qualified to judge the legal ramifications and his inability to do anything about that fact due to the structure of the Senate Intelligence Committee. As a result, it reflects a lack of oversight on the entire program on his part, and since he is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee his ineffectiveness is pertinent.

Are you saying that the NSA should be held accountable for itself? So when you ask Bill Clinton whether or not he got a blowjob from an intern can he just say "I told you I didn't which means I didn't"? Nixon innocent for being the President? See the problem? If the NSA is an active participant in something illegal they lack initiative to expose themselves and have a reason to actively seek to hide that information.

You should be concerned that Pat Roberts is unable to publicly contest the former chariman's statement that he was never briefed. If a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee hadn't heard about wiretaps that occurred during his tenure, doesn't this suggest a lack of oversight because he couldn't weigh in on an issue one way or the other if he wasn't even briefed on it? Don't you think Pat Roberts would *LOVE* to say on record that the former chairman is lieing? Is he not a company man?

Do you believe both that a) The Senate Intelligence Committee represents a level of oversight over unwarranted wiretaps and b) that a chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was never informed of wiretaps? You did not dispute b) in your entire post, so I must assume you think that. And you've done everything to support a) throughout this debate. So I must ask, how can you possibly believe both? Somehow the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee will excercise authority over a secret program that was never brought to his attention?

There is no judicial oversight. I will repeat. There is no judicial oversight. There is no judicial oversight. The oversight mechanism, FISA, was unaware of these warrantless searches. Somehow someway you can explain how FISA has oversight capabilities over a program they, like a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, were unaware.

It is not for granted that I take the SIC's inability to excercise oversight. I take it from them. I take it from Rockefeller, who makes it painfully clear in his letter that he doesn't know what the hell is going on. I take it from the former chairman who explicitly says he NEVER knew what was going on. I take it implicitly from the current chairman's inability to voice publicly that he attended briefings over the unwarranted wiretaps.

That you parade the Department of Justice as an oversight mechanism over the EXECUTIVE BRANCH (which it is a member) is like saying that we need no Judicial review of legislation because Congress can be trusted never to try and pass unconstitutional laws. Or that we needn't ask President Nixon about wiretaps because he would monitor himself in a manner befitting the President. And you accuse me of being in la la land? Since when did Branches of Government excercise oversight over themselves? Do you think the founders endorsed that approach? Why have 3 branches at all?

I do not think FISA is perfect. But at least it acts under a pretense of political neutrality. Do I favor more checks and balances vs. less? Obviously more. Does FISA represent another layer of oversight? Yes.

It also represents the only entity that has successfully denied the executive branch anything which also suggests that if oversight is to be trusted to anyone, it certainly isn't Rockefeller. The Executive at least has to pretend to have a case with FISA and FISA, populated by individuals who have spent their entire professional lives studying the law, might take that case very seriously.

Your suggestion that FISA is as arbitrary an arbiter over the NSA as the NSA is laughable. Are you really surprised why one might find FISA a more appropriate oversight mechanism than the entity we are trying to keep an eye on? FISA is impartial whereas the NSA is not. FISA has nothing to lose in exposing frivolous searches or downright illegal ones. NSA does. The DoJ does. The President does.

Congress is ineffective because it has admitted as much. The NSA and the DoJ and the President are ineffective because branches of government cannot be trusted to excercise oversight over themselves. Warrantless searches bypass judicial oversight. Therefore, you've proposed "oversight" mechanisms that are either ineffective at providing the oversight or have a vested interest in not doing so.

Are you getting it?

If you really have changed your drumbeat and think that FISA is ineffective because it happens behind closed doors then explain why the SIC is effective oversight (though the "briefings" occur behind closed doors...) SIC briefings on warrantless searches may not occur, involve an extremely small number of unqualified people, and has no power to voice dissent in any substantial manner. Is the proof not in the pudding?

You've repeated your claim ad nauseum, that oversight exists. Yet every attempt to point this out fails to establish either an effective or independent oversight mechanism. The one oversight mechanism that I mention which has been bypassed, FISA, you claim, as some kind of ludicrous victory for your cause, isn't trustworthy! But somehow the NSA is???

The fuck?

Posted by: Will | January 3, 2006 11:42 PM

Will the Shill

"I mention the letter because it is an example of an attempt by one of its members to dissent that was not heeded. "

I MENTIONED THE LETTER. THEN YOU KNEW IT EXISTED.
What request was not heeded ?


"It shows that the leading Democrat is not qualified to judge the legal ramifications "

He claims. You're ok with unqualified Democrats who use the Intel Committe as political fodder and get caught doing it, then blame it on a staffer.
ROFLMAO

"it reflects a lack of oversight on the entire program on his part"

NO DOUBT DEMOCRATS CANNOT DO THEIR JOBS.

" So when you ask Bill Clinton whether or not he got a blowjob from an intern can he just say "I told you I didn't which means I didn't"? "

HE DID JUST SAY THAT, IN FACT.

"Nixon innocent for being the President? "

Nixon stepped down. See your problem ?

"See the problem? "

You certainly don't. Slick Willie remained in office.


"If a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee hadn't heard about wiretaps "

Bob Graham, (D) is a KNOWN LIAR.
During his run for demo nomination :
" We had six trillion in the bank when Clinton left office, now we have seven trillion in debt. Where is the 13 trilliob dollars Bush has wasted? "

SHORTLY AFTER THAT PUDGY BULLSHIT DUMBASS CONCEDED HIS RUN FOR NOMINATION.
GET HIM CHECKED FOR EPPILEPSY.
I'M NOT KIDDING.
I THINK HE'S AN EPPILEPTIC.
HE LOOKS AND ACTS LIKE IT.

"GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites."

OH, THERE WAS SUCH A MEETING. LOL FROM MR SPASTIC HIMSELF.

"Don't you think Pat Roberts would *LOVE* to say on record that the former chairman is lieing? "

OTHERS ALREADY HAVE.


" I take it from Rockefeller, who makes it painfully clear in his letter that he doesn't know what the hell is going on."

LOL - WHAT A BULLSHITTER YOU ARE. HE EVEN MENTIONS TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS. YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT. YOU ARE A DUPE. IF HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, THEN HE HAS NO WAY TO VOICE ANY OBJECTION. THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE.
HE IS A WHINER.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS THE EXACT SAME WAY ON ALL OVERSIGHT. THEY ALSO HAVE MECHANISMS FOR SHUTTING DOWN WHAT THEY DISAGREE WITH.
THEY DON'T GET TO GO BLAB TO STAFF WHAT THEY LEARNED IN A SEALED MEETING- YOU IGNORANT CUNT.

STOP BEING SUCH A MORON.

YOUR LIBERAL ROCKEFELLER IS PLAYING YOU LIKE A FUCKING FIDDLE, AND YOU'RE STUPID ENOUGH TO FALL FOR IT.

"I take it from the former chairman who explicitly says he NEVER knew what was going on."

You take it from a person who admits the meeting occurred. You pretend it didn't, but then you even pretend the same thing for Rockefeller.

ROFLMAO

" Since when did Branches of Government excercise oversight over themselves? "

THEY ALWAYS DO, ESPECIALLY THE CONGRESS, YOU IGNORANT FOOL.

SEPARATION OF POWERS IS NOT OVERSIGHT, MORON.
OVERSIGHT IS NOT CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN LAW AND THE POWERS, AS YOU SO CLEARLY WHINE. IT'S STILL OVER YOUR HEAD.

"I do not think FISA is perfect. But at least it acts under a pretense of political neutrality. "

ROFLMAO. IT NEVER REFUSES. THAT'S A PRETENSE ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GREAT OVERSIGHT.
IT'S POLITICALLY NEUTRAL, TOO. ROFLMAO .IT'S LEFT WING WACKO QUIT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. THAT'S POLITCALLY NEUTRAL.ROFLMAO

IT'S AS POLITCALLY NEUTRAL AS THE THE SUPREME COURT IN 2000.

ROFLMAO. YOU GODDAMNED LIBS.


"Do I favor more checks and balances vs. less?"

AND SO WE HAVE THE ENORMOUS FEDERAL GOVENMENT YOU LIBS HAVE GIVEN US.

WE HAVE NSA OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE JUSTICE DEPTARTMENT OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE FISA COURT BRIEFINGS.

EVERYTHING BUT YOUR FISA COURT TURNING DOWN WARRANTS, THE ONES YOU WANT TURNED DOWN, BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY GO AFTER YOU AND YOURS, LIBS.

THAT IS REALLY WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

BUT NONE OF YOU MORONS CAN EVEN SEE IT, OR ADMIT IT.

YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR GOVERNMENT.

"FISA has nothing to lose in exposing frivolous searches or downright illegal ones."

THEY NEVER HAVE, SO APPARENTLY YOU ARE WRONG.
NUMBER TWO - THEY CAN'T EXPOSE IT.

THEY CAN'T EXPOSE IT MORON.


"Congress is ineffective because it has admitted as much."

NO, JUST SOME DUMBASS LIB ADMITTED HE'S A FUCKING IDIOT THAT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO HIS JOB ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE FOR YEARS.

"If you really have changed your drumbeat and think that FISA is ineffective because it happens behind closed doors "

I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY DRUMBEAT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FISA. I AM REALISTIC, YOU ARE A LIBERAL IDIOT.
YOU STILL WON'T ANSWER HOW FISA IS TO BE TRUSTED, AND YOU'VE BEEN TAIRING YOUR HAIR OUT TRYING.

LET ME GIVE YOU A HINT - YOU CANNOT ANSWER, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT KNOW. AND THEY CANNOT TALK, JUST LIKE THE FUCKING WHINE YOU HAVE ABOUT INTEL COMMITTEE, AND YOUR UNQUALIFIED BY HIS OWN ADMISSION DEMOCRAT JACKASSED IDIOT.

"then explain why the SIC is effective oversight (though the "briefings" occur behind closed doors...) "

BOY YOU DON'T FUCKING GET IT DO YOU ? YOU HAVE SAID THE ONLY OVERSIGHT YOU WILL ACCEPT IS FISA- YOUR GLORIOUS GOD.

BUT THERE IS MORE REASON TO BELIEVE YOU ARE A FOOL FOR THINKING THAT, THAN THERE ISN'T.

"You've repeated your claim ad nauseum, that oversight exists."

YES BUT YOU TAKE THAT CLAIM, AND TURN IT INTO A CLAIM THAT I STATED OVERSIGHT IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE, A PROPER CHECK AND BALANCE ACCORDING TO YOUR NON PEER REVIEW IDEAS, AND PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF PROVIDING YOUR NEEDS TO FEEL TREE HUGGY.

"Yet every attempt to point this out fails to establish either an effective or independent oversight mechanism."

ROFLMAO - FISA IS NOT EFFECTIVE EITHER DUMM DUMM.

"The one oversight mechanism that I mention which has been bypassed, FISA, you claim, as some kind of ludicrous victory for your cause, isn't trustworthy!"

BY THE VERY RECORD REPORTED, IS IT ? YOU'VE PULLED YOUR HAIR OUT STRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS.

YOU NEED TO THINK CLEARLY, SON.

YOU DON'T WANT WARRANTLESS TAPPING.

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FORCE THAT, IS TO SHOVE EVERYTHING THROUGH FISA COURT.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, NOTHING WILL APPEASE YOU.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS FLUFF AND BLATHER.


" But somehow the NSA is???"
"The fuck?"

THAT'S "WHAT THE FUCK !?". LOL(I'M AN EXPERT)

OPEN YOUR MIND WILL.
IF NSA IS GOING TO DO WARRANTLESS TAPPING, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT. THEY CAN KEEP PLAYING GAMES AND GO TO FISA FOR KNOWN TAPS. THEN THEY CAN KEEP DOING UNKNOWN TAPS.
STRANGELY ENOUGH WILL, THE GODDAMNED FISA COURT CAN'T TELL WETHER THEY ARE FOLLWING WARRANTS OR NOT.

IN THE END FELLA, NSA HAS TO OVERSEE ITSELF. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING, SINCE IT'S ALL A BIG FAT SECRET.

YOU LIBS WILL HAVE TO WEASEL A DEFECTOR OF OUT NSA, AND SPILL THE BEANS FOR ALL, AND THEN CLAIM AL QAEDA DOESN'T KNOW ANYMORE THAN IT EVER DID.

GOOD LUCK, IT WILL TAKE A COUPLE MILLION IN AN OFFSHORE BANK, TED KENNEDY MAKES THOSE DEALS FOR THE DEMOCRATS, SO WRITE HIM AN EMAIL AND REQUEST IT.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

Posted by: Will | Jan 3, 2006 11:42:00 PM | Permalink

Post a Comment

Name:

Comments:

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 06:53 AM

Thank you SiliconDoc for your cogent responses and onpoint comments. Ad hominem attacks are always so persuasive.

BTW: There is a key on your keyboard labeled CapsLock. If you were to press it, you'd find that your comments are typed in lower case -- a polite thing to do while online. I can tell from your postings you put an emphasis on politeness -- much like President Bush returned character to the Oval Office.

Posted by: shavenhaircut | January 4, 2006 11:04 AM

I had responded to the entire thing but my computer crashed. Very frustrating. I'll go at it again.

Silicon Doc:

"What request was not heeded ?"

The letter makes it very clear that Rockefeller does not have the information or the knowhow to endorse the program. It is a request for information. There is no response letter yet revealed or any evidence that this request was met. I'm waiting.

"He claims. You're ok with unqualified Democrats who use the Intel Committe as political fodder and get caught doing it, then blame it on a staffer."

No, I am not ok with unqualified Democrats on the Intel Committee. That is precisely my problem with the Intel Committee (it is an oversight mechanism populated by unqualified and uninformed individuals)

"HE DID JUST SAY THAT, IN FACT."

And his word was challenged by an independent prosecutor. He was later impeached. These represent two stages of effective oversight executed against the President. The same cannot be said for warrantless taps.

"Nixon stepped down. See your problem ?"

Because he was going to be impeached. As a result of the scandal, Congress enacted the Ethics In Government Act which, among other things, created the Independent Counsel which we now use as oversight over the President and Executive appointees. Again, this represents effective oversight.

"Bob Graham, (D) is a KNOWN LIAR.
During his run for demo nomination :
" We had six trillion in the bank when Clinton left office, now we have seven trillion in debt. Where is the 13 trilliob dollars Bush has wasted? ""

Saying something that is factually wrong in the past does not make you a KNOWN LIAR. For example, the President claimed that we would find WMDs in Iraq. Did not happen. Does this mean he is a liar? No, he was mistaken. If he was a liar he would be impeached. Instead he was just wrong. That Bob Graham made a campaign mistatement, does not make his word permanently sullied. Bush's father also had a famous campaign slip up.

"SHORTLY AFTER THAT PUDGY BULLSHIT DUMBASS CONCEDED HIS RUN FOR NOMINATION.
GET HIM CHECKED FOR EPPILEPSY.
I'M NOT KIDDING.
I THINK HE'S AN EPPILEPTIC.
HE LOOKS AND ACTS LIKE IT."

Nice.

""GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites.""

Graham has admitted that he attended briefings involving FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS that were to be intercepted utilizing FISA. Somehow, someway, this means he attended briefings on warrantless domestic wiretaps according to you. No, bad dog.

"OH, THERE WAS SUCH A MEETING. LOL FROM MR SPASTIC HIMSELF."

Let me show you what you've done. Graham says he attended a meeting, specifically identifying that at this meeting no one mentioned bypassing FISA or utilizing domestic warrantless wiretaps. You focus on Graham's quote "I attended a briefing", ignoring the rest of the qualifiers, to mean that he attended THE briefing. This is not the case. It has not been disputed by people who allegeldy were briefed on domestic warrantless wiretaps. Why is that?

"WHAT A BULLSHITTER YOU ARE. HE EVEN MENTIONS TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS. YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT. YOU ARE A DUPE. IF HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, THEN HE HAS NO WAY TO VOICE ANY OBJECTION. THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE."

He does not, anywhere in his letter, admit to total information awareness. He says that he is unaware of the legal ramifications of what is going on and cannot endorse the program without more information. The oversight mechanism (a member of the SIC) expresses the lack of information to ENDORSE the program and the program goes ahead anyways. This is a problem in oversight.

Somehow you claim he has total information awareness yet insist that "IF HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, THEN HE HAS NO WAY TO VOICE ANY OBJECTION." Precisely my point, dude. If he doesn't know what's going on he can't voice any reasonable objection which is why we can't trust him to excercise oversight!

"THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS THE EXACT SAME WAY ON ALL OVERSIGHT. THEY ALSO HAVE MECHANISMS FOR SHUTTING DOWN WHAT THEY DISAGREE WITH."

What about programs they aren't informed on or can't adequately pass judgement on? How can they "disagree" with a program no one tells them about or "disagree" with a program they don't even comprehend the legal ramifications of? The answer? They can't.

"You take it from a person who admits the meeting occurred. You pretend it didn't, but then you even pretend the same thing for Rockefeller."

Graham admitted THE meeting occurred? You sure about that?

"OVERSIGHT IS NOT CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN LAW AND THE POWERS, AS YOU SO CLEARLY WHINE. IT'S STILL OVER YOUR HEAD."

Oversight means someone must be able to oversee the activity that a) has no vested personal interest in that activity or b) is informed of or understands the ramifications of that activity. The NSA and the DoJ and the President fail a). The SIC fails b).

"IT NEVER REFUSES. THAT'S A PRETENSE ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GREAT OVERSIGHT."

Are you sure about that?

"IT'S POLITICALLY NEUTRAL, TOO. IT'S LEFT WING WACKO QUIT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. THAT'S POLITCALLY NEUTRAL."

The wacko left winger was put on the court by the not so leftie Rehnquist. That is why it operates under some semblence of neutrality.

"WE HAVE NSA OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE JUSTICE DEPTARTMENT OVERSIGHT. WE HAVE FISA COURT BRIEFINGS."

We have NSA oversight? The NSA cannot be trusted to oversee activities it has an interest in not sharing with the rest of the country.

We have Congressional oversight? That is admittedly either not informed AT ALL or, when informed, incapable of passing judgement on the program in question.

We have Justice Department oversight? So did you actually read the Novak article you quoted earlier? One reason the Barrett Report is hidden is because members of Clinton's JUSTICE DEPARTMENT have participated in its coverup. Maybe because... they have a vested interest in hiding their own illicit activities? If I cannot trust Clinton's JUSTICE DEPARTMENT with IRS fraud I cannot trust Bush's JUSTICE DEPARTMENT with domestic warrantless wiretaps. There must be some non-inhouse oversight. The DoJ fails. Even you have acknowledged that implicitly by posting Novak's article.

We have FISA briefings? It was news to 8 justices who learned about the program from the New York Times. NOW they are planning briefings... but only because of the New York Times. NOW we will get some oversight, but it didn't exist until December of this year.

"THEY NEVER HAVE, SO APPARENTLY YOU ARE WRONG."

Are you sure about that?

"NO, JUST SOME DUMBASS LIB ADMITTED HE'S A FUCKING IDIOT THAT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO HIS JOB ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE FOR YEARS."

Irregardless of whether or not he's a dumbass lib or just a dumbass, he has proven an incapable mechanism for excercising oversight. He admitted he didn't understand the legal ramifications of a program and then failed to raise those questions in any meaningful way. He is not to be trusted with national security oversight.

"I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY DRUMBEAT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FISA. I AM REALISTIC, YOU ARE A LIBERAL IDIOT.
YOU STILL WON'T ANSWER HOW FISA IS TO BE TRUSTED, AND YOU'VE BEEN TAIRING YOUR HAIR OUT TRYING."

Allow me to explain. FISC can be trusted in one way that the NSA cannot, and one way that the SIC cannot. 1) FISC judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is neither a member of the executive branch nor complicit in any crimes committed by the NSA, the DoJ, or the President of the United States. 2) FISC judges have spent a professional lifetime studying the law, understand the law, and know how to ask reasonable questions about programs. SIC is not guaranteed this knowledge. Since accountability necessarily includes a) impartiality and b) capability of evaluating a program, FISC represents the only ACCOUNTABLE group in the oversight process. When they are bypassed, it represents a problem.

"BOY YOU DON'T FUCKING GET IT DO YOU ? YOU HAVE SAID THE ONLY OVERSIGHT YOU WILL ACCEPT IS FISA- YOUR GLORIOUS GOD."

The only accountability I will accept is JUDICIAL REVIEW or AN EFFECTIVE SIC THAT IS ENABLED TO DO ITS JOB BY LEGAL EXPERTISE AND/OR PRESIDENTIAL COOPERATION WITH MODEST INFORMATION REQUESTS. Preferably both.

"YES BUT YOU TAKE THAT CLAIM, AND TURN IT INTO A CLAIM THAT I STATED OVERSIGHT IS ALWAYS EFFECTIVE, A PROPER CHECK AND BALANCE ACCORDING TO YOUR NON PEER REVIEW IDEAS, AND PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF PROVIDING YOUR NEEDS TO FEEL TREE HUGGY."

We agree on this. Oversight is not always perfect and that is why we need to increase the accountability with this program rather then merely settle for the mechanisms we know are either a) invested in the activity or b) unqualified to judge that activity.

"FISA IS NOT EFFECTIVE EITHER DUMM DUMM."

Well of course not, if the President bypasses FISA how can it work?

"BY THE VERY RECORD REPORTED, IS IT ? YOU'VE PULLED YOUR HAIR OUT STRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS."

Because it is a politically neutral group that has exerted its oversight powers over the Executive branch in the past.

"YOU DON'T WANT WARRANTLESS TAPPING.

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN FORCE THAT, IS TO SHOVE EVERYTHING THROUGH FISA COURT."

Judicial Review need not begin and end at the FISA court. If you need to mine data from mass amounts of people then obviously you cannot secure warrants for all those people. I understand that. But if these computers use algorithms to search for dangerous words, like "Bomb" or "Terrorist" I want some form of judicial review or non-inhouse review of who decides which words are bad and which ones are not. Make a new court. I am not married to the FISC.

"IF NSA IS GOING TO DO WARRANTLESS TAPPING, THEN THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT. THEY CAN KEEP PLAYING GAMES AND GO TO FISA FOR KNOWN TAPS. THEN THEY CAN KEEP DOING UNKNOWN TAPS."

This is bad.

"STRANGELY ENOUGH WILL, THE GODDAMNED FISA COURT CAN'T TELL WETHER THEY ARE FOLLWING WARRANTS OR NOT."

This represents a lack of oversight and a concerted effort on the part of the Executive to avoid the legal oversight mechanisms put in place after similar malfeance by President Nixon.

"IN THE END FELLA, NSA HAS TO OVERSEE ITSELF. THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING, SINCE IT'S ALL A BIG FAT SECRET."

So if the NSA started spying on conservative Republicans who posted on WashingtonPost Debate boards and using that information to prosecute them for non-national security related crimes... you'd be ok with it? That the NSA is secretive says nothing about how it SHOULD be.

Admit it, you are worked up! I'm looking forward to your response.

Posted by: Will | January 4, 2006 12:25 PM

An Independent Prosecutor -
Slick Willie got away.
The old system worked better - whereby Nixon had to fire a couple AGs.
You'll never get it.

"The letter makes it very clear that Rockefeller .."

The 50 year long followed procedures of the Intel Committee don't get changed because some partisan blowhard is unwilling to do his work.

"populated by unqualified and uninformed individuals"

You are a dumbass. Rockefeller is not unqualified, and he didn't request anything.
Rockefeller politicized the committe that has followed the same rules for decades.

It's pure partisan crap.

How stupid are you?

The FISA court has the same secret procedures.

So do many meetings in congress.

We don't get to see them, and they don't get to tlak about them.

Same with Dick Cheney having a fucking energy meeting.

Get a clue man.

( Getting worked up is seeing you hold the same stupid position you always held , not realizing you already lost, and the government is going to do this, wether you fools like it or not. You are merely useful idiots to partisan hacks. )


"So if the NSA started spying on conservative Republicans who posted on WashingtonPost Debate boards and using that information to prosecute them for non-national security related crimes.."

If monkeys fly out of your ass, and Dorothy and the Tin Man take you home to Emerald city, you'd be OK with that ?

LOL

Hey, this is reality, not your fucking fantasy.

That's WHY I brought up the Barrett Report.
To ground you in some REALITY.

So, if Slick Willie Clinton raped your sister, then had the IRS audit her, threw her attourney in jail for parking violations, and got her fired from her job, then told the whole nation he never touched her, you'd be ok with that ?

Well, so far, you are OK with that.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 01:28 PM

"Saying something that is factually wrong in the past does not make you a KNOWN LIAR. For example, the President claimed that we would find WMDs in Iraq. Did not happen. Does this mean he is a liar? "

Bob Graham lied about the past, and was destroyed as a candidate for it. He is lying about the past again.

President Bush predicted the future, and predicted it accurately for what was known and believed at the time.

That is a LOT DIFFERENT, than lying about what IS ALREADY KNOWN, and turning it into a "fabricated line of total bullshit " for a "politcal hit lie", in a Presidential nomination run.

I do not know what Mr. Graham is running for currently, but let's face it, the equivalent would be President Bush coming up to the podium and declaring :

" WE FOUND ALL THE WMD IN IRAQ I SAID WAS THERE - WE FOUND IT EVER SINCE WE IN, INCLUDING NUCLEAR BOMBS. "

Yes, mushbrain, that would be a LIE.

Bob Graham told a LIE.

President Bush did NOT.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 01:34 PM

Dear Will,

I want you to read my post above and let it sink in.

When level headed thinkers such as myself have to deal with moronic gymballs and foolish crap, it can become very frustrating.

I do wonder what is wrong with the left's mental acuity.

Read again what you said, read my reply above, and then ask yourself:

" Why am I so fucked up and don't know the past from the future? "

Please, do me a favor, do us all a favor, and do that.

I don't know what it's like to be so incorrect, and yet still somehow show my face, and pretend or be unaware of being wrong.

I want to see a full disclosure on your part, about how goddamned backwards you got it with your twisted foolish simile you created concerning Bob Graham and President Bush.

I explained to you why you got it so wrong, and until you can at least understand that much, what is the use of debating ?

PS. The FISA court WAS INFORMED of the NSA warrantless procedures.
You keep claiming they weren't, but of course, they were.
You need to get that shit cleared up as well, on your side.
You can't believe it, because you are "pretending" ( because you're a simpleton dupe ? ) that the first time they found out about it, resulted in that left wing FISA court judge quitting. I told you he is playing you for the moron you are, but you REFUSE to see the light.
You have shown you can use a search engine.
I suggest you check into what I told you, about the FISA court being briefed.

Perhaps then you can "conclude" Mr. FISA left wing "quitter" is playing a game with politics, one that fools many " otherwise attempting to be reasonable" people who post here.

Do us a favor, and check into what I've told you. I am sick of seing you post and repost that FISA was not briefed.
I do not believe you are "lying".
I actually believe you are simply "mistaken".
I say that because I saw you come clean before, when you found out more information. you even admitted you were learning, which I find admirable.

However, I also believe you are responsible for checking into it, to make sure you aren't mistaken.

Good luck.
If you do need help, let me know, perhaps I won't be so uppity, and actually assist you.

It is quite amazing to me, however, that people involved in following this matter as deeply as you and I for this long, can still be unaware of basic facts.

I BELIEVE that is a left wing media issue, just as you saw clearly how the Barrett Report information is so supressed.

If I missed your mea culpa in your last posting or two ( if you have two there ), please forgive me, and congratulations for finally finding out I have not been lying to you.

I am not reading through your postings right now. I want the sanity check I demand on your ludicruous " Bob and George simile ", and an admission that the FISA court was briefed.

Thank you.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 02:05 PM

The Senate Intel Committee is incompetent. If it has been incompetent for 30 years, fine. You accuse me of parying at the alter of FISA yet insist that this other group, which has admitted both that it was not briefed on national security matters of interest in this debate and later that those briefings were inadequate to draw any reasonable oversight conclusions from. You have not *really* disputed either of those two claims. You say Bob Graham is a liar. Ok. You do not have evidence he lied about not being briefed on domestic warrantless wiretaps. The one person who has evidence because they attended the alleged briefings where warrantless domestic wiretaps were discussed has remained strangely quiet on this matter. I am still waiting for evidence that Bob Graham lied.

Rockefeller's letter was questioned by you. Do you have evidence that it was a forgery? Is it somehow unreasonable that Rockefeller might not know the legal ramifications of a warrantless spieing program? Even if the President did something illegal the SIC wouldn't know.

The FISA court is not the same as the SIC. One key difference is that all members of the FISC understand privacy law and constitutional law considerably better than every member of SIC. Their evaluations are, above all else, qualified. They can make actual distinctions between spying unlawfully on an American and spying lawfully on a terrorist that Rockefeller and others cannot make. Their decision is reviewable by an additional judicial body.

The reason I pose such a ridiculous hypothetical, that President Bush would monitor conservative Republicans and use that information to put them in jail even in non-security related issues, is because without proper impartial, effective oversight these "ridiculous" scenarios become likely. If the President asks the NSA to spy on political opponents and then fails to brief the head of the SIC on that action and also bypasses FISA in doing so, who, exactly, is going to ensure that the President is held accountable? The NSA? The DoJ (which you've already admitted implicitly cannot be trusted)? Give me a break.

I am not ok with Bill Clinton raping my sister. What does that have to do with anything? You are obviously party to some mass of information about Bill Clinton's malfeance that I don't have. I did your stupid Yahoo search for the Barrett Report and found nothing involving rape or IRS scams. I found a bunch of conservative opinion articles about Grassley's so far ineffective efforts to see this report released in full. Are you certain there is a Clinton rape/IRS scandal in it? If so, let me see the evidence and I'll support hanging Clinton out to try. Do you think I support rape because I disagree with you about oversight?

You can pine all you want about how Bob Graham lied about attending briefings regarding domestic warrantless wiretaps. Unless you jock up some evidence I can treat the GRAHAM IS EPILEPTIC LIAR ROFLMAO the same way I would treat any other nonsensical rants- by ignoring them.

We can talk about factually false statements the President made in the past all day long. We'll start with the most pertinent one from April 20th, The President: "Now, by the way, any time
you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a
wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're
talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court
order before we do so." Do you think the President is being honest? Doesn't this, by your definition, make him a liar?

Let's have this discussion, though.

Posted by: Will | January 4, 2006 02:15 PM

"PS. The FISA court WAS INFORMED of the NSA warrantless procedures.
You keep claiming they weren't, but of course, they were.
You need to get that shit cleared up as well, on your side.
You can't believe it, because you are "pretending" ( because you're a simpleton dupe ? ) that the first time they found out about it, resulted in that left wing FISA court judge quitting. I told you he is playing you for the moron you are, but you REFUSE to see the light.
You have shown you can use a search engine.
I suggest you check into what I told you, about the FISA court being briefed."

Here is a December 22nd article from the Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_pf.html

Allow me. U.S. District Judge Dee Benson of Utah who received his federal bench from George HW Bush and was placed on FISC, along with the other 8 justices, by Rehnquist. "What have you been doing, and how might it affect the reliability and credibility of the information we're getting in our court?"

"Two intelligence sources familiar with the plan said Kollar-Kotelly expects top-ranking officials from the National Security Agency and the Justice Department to outline the classified program to the members." THIS ON DECEMBER 22nd of this year? Why would the NSA and DoJ need to outline a classified program to members of FISC in December of this year? Maybe because they haven't been doing so for the past 4 years?

Here is the bombshell that you think vindicates your position: "As it launched the dramatic change in domestic surveillance policy, the administration chose to secretly brief only the presiding FISA court judges about it. Officials first advised U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, the head of FISA in the fall of 2001, and then Kollar-Kotelly, who replaced him in that position in May 2002. U.S. District Judge George Kazen of the Southern District of Texas said in an interview yesterday that his information about the program has been largely limited to press accounts over the past several days."

So notifying one of 10 judges on the court constitutes oversight? Clearly not, since the remaining judges seem to have clear legal issues with the "oversight" (or lack thereof) method employed to "include" the judiciary.

If judicial review occurs, it happens only because the remaining judges NOW know about the warrantless wiretaps. Now they can actually have a discussion about it and come to a reasonable conclusion that meets legal standards and defends the nation. That is oversight, and it only occurred because of the New York Times leak.

Posted by: Will | January 4, 2006 02:40 PM

Posted by: shavenhaircut 2006
"Thank you SiliconDoc for your cogent responses and onpoint comments."

You're welcome. I recommend understanding, then memorizing them.

Posted by: shavenhaircut
" One can argue about what constitutes "probable" cause or a "unreasonable" seizure or even if a warrant may be obtained ex post facto -- "
"what can't be argued is whether a warrant is required. "

Well, we will let the slipping reality of what constitutes a person suspected of cooperating with the foreign entity, and go right to the point.

Jamie Gorelick, CLINTON appointee, ASISSTANT ATTOURNEY GENERAL UNDER JANET RENO, 911 COMMISSION ABLE-DANGER BLOCKER - ASS KICKED BY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, FAILING TO RECUSE HERSELF LIB MORON SAID IN 1994, TO SUPPORT WARRANTLESS ACTION BY SLICK WILLIE, YOUR GOD :

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes...and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

NOTE SEVERAL THINGS, JACKASSED LIBIDIOT, BESIDES MY CAPITAL LETTERING, AND MY INSULTING NAME CALLING :

Jamie Gorelick, POINTS OUT SUPPORTING PRIOR CASELAW, AND ALSO DECLARES, THE AG HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS AUTHORITY BEFORE.

Now, what don't you fucking boneheaded liberals understand about that ?

OH, WELL EVERTHING, OF COURSE.

BUT BEYOND THAT HERE IS THE LIB PLAN :

" WE PIECE OF SHIT LIB GUFFAWS, WILL WHINE LIKE GERBILS UNABLE TO ESCAPE THE TUBE OF TERROR, THEREBY TRYING TO FORCE SOME SORT OF COURT ACTION, HOPEFULLY AT THE SUPREMES LEVEL, TO OVERTURN DECADES OF PRECEDENTS, AND THEN EX POST FACTO ATTEMPT TO APPLY THE NEW LAW INTERPRETATION TO BUSH, AND GET THAT GODDAM ASSHOLE IMPEACHED .
IN THE MEAN TIME- WE WILL PLAY AS GODDAM STUPID AS POSSIBLE, AND ARGUE ANY FUCKED UP CONVOLUTED COMPLEX MORONIC BABBLING CONCERNING ANY TEXTUAL SHIT DEPLOYED ANYWHERE FOR ANY REASON, IN ORDER TO COVER AND OBSCURE OUR SICK RUSE, AND IN MANY CASES, OUR OWN STUPID CONSTITUENTS ARE WILLING FOOLS OF PARTISAN PABBLE PARTICIPATION.THE PRESS ALSO LOVES OUR STUPIDITY, BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SENSATIONALIZE AGAIN, AND BOY LET ME TELL YOU- WE CAN BE SOME ON FIRE CHICKEN LITTLES LOOPING CIRCLES AROUND THE BARNYARD ."

ROFLMAO

YOU DID WELL CHICKENLIBS IN THE PLAME LEAK, YOU HAVE HAD YOUR PRACTICE IN LYING AND STICKING TO YOUR FALSE AND PROVEN INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS OF GUILT AND LAW BREAKING BEFORE, AND YOU ARE DOING WELL AGAIN.

CHICKENYODA, YOUR LEADER, COMMENDS YOU.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 02:42 PM

Will,

Thank you so much for finally admitting what you have been denying, over and over again, and discovering that the FISA court was in fact briefed. Congratulations.

I am still waiting for your admission on how fucked up you were concerning Graham the liar, but in the mean time we(the Royal we) will take your own cited source, and effectively use it against you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326_pf.html

First of all, the left, you, have been screaming why has Bush bypassed the FISA court!!! Chicken libble shrieks have been endless, and then of course, follow ons have been there is a 72 hour window to notify FISA after taking action, thereby getting your tap "okayed" by the official lib sanction.
You have been told over and over again, that, besides speed, the FISA court would deny those taps. You have said that is an outright lie. Instead, you have gone back to your above whine, in endless, angering repetition.

From your article Will, you godddamned son of a bitch.

"Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious."

"Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. "

I note the lib article still does not mention how long it takes to get a FISA warrant. YOU GODDAMNED IDIOT LIBERALS WONDER WHY THAT IS ? NO OF COURSE YOU DON'T.

THE ANSWER IS IT OFTEN TAKES 2-3 MONTHS TO GET A FISA TAP. FORMER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE COME FORWARD AND STATED SO, FROM THEIR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. THEY HAVE ALSO STATED, THAT THE FISA TAP FOR A WARANT IS THREE FUCKING INCHES THICK, OF PAPERWORK.

THREE INCHES THICK, OF PAPERWORK, THAT OFTEN ON A REGULAR BASIS TAKES 2-3 MONTHS TO SECURE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, FROM THE GODDAMNED SIGNAL PROOF ROOM ON THE 6TH FLOOR.

TWO TO THREE MONTHS.

NOW, OF COURSE, WILL, THE EVER DISTRAUGHT DISDAINFUL DENIAR, OF COURSE IS BOUND TO MAKE ARGUMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS BULLSHIT, BY JUST DENYING IT TILL KINGDOM COME.
EVENTUALLY, THOUGH, HE WILL HAVE TO ADMIT IT, JUST LIKE HE DID THE FISA BRIEFING.

NOW, BACK TO OUR STORY....FROM YOUR LINK DEAR WILL:

"The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites. "

Please note the words "real time ", the words I used many, many posts ago, and demanded an answer from the liberals, as to why we can't move in real time, against real time threats. I further stated quite sarcastically, that I felt so embarrassed from being so progressive with technology.

LET IT BE KNOWN, THE LIBERALS IN THIS CASE, HAVE DECIDED OUTDATED OLD METHODS IN THE RELIC HEAP OF THE PRE-COMPUTER WORLD, MUST BE USED INSTEAD OF REAL TIME GATHERING, AGAINST REAL TIME THREATS... AND HAVE IN FACT, BECOME THE PIECE OF SHIT FLAT EARTHERS THEY HAVE ALWAYS ACCUSED THE REPUBLICANS OF BEING.

LIBERAL PIECES OF SHIT - GET YOUR ASSES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY BEFORE THEY GET BLOWN OFF THE ELECTION DOCKET, AND BLOWN OFF THE FACE OF THE US of A !

Now back to our scheduled link :

""I need to know more about it to decide whether it was so distasteful," Benson said. "But I wonder: If you've got us here, why didn't you go through us? "

ALREADY ASKED AN ANSWERED BENSON, TO BAD THE WaPo MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE SUCH AN IDIOT, BY POSTING YOUR COMMENT AFTER THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT WAITING FOREVER FOR THE GOAHEAD DOESN'T COVER REAL TIME TAPPING THAT WON'T BE OKAYED BY FISA ANYWAY !

A goddamned lib apparently never learns anything, even when they write for WaPo !

AND OF COURSE, IN THE USUAL LIBERAL FASHION, THEY LEAVE THE EXCULPATORY CLEARS BUSH FROM WRONGDOING FOR THE VERY FUCKING LAST SENSTENCE ON THE PAGE, HOPING THAT THE IDIOT LIBS WILL NOT READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

HERE IS THE LAST LINE- WITH A QUOTE FROM ONE OF THE FISA JUDGES :

"But Judge Malcolm Howard of eastern North Carolina said he tends to think the terrorist threat to the United States is so grave that the president should use every tool available and every ounce of executive power to combat it.

"I am not overly concerned" about the surveillance program, he said...

" USE EVERY TOOL AND EVERY OUNCE OF EXECUTIVE POWER "

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

"EVERY TOOL, AND EVERY OUNCE OF EXECUTIVE POWER "

FISA JUDGE INTERPRETATION.

OH WELL LIBS- ONLY YOU ARE OVERLY CONCERNED CHICKEN LIBBLES RUNNING AROUND WITH YOUR ASS ON FIRE, WRECKING THE WHOLE BARNYARD.

WE REAL AMERICANS ARE SICK OF IT, BUT AT LEAST IT IS ENTERTAINING AT TIMES.

GET YOUR ASS UP TO SPEED LIBS THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY - AND ENEMIES WITH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AREN'T GOING TO BE ( THINK LAPTOPS AND OTHER HIGH TECH CONFISCATED ITEMS )
PLAYING WITH GODDAMNED SAND MESSAGES GLUED ONTO A FUCKING DRIED OUT GOAT HIDE!

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 03:29 PM

SiliconDoc-

If you'd care to demonstrate, with evidence, that FISA takes 2 months to fill out the paperwork, I will happily agree to any policy that amends their retroactive warrant passing to 2 months from 72 hours.

The thing you haven't made clear is why *difficult* warrants need to be made bypassed completely. If the warrants are unnecessarily difficult, for example they take too much time, then increase the amount of time necessary.

You did not address why Bob Graham is somehow a liar for misstating a past event while the President is not for doing the same. I referred to the April 20th mention of warranted wiretaps. Explain this.

One quote you apparently missed from Malcolm Howard was that he welcomes more specifics. He did not say "The President should not advise me on any matter pertaining to National Security." He also does not represent the other 8 judges.

"I note the lib article still does not mention how long it takes to get a FISA warrant. YOU GODDAMNED IDIOT LIBERALS WONDER WHY THAT IS ? NO OF COURSE YOU DON'T."

This is from the article: "The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information."

If the restriction that FISA imposes is too great, for example that a member of the NSA "couldn't dream [a justification] up" then maybe the NSA is asking for too much.

Even if they are not, this doesn't necessitate bypassing the Judiciary to the degree the President did. Telling one justice what is going down is not informing the panel. The behavior of this one informed Justice after the fact is testament to it. Immediately after the issue became national she announces FISC-wide briefings on the matter.

Let's say the NSA needs to listen in on people that couldn't possibly be justified as guilty and thus the NSA could not get warrants. Can a judiciary still evaluate its methods for target selection? Is it data mining? Ok, a court can monitor methods. Instead of brining an individual case to the courts it can say "Hey, we are thinking of broadening the search criterium from the word "bomb" to the word "hanggliding". Here are our reasons why, etc.

That would constitute oversight.

Posted by: Will | January 4, 2006 03:53 PM

***Note From Emily***

Mostly this message is for SiliconDoc, who has added little of value to this thread with his rhetorical spasms (props to Will for digging out what substance there was) ... but it also goes for anyone else who would drag the debate down to such a level:

Knock it off!

Ad hominem attacks have no place in what should be an intelligent, substantive debate. (For those unfamiliar with basic Latin, the definition of ad hominem can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem )

Flinging mindless insults only betrays the insulter's lack of solid reasoning. There are so many compelling arguments on both sides of this issue that there is really no excuse for resorting to verbal abuse of those who disagree with your position. This is a forum for deep discussion of complex topics; we're not here to be jackasses to one another.

If you don't have anything constructive to add to the Debate, please just read and learn from those who are making helpful contributions to the conversation. (In case I haven't been clear enough: name calling, gratuitous use of profanity and gratuitous use of capital letters do NOT qualify as constructive.)

Let's keep it civil, shall we? Many thanks.

NOTE: Repeatedly attacking fellow Debaters with an abundance of foul language and personal insults is an excellent way to get yourself booted out of the Debate. We have the ability to ban individual commenters. Please don't make me use it.

Posted by: Emily Messner | January 4, 2006 04:01 PM

***Note from Emily***
Posted by: Emily Messner | Jan 4, 2006 12:51:26 PM
(The vast majority of my fellow Debaters have no need whatsoever for the following reminder.)
" Mostly this message is for SiliconDoc "

Yes, I knew you would chime in, if it really is you, since I openly criticized your link to " Declaration of War ", pointing out it is merely an anti-war piece, by fellow liberals.

" who has added nothing of value to this debate with his rhetorical spasms, "

Well, that is your liberal opinion. In fact, it is an insult, and does not reflect the real record, even as I pointed out above, apparently you missed the deconstruction of your "Declare War" link.

You could have said correctly, "did not add to the debate politely" , and been correct, if you added that many others did not add politely as well.

But of course, you aren't up to being honest.

It appears you aren't above the very problem you attempt to address.

"abundant in curse words but lacking any substance ..."

I see. Another opinion, much like the other left wing attackers, who use that argument nine times out of ten against Chris, lacking any substance.
After he goes about citing fact after fact and analysis and history, we see the post of the left attacker, saying what you just said about me.
Need I name them for you ?


It would have been reasonable if you asked for no swearing, and no personal attacks, and pointed out toward me for swearing, but even you aren't capable of maintaining a reasonable response along a fair and equitable line, and have failed by adding your own opinion of no substance, which of course is not correct.

" but it also goes for anyone else who would stoop to his level: "

I find it interesting, that you fail to say it goes for anyone else that "has" stooped to his level. So, is my level the cutoff point ? No, it obvoiusly is not, as per the rest of your text.

Apparently you missed Mr.X

You definitely missed others as well.

So, are you satisfied attacking "mainly me", and giving your own false opinion on what substance I added ( none you claimed), effectively committing yourself to the same attack others have been issuing, which has caused the ruckus to begin with?

" Knock it off! "

Well, I agree with you in principle, except that you have done something quite similar.

" Ad hominem attacks have no place in what should be an intelligent, logical debate. "

Yes, but almost all have engaged in it, perhaps everyone, even if many used pretty words to do it, thereby hoping it would never be reprimanded, or could pass for civility, which it is NOT.

(For those unfamiliar with basic Latin, the definition of ad hominem can be found here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem )

" Flinging mindless insults only betrays the insulter's lack of solid reasoning. "

No, that isn't true at all ( unless the qualification of "mindless" applies the ideation of judgement, whereby an insult has no basis).
Many solid reasoners are also capable of flinging insults, and do.

If that is not the case, we have zero reasonable people on the planet.

One could say correctly however, that if all you are doing is slinging insults, then you haven't presented a reasoned argument as well.
Untrue, however, is the oft said lie, that insults issued negates the entire other body of reason and points that may in fact accompany them.
IN FACT, that is the often used LIE, by a responder who cannot engage points made, and merely focuses on AN insult contained within points and arguments instead.

" There are so many compelling arguments on both sides of this issue that there is really no excuse for resorting to verbal abuse of those who disagree with your position. "

That I can almost agree with. But if it were true, then why does the often disguised as pretty language verbal abuse occur with frequency ?
The answer is, that sometimes people are flat out mistaken, sometimes they lie, and sometimes they are so far off base facts that others become frustrated.
Quite often, they relate false assumptions, that are candied up with exhorbitant language, in order to preclude a response that is disdainful and contains and insult factor, even though, one can surely admit, that type of candied up rhetoric indeed angers or delights, depending on ones position.
That is an honest assessment.

So, as far as excuses for resorting to verbal abuse, there are plenty, and they are very real.

That's why they occur.


" If you don't have anything constructive to add to the Debate, please refrain from commenting. "

"(In case I haven't been clear enough: name calling, gratuitous use of profanity, and suggesting various methods of self-fornication do NOT qualify as constructive.)"

Oh good, let's hope name calling includes that includes fascist, right wing hack, nazi, McCarthyite , Fox news parrot, Rush Limbaugh listener, and the constant drone that the other commenter " said absolutely nothing ".

Let's keep it civil, shall we? Many thanks.
Posted by: Emily Messner | Jan 4, 2006 12:51:26 PM

Ok, I'll be very glad to keep it civil.
I will also point out when I am attacked, or when others I support are attacked, especially when it's candied up insults couched in " purportedly acceptable " language.

Posted by: Silicondoc | Jan 4, 2006 5:00:45 PM

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 07:35 PM

"Posted by: Will | Jan 4, 2006 3:53:48 PM
SiliconDoc-
If you'd care to demonstrate, with evidence, that FISA takes 2 months to fill out the paperwork, I will happily agree to any policy that amends their retroactive warrant passing to 2 months from 72 hours."

The law requires retroactive FILING within 72 hours. That likely means some sort of preliminary paperwork MUST be delivered to the FISA court within 72 of tapping without the FISA court okaying ahead of time.Likely a single page or two.

That says NOTHING about delays in acquiring beforehand, a FISA warrant. It does NOT speak to how long it takes NSA to PREPARE the paperwork, and work on gettig it all in place so that FISA can make a decision.

The 72 hours certainly as well, does NOT say that the post activity warrant is AGREED TO within 72 hours.

72 hours is merely a filing deadline.

According to Victoria Toensing, the whole process often takes 2-3 months.

"Victoria Toensing, her "BONAFIDES" From 1984-1988 she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division at the U.S.Department of Justice. As s a federal prosecutor, she established the Justice Department's Terrorism Unit. She also managed the government's legal efforts in the terrorist hijacking of TWA flight 847, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the takeover of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. During her tenure ate the Justice Department, Ms. Toensing also supervised S&L fraud cases, prosecuted nuclear industry regulation cases, securities fraud, and fraud and bribery in the banking industry. Prior to her work with the Justice Department she was Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater where she was instrumental in passage of the protection of intelligence agents identities and protecting classified information from the Freedom of Information Act. "

You can see live video here >

http://www.foxnews.com/

Click under "MOST WATCHED" at the right on a link, when it opens click on the left on "Hannity and Colmes ", go to the bottom center on the video icons and click, "Spies Like Us".
The debate is 7:24 , and Victoria will explain the length of time required, etc.

If you need further proof I can provide that as well.


"The thing you haven't made clear is why *difficult* warrants need to be made bypassed completely. "

Well, already from your article you linked to at WaPo, it was plainly stated more than once, FISA would NEVER ok them.

I don't know how many more times you need to be told that. The article you linked to and posted from, said plainly, that listening for terrorist activity is very much different than tapping a known terrorist when you attempt a FISA warrant.

So a simple short answer is, some number that a terrorist calls, cannot be assumed to be a lawbreaker. FISA REQUIRES THAT IT BE PROVEN TO THEM THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION OF THAT BEING TRUE. THEY DENY ON THE SIMPLE "ASSOCIATION " LEVEL. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A TERRORIST CALLS YOU, THAT IS NOT REASON ENOUGH FOR FISA TO ISSUE A WARRANT, IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD OF PROOF.

I don't know what else to tell you. There are, in other words, real problems.

For instance, Al Qaeda member has cellphone in Afghanistan , that is LEGALLY tapped by FISA warrant.
Under that, the NSA can listen to the Al Qaeda terrorist side of the phone conversation, BUT NOT THE OTHER END, unles they have a FISA WARRANT for whomever the Al Qaeda guy calls AS WELL, and in order to get that, they have to have some terrorist evidence on the other guy.

So, you can imagine the dificulty. They get an Al Qaeda tapped, then everytime he dials a number, they have to scramble, like maniacs, trying to get a FISA warrant to listen to the OTHER END.
If that end is in the USA, well, how long of a delay, in attempting to secure that FISA warrant, is "liveable" ?
Same thing for someone PHONING the Al Qaeda member, from the USA. They pick up the number dialing in, or dialing out, but, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, THEY CAN ONLY LISTEN TO ONE END OF THE CONVERSATION !

With digital switches and satellite gateways and technology, this is accomplished very easily, only the data travelling one direction, the one okayed, is allowed.

Certainly, you can imagine the looks of horror on the agents faces, as a known mastermind terrorist dials into the USA, and they have to sit there, not able to listen to the contact on this end of the line, no matter WHAT the terrorist is saying, because they have no prior evidence on the "sleeper cell member" to hand to FISA, even 72 hours later.( which legally CANNOT be obtained by snooping first, then using snoop info to quick make up "evidence" or try to go gather evidence within the next 72 hours and file with FISA)

"If the warrants are unnecessarily difficult, for example they take too much time, then increase the amount of time necessary."

I think you were talking about 72 hours there, which I explained above.


"
You did not address why Bob Graham is somehow a liar for misstating a past event while the President is not for doing the same. I referred to the April 20th mention of warranted wiretaps. Explain this."

NO, You referred to WMD and the war on terror.

"
One quote you apparently missed from Malcolm Howard was that he welcomes more specifics. "

No, didn't miss that. But that is merely the required, since one wouldn't want to " I'd rather not know more about it. "


"
If the restriction that FISA imposes is too great, for example that a member of the NSA "couldn't dream [a justification] up" then maybe the NSA is asking for too much. "

Well, WILL, that is the whole thing isn't it. That is the whole dang argument. not sure how stating that now helps.

"
Even if they are not, this doesn't necessitate bypassing the Judiciary to the degree the President did."

There is no "even if they are not".

"
Telling one justice what is going down is not informing the panel. "

I said the FISA court was briefed. You kept claiming they weren't. You were wrong, I was right. Period.

You argue in the case of Intel Comm., Pelosi, Durbin, Rockefeller, and the rest, they wasn't sufficient briefing, and now the same with FISA.
With Rockefeller you claim he was helpless and feckless.
That isn't true, but if you want to claim it, go ahead.


"
Immediately after the issue became national she announces FISC-wide briefings on the matter. "

Well, that's what happens when national secrets are traitorously and seditiously revealed. They spread like wildfire.
The pressure for the entire monte of every detail to be released is enormous.
Someone usually cracks under that pressure, then the news agencies sift through their goldmine and decide what they need to do.
It's a very dangerous situation.


"
Let's say the NSA needs to listen in on people that couldn't possibly be justified as guilty and thus the NSA could not get warrants. Can a judiciary still evaluate its methods for target selection? Is it data mining? Ok, a court can monitor methods. Instead of brining an individual case to the courts it can say "Hey, we are thinking of broadening the search criterium from the word "bomb" to the word "hanggliding". Here are our reasons why, etc.
That would constitute oversight. "

Your talking about Clinton's ECHELON SYSTEM now, so if NSA is using it, it appears those criteria were settled under Clinton's Reno.

It certainly is interesting though, that Clinton slammed through with ECHELON, while the usual civil rights protectors quietly twiddled their thumbs.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 4, 2006 08:32 PM

SiliconDoc-

"The law requires retroactive FILING within 72 hours. That likely means some sort of preliminary paperwork MUST be delivered to the FISA court within 72 of tapping without the FISA court okaying ahead of time.Likely a single page or two."

Since potential civil liberties and the oversight over the Executive branch are at stake, I have no moral dilemna asking NSA to fill out paperwork. If this paperwork is actually preventing terrorists from getting caught, we need to fix that. Obviously, the NSA is welcome to make that case to the FISC (who will now be briefed)

"That says NOTHING about delays in acquiring beforehand, a FISA warrant. It does NOT speak to how long it takes NSA to PREPARE the paperwork, and work on gettig it all in place so that FISA can make a decision."

If someone needs a FISA warrant beforehand they can apply for it under normal circumstances. If they are applying for one and... uh oh here comes an Al Quada communication, what prevents them from appyling retroactively? If your answer is "paperwork" then the paperwork needs fixing, not the oversight eliminated.

As I understand it, retroactive warrants allows the FISC court to do all they need while also allowing the agents in the field to do all they need to do (as long as it is later recognized as legal). This is my understanding of retroactive issuing of warrants. Someone needs a warrant but lacks the time to prepare one. They go ahead with the tap and worry about the paperwork afterwards. The surveillance occurs, as planned, and the warrant gets issued making sure that no one is doing anything unlawful via the surveillance.

"The 72 hours certainly as well, does NOT say that the post activity warrant is AGREED TO within 72 hours.

72 hours is merely a filing deadline.

According to Victoria Toensing, the whole process often takes 2-3 months."

I will not question her bona fides. The link is revealing and I watched it. I will note that her testimony was directly disputed on the show.

Now we can have some common ground. I absolutely agree with Victoria that if Osama Bin Laden calls the United States it would be criminally negligent for someone to hang up the receiving end of the phone just because they could not secure a warrant. We need mechanisms in place so that people can listen in to the other end of the phone. These mechanisms can be monitored, after the fact if need be, by a court. Do you disagree?

I will request more evidence. I have heard Victoria say that FISA warrants take 2 months. I want to know when this has prohibited someone from utilizing FISA. I am not talking about the instances where FISA is ineffective (like mass data mining) I am talking about the ones specifically mentioned in the link. Has Osama Bin Laden called the United States and a national security agency operative hung up on the opposing side of the phone? If so, we need criminal charges. I can't very well demand judicial oversight for unwarranted wiretaps while not also demanding judicial oversight for criminally negligent individuals.

"Well, already from your article you linked to at WaPo, it was plainly stated more than once, FISA would NEVER ok them."

I have moved past this point. I recognize that there are some national security issues that FISA cannot oversee because the warrant process is too stringent. Your solution seems to be "Therefore no judicial oversight is necessary." Is that your view?

You might say, further, that the judicial oversight necessary was already in place, namely that the head of FISA was told about warrantless wiretaps. I don't think this is judicial oversight. The head of FISC apparently doesn't think so anymore either. Neither do members of FISC including, yes, that liberal wacko who retired.

"I don't know how many more times you need to be told that. The article you linked to and posted from, said plainly, that listening for terrorist activity is very much different than tapping a known terrorist when you attempt a FISA warrant."

I understand this point and have addressed it. I have offered now, in other threads, what I thought were reasonable solutions. Insert judicial oversight into the methods used to mine data. Do you have a problem with that?

"So a simple short answer is, some number that a terrorist calls, cannot be assumed to be a lawbreaker. FISA REQUIRES THAT IT BE PROVEN TO THEM THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION OF THAT BEING TRUE. THEY DENY ON THE SIMPLE "ASSOCIATION " LEVEL. IN OTHER WORDS, IF A TERRORIST CALLS YOU, THAT IS NOT REASON ENOUGH FOR FISA TO ISSUE A WARRANT, IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD OF PROOF."

Osama Bin Laden is calling you. That is not reason enough? I cannot imagine the FISC would deny a warrant to the NSA when the NSA has proved that Osama Bin Ladin has contacted a person (even if they can prove it after the fact by, oh I don't know, playing the FISC a tape of Osama Bin Ladin's voice?). If the FISC was denying warrants to people who were called by Bin Ladin, that presents a problem with the FISC to me. Do I have evidence that is what happened? Not from Victoria or you.

I'll take everything you have said as fact, however. I will assume that FISA is too restrictive. I will assume that association is not enough for a FISA warrant to be issued. You are a reasonable person. I am a reasonable person. Reasonable people can agree that if a proven or known terrorist calls someone in the United States, the United States has an interest in finding out what the receiving caller has to say.

Why would this make effective judicial oversight impossible? A judge can't be presented with the case? "Sir, we started tapping the phone of person X 3 days ago. We are applying retroactively for a warrant. We have evidence Y that person X received a phone call from known terrorist Z. You can now evaluate that evidence..." etc. What is wrong with that? If the evidence of Y that person X was talking to known terrorist Z is lacking, then the person didn't deserve a warrant in the first place and SOMEONE is accountable for a mucked up surveillance job that unnecessarily infringed on the civil liberties of an innocent person. If there is sufficient evidence that the phone call was a potential matter of national security, the warrant is issued.

"For instance, Al Qaeda member has cellphone in Afghanistan , that is LEGALLY tapped by FISA warrant.
Under that, the NSA can listen to the Al Qaeda terrorist side of the phone conversation, BUT NOT THE OTHER END, unles they have a FISA WARRANT for whomever the Al Qaeda guy calls AS WELL, and in order to get that, they have to have some terrorist evidence on the other guy."

Why would the President, or anyone, need a warrant to listen to the Afghani side of the conversation? Warrants are applied for domestic taps. The Executive can listen to foreigners all he wants. Now, if foreigner terrorist X calls an American, and an NSA agency guy is listening, he can listen to both sides of the conversation (because he has reason to believe that a warrant will be issued retroactively for the receiving tap).

"So, you can imagine the dificulty. They get an Al Qaeda tapped, then everytime he dials a number, they have to scramble, like maniacs, trying to get a FISA warrant to listen to the OTHER END.
If that end is in the USA, well, how long of a delay, in attempting to secure that FISA warrant, is "liveable" ?
Same thing for someone PHONING the Al Qaeda member, from the USA. They pick up the number dialing in, or dialing out, but, ACCORDING TO THE LAW, THEY CAN ONLY LISTEN TO ONE END OF THE CONVERSATION !"

The President can secure the foreigners side of the conversation without a warrant. He cannot secure the domestic receivers conversation without a warrant which can be issued retroactively, so no agent in the field's hands are tied.

"Certainly, you can imagine the looks of horror on the agents faces, as a known mastermind terrorist dials into the USA, and they have to sit there, not able to listen to the contact on this end of the line, no matter WHAT the terrorist is saying, because they have no prior evidence on the "sleeper cell member" to hand to FISA, even 72 hours later.( which legally CANNOT be obtained by snooping first, then using snoop info to quick make up "evidence" or try to go gather evidence within the next 72 hours and file with FISA)"

Their terror is mine. I do not think that some known terrorist should be able to call the United States and plot with their American citizen coconspirator. There are ways to monitor both sides of that conversation which are consistent with judicial oversight.

"I think you were talking about 72 hours there, which I explained above."

I think forcing the issue on paperwork is important. If an NSA agent is physically incapable of filling out the paperwork within 72 hours, then we need either a) less paperwork or b) a more competent NSA agent. We do not need c) to remove any meaningful oversight from the judicial and legislative branches.

"NO, You referred to WMD and the war on terror."

I'll repeat, for you: The President: "Now, by the way, any time
you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a
wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're
talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court
order before we do so."

This entire discussion has centered around your explanation for why the above needs to be false. Do you think the President was telling the truth?

Assuming he did not tell the truth about a past event, and still assuming you think Bob Graham is a liar for not telling the truth about a past event, are you willing to concede that Bush is a liar as well?

Bob Graham may be a political bozo who was rewarded for his stupidity by losing a campaign. That does not mean every word out of his mouth is a lie for now until the end of time.

Throughout this discussion when I have provided testimony from people who are democrats in the know, IE: members of the Senate Intelligence Committee or members of the FISC, you have denounced their testimony as lies because they were liberals. You list one shill, Victoria, and I listened dutifully and took everything she says at face value in spite of the fact that there was an accompanying Assistant Attorney General denying some of her claims.

This does not put our discussion on fair grounds. Everyone I quote is a liar. Everyone you quote is a professional. Everyone I quote has actually been involved with the "oversight" methods that I have accused of being incompetent.

I am sorry you think my people are liars. But I cannot have a discussion with someone who will refute my evidence by the fact that the people who present said evidence are members of a different political party. If you want to provide people with competing testimonies, from either party, that denounce what Bob Graham has said about briefings, I welcome you to do so. So far, no one in the know has done that (or at least no one you have provided the testimony from)

"No, didn't miss that. But that is merely the required, since one wouldn't want to " I'd rather not know more about it.""

And now an additional judge is going to have a say in evaluating whether or not these wiretaps are lawful. If they are, as you say, legal and necessary for national defense, this man will agree with you and I will be silenced (happily) by his participation in the oversight.

I have said it countless times here and elsewhere. I do not want to stop wiretaps that will save lives. I do not want to stop data mining that will save lives. I want to be assured, by some process in place, that the President cannot spy on an American citizen because that person downloaded a game the President didn't like, voted for the opposition party, or likes Green Day. I cannot get this assurance from John Rockefeller, I cannot get this assurance without effective judicial oversight.

"Well, WILL, that is the whole thing isn't it. That is the whole dang argument. not sure how stating that now helps."

My point was more focused on actual rejected FISA warrant requests. If the NSA asks for a FISA warrant and it is denied, I have to assume that the NSA failed to meet the burden of proof. If they failed to meet the burden of proof to a legal body that is concerned about national security, I have to also assume that there lacked a compelling argument that the target of the warrant represented a national security threat. The fact that FISA would deny a warrant to the NSA for someone that was not a national security risk is precisely why we need judicial oversight.

If a person is a national security risk, or it is unquestionably a national security risk for us not to risk interfering with their civil liberties, then I agree this person should be monitored. But the entity responsible for determining when a someone is a "national security risk" must be decided by an impartial group. Preferably both a judicial and legislative one.

"I said the FISA court was briefed. You kept claiming they weren't. You were wrong, I was right. Period."

Ok ok ok... you were 10% right, since that's how much of the FISA court was briefed. I'll take the other 90%, though.

"You argue in the case of Intel Comm., Pelosi, Durbin, Rockefeller, and the rest, they wasn't sufficient briefing, and now the same with FISA.
With Rockefeller you claim he was helpless and feckless.
That isn't true, but if you want to claim it, go ahead."

It is true according to his testimony. It is true according to the former chairman of the SIC's testimony. This is sufficient testimony for me to doubt SIC's ability to excercise oversight. If I am wrong because these people are liberal liars, then you are welcome to provide evidence, besides Graham's potential epilepsy and Rockefeller's incompetence (which is MY evidence) to support that theory.

"Well, that's what happens when national secrets are traitorously and seditiously revealed. They spread like wildfire.
The pressure for the entire monte of every detail to be released is enormous.
Someone usually cracks under that pressure, then the news agencies sift through their goldmine and decide what they need to do."

I do not expect a panel of judges who are supposed to have been briefed on NSA warrantless wiretaps to act surprised when it is revealed by the NSA that said wiretaps occurred. I do not expect a judge on the court responsible for this oversight to say, regarding that same wiretapping, that they are receiving their news on it from the damn newspaper.

If you want to say that warrantless wiretaps have judicial oversight you get to explain why nine of ten judges could not admit to knowing about the program.

"Your talking about Clinton's ECHELON SYSTEM now, so if NSA is using it, it appears those criteria were settled under Clinton's Reno."

Look, I'll level with you. It's late, the national championship is on. I will research Echelon later (I don't have a lot of info on it, most of what I have heard about it has been in the past few days). What I will say is that if these issues were "resolved" under Reno to meet the current demands for oversight, they weren't resolved at all. One member of the FISC is outrageous. It is questionable even ot the other members of FISC. If Janet Reno decided that the necessary oversight measure was that John Rockefeller and one judge knew, then Janet Reno straight up got it wrong.

"It certainly is interesting though, that Clinton slammed through with ECHELON, while the usual civil rights protectors quietly twiddled their thumbs."

If what you say is true, I agree.

As a personal matter, I appreciate the fact that you stopped calling me a fucking idiot or liberal hack or a piece of shit. Though I have thick skin and these things really don't upset me, a person only has so much of a threshold. A debate that should otherwise be about why you are right or I am wrong or what common ground, if any, we share, can easily turn into a personal deal. I don't know you, I may even like you in real life. We might even be able to share a beer without punching each other in the face. I enjoy being able to debate with people who don't clearly hate me more than with those who clearly do. When you at least pretend not to hate me with every other word in your post, I notice.

So thanks, carry on.

Posted by: Will | January 4, 2006 10:53 PM

not too bright.

Hello rednecks, nice to see you.

Want a piece of me? Sorry, I'll be eating you today. People that have nothing coherent to bring to the table engage in name calling. Yes, liberal, conservative, party labeling is name calling....it allows you to ignore the facts.


We are using the "war" in Iraq to foist a change in leadership upon the citizens of the United States of America....

By the way, the only real "Americans" here are the Native Americans....the rest are immigrants.

We are having foisted on us an economic containment of a scarce resource by this administration as a war for a couple of reasons.

WAR POWERS: The ability to pass laws and create situations that would not occur during peacetime by a single party, the president.

IF WAR is declared you can do all sorts of illegal things and call them legal.

Wiretapping....if you want to foist a program on the united states citizens that takes it's rights away, you want to be able to monitor an unhappy citizen ship while you do that without dicking around with warrants....ala J.Edgar Hoover and the Kennedy file....and what was J Edgar against that he was in fact himself, and why did he scream so much about it...to hide the fact that what he said everyone else was doing he was doing...

Why did Vice President Cheney host a fund raiser for Tom Delay in Texas on December 3rd....is it because Tom Delay is honest, believe in supporting the constitution or because he's part of their team and Abramoffs?

Look the media, communication is controlled by governments trying to control the "story"

USSR tactics in the United States are reprehensible....real Americans want freedom of speech and their Bill of Rights intact....

not having some UN patriot ACTion foisted on them in the name of erasing habeus corpus.....we need to ream some crusty butts....do it.

Posted by: Whoa, there's some people in here that are actually well dare i say | January 5, 2006 12:01 PM

Having oral sex with someone is not the same thing as murder.

That being said, not every president is in charge of everything that occurs during their administration....most are just figure heads in place for a few years while the career government workers ply their trade.

Bush SR. was head of the CIA before he was president, he served in congress for many years before that it is more likely that Echelon was part of his administration rather than Clintons....he was the career employee of the Federal government here, he had access and reason....

Also he gave Madeline Albright the okay to nudge S. Hussein into attacking Kuait so that we could come to their rescue....and strangely enough we didn't take S. Hussein out of power until it was to our advantage...some years later when he escaped from a heavily watched Bagdhad with three tractor trailers loaded with cash while surrounded by Air, Satellite, ground operatives, infiltrators in his ranks, drone reconnaisance and ground reconnaisance "without being detected," oh yeah....that's plausible....he I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn...you can set up a toll booth...

Cheer up AMerica...perhaps the truth will be important enough for you one day to see it.....by the way....remember the alamo? we used that to steal Texas and California from the mexicans......ha ha ha ha....oh my.

Posted by: Regarding Clintons administration.... | January 5, 2006 12:11 PM

"Bush SR. was head of the CIA before he was president, he served in congress for many years before that it is more likely that Echelon was part of his administration rather than Clintons...

Echelon started right after World War 2.


".he was the career employee of the Federal government here, he had access and reason...."

He certainly headed up the CIA. I'm sure you could do better than that. That is a curiosity, I don't often hear the bitter condemning Bush 41 on on CIA.

"Also he gave Madeline Albright the okay to nudge S. Hussein into attacking Kuait so that we could come to their rescue..."

Well, Maedelline (Secretary of State) was under Clinton, not Bush 41, so you are wholly mistaken.
Madelline Albright is known for her infamous quip in an interview that " 600,000 dead Iraq children was worth it ."( she was asked about the sanctions under the Clinton years )

April Gillespie is the conspiracy theory person you wanted to name here. Often cited by the wackos is her Ambassadorship visit to Saddam where the loons take one sentence from her entire meeting out of context and claim it was permission to attack Kuwait.
Of course what the loons never check are the prior resolutions and statements by the USA condemning Saddam and warning him that agression will not be tolerated issued at the UN Security Council and the General Assembly.

".and strangely enough we didn't take S. Hussein out of power until it was to our advantage..."

The UN coalition rules forbade it, and Bush 41 publicly stated he was not going to break that agreement he made and would keep it in good faith. At that time also issued were statements to the Kurds in the North and to the Shia south then sheltered in Kuwait, that the USA was not able to offer official support if they attacked the regime of Saddam in Bagdad.
Left loons omit that entirely as well, and base their conspiracy theory that Bush 41 promised the Shia and Kurds help by the same old one liner trick, a line Bush 41 gave in a public speech expressing a sentiment that he wished the Iraq people would finish off the job ( since he couldn't).
Even though this was only a short time ago, many people are entirely snowballed by the propaganda of the democrat party grassroots and smear pundits.


"some years later when he escaped from a heavily watched Bagdhad with three tractor trailers loaded with cash while surrounded by Air, Satellite, ground operatives, infiltrators in his ranks, drone reconnaisance and ground reconnaisance "without being detected," oh yeah....that's plausible....he I've got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn...you can set up a toll booth..."

LOL- I haven't heard that one.

" Cheer up AMerica...perhaps the truth will be important enough for you one day to see it.....by the way....remember the alamo? "

Umm, no not really.
I remember the slave hangings ! ( well, no not really, I lied sorry.)

" we used that to steal Texas and California from the mexicans......ha ha ha ha....oh my. "

Oh, so is there some new rule that war is always givebacks ? Is that the new rule ?
I guess it is.

"Posted by: Regarding Clintons administration.... "

Well, that's nice. I'm glad that was won from Mexico, because Mexico is a craphole. At least those two states developed up in modern times.

Maybe more of that place should be won in war, like the whole south american continent as well, since all that is still a shithole.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 5, 2006 07:12 PM

Posted by: Will | Jan 4, 2006 10:53:16 PM
"Now we can have some common ground. I absolutely agree with Victoria that if Osama Bin Laden calls the United States it would be criminally negligent for someone to hang up the receiving end of the phone just because they could not secure a warrant. We need mechanisms in place so that people can listen in to the other end of the phone."

Oh God finally ! I can't believe it !

" These mechanisms can be monitored, after the fact if need be, by a court. Do you disagree?"

I do not know what that means. You have to realize, that above scenario IS NOT OKAYED BY FISA, WILL NOT BE OKAYED BY FISA,CANNOT BE OKAYED BY FISA, HAS NEVER BEEN OKAYED BY FISA.ONCE WE CLEAR THAT HURDLE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT MECHANISMS.

" Has Osama Bin Laden called the United States and a national security agency operative hung up on the opposing side of the phone? "

YES! THAT'S WHAT THE FUCK YOU WON'T UNDERSTAND ! JUST AFTER I THINK YOU GET IT, YOU'RE OFF TO THE RACES AGAIN.
JUST BECAUSE OSAMA CALLS SOMEONE HERE, ACCORDING TO CURRENT LAW, WE CANNOT JUST LISTEN TO THE THIS END !

THATS WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND FOR GOD SAKES!

"If so, we need criminal charges."

NO SHIT! THATS WHY BUSH BYPASSED THE GODDAMNED FISA COURT ,SO THE MUTHER FUCKERS WOULDN'T HAVE TO HANG UP !

" I can't very well demand judicial oversight for unwarranted wiretaps while not also demanding judicial oversight for criminally negligent individuals."

PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR INSANITY.

I'M STOPPING RIGHT HERE, TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE ABOVE POINT TAKEN CARE OF FIRST, BECAUSE YOU DO SEEM TO WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

MAYBE YOU'RE JUST PULLING CHAIN, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT,PERHAPS I SHOULDN'T.


Posted by: Will | Jan 4, 2006 10:53:16 PM

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 5, 2006 07:32 PM

Perhaps it is the problem of guilt by association that these people cannot understand.

If a terrorist calls you, under current FISA law, a warrant cannot issue, because you are not KNOWN to be guilty just because a terrorist phones you.

FISA CANNOT ISSUE WARRANT.

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- YOU ARE NOT GUILTY BY MERE ASSOCIATION.

THE TERRORIST COULD HAVE DIALED THE WRONG NUMBER.

THE FISA COURT DOES NOT ISSUE A WARRANT TO LISTEN TO NUMBERS TERRORISTS CALL.

THEY ISSUE WARRANTS IF A TERRORIST CALLS SOMEONE ELSE WITH KNOWN TERRORIST CONNECTIONS, IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT BY FISA THAT THE NUMBER BEING CALLED MUST BE KNOWN TO HAVE PRIOR UNDERSTOOD CONNECTIONS TO TERRORISM.

SO, A PERSON WANTING A FISA WARRANT, OR A FISA 72 HOUR AFTER THE FACT WARRANT, MUST HAVE INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE PHONECALL, THAT THE NUMBER THE TERRORIST DIALS IS IN FACT A TERRORIST SUSPECT.

THE FISA COURT IS NOT WONDERING, AS YOU LEFTIES SHOULD HAVE ALREADY FIGURED OUT BY THEIR STATEMENTS, IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PULLED A FAST ONE ON THEM, AND STARTED LISTENING WITHOUT WARRANTS, THEN USED THE INFO GAIND FROM LISTENING IN TO THE WARRANTLESS TAPS, TO GAIN INFORMATION ON THE USA RECIEVER OF THE CALL, AND DO SOME INVESTIGATING ON IT, AND BRING THAT TO FISA AS A REASON FOR A FISA WARRANT ON THAT USA INDIVIDUAL.

IF YOU STILL DON'T GET IT READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU DO, PLEASE. I EVEN PROVIDED THE EXPLANATION ON WHAT FISA IS MAD AT BUSH ABOUT, AND WANTS TO KNOW IF THEY WERE DUPED IN THAT AREA.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 5, 2006 07:43 PM

SiliconDoc-

The reasonable step then is not to say "Judicial oversight is too scary to think of" it is to say "Perhaps association is too stringent of a guilt requirement. Maybe we should make the warrant criterium less."

Do you think it is impossible to listen to terrorists because a judicial body (let's say, not FISA) couldn't possibly think receiving a phone call from a terrorist is reason enough to hear the conversation?

You're reasonable, I'm reasonable. We both agree that hearing what the person says is important. You've misrepresented my position for some time now saying I pray at the alter of FISA. I have no allegience to FISA. I like FISA because it represents judicial oversight.

The President has not CEASED the wiretaps. We can have the debate concurrently with him continuing to ensure our national security interests. Now we can discuss, safely, ways for FISA or some new court to evaluate the President's methods.

This is all assuming what you've said is correct (which I'm not sure of). How does someone become a "known terrorist"? Wouldn't association be one of the ways we currently evaluate that fact? I mean... he eats with terrorists, sleeps with terrorists, receives phone calls from terrorists... How else *but* association do we determine they are terrorists?

Posted by: Will | January 5, 2006 08:14 PM

Posted by: Will | Jan 5, 2006 8:14:27 PM
"Wouldn't association be one of the ways we currently evaluate that fact? "

Unfortunately no. Guilt by association is not legally acceptable.

" I mean... he eats with terrorists, "

Not good enough. Merely dining with doesn't make one guilty, even in Washington, where they'ed all be in jail if it were so.

" sleeps with terrorists, "

Getting closer. However, if one shares a hotel to save money with a fellow Muslim on the road, doesn't indicate guilt. Neither does being offspring. I would imagine if they had a hotel reciept that had the FISA ok side name and number on it, and had another unknown guest same room, with name and number they want FISA tapped, something like that could be used if there was supporting evidence they met to plot, but then of course, noone puts 2 names and 2 numbers on a hotel reciept.

" receives phone calls from terrorists..."

This, has been specifically stated to be inadequate. We've gone over this a dozen times.
I know, it's unbelieveable, it's a shocker, it's horrendous, but then were talking about protecting the rights of innocents, something the left is in a constant droning uproar over.
They demanded Tookie be given a break, they've cried endlessly to shut down Gitmo, is there any doubt whatsoever that merely having your number on a known terrorists laptop or cellphone or blackberry or little black book is NOT ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED GUILTY AND A KNOWN TERRORIST THREAT ?
SHOULD NOT BE A SHOCKER TO YOU.

Terrorists do have undies to wash. They do call the dry cleaners for halal pickup. They do like bars and retaurants. They do hold down jobs. They presumably attend movie theatres and call for showtimes. They even have girlfriends.

We know some women find out their husband of a few years has another wife.

No reason to believe a college girlfriend or even a wife knows their hubby is a terrorist, that includes here and overseas.

I know it sounds crazy at first, " they don't allow it for a number found with a terrorist !! ?? How insane !!! Even when they dial it ! Oh my Gawwddd ! This can't be !"

Well, it IS be.

An Atta, arrives with 18 others and over the course of YEARS, remains on and off in the USA. They have jobs, they have families, they have a social life.
their neighbors thought they were normal Arabs.
How many phone numbers do you think they used in those years ?

" How else *but* association do we determine they are terrorists? "

Statements made publicly in other nations (fatwahs), charity bank accounts siphoned to military sales, writings to others intercepted overseas, confessions from Gitmo detainees identifying certain individuals with convincing knowledge of said individuals, false names known to be used before used on credit card applications or plane flight ticket purchases, terrorist organizations members lists confiscated in raids overseas- explicit name lists -not random numbers picked up in caves in Afghanistan, drug runner identifications from the heroin trade , movement in bank accounts in Dubai and the Caymens , Broker account signatories with photocopied Id's (401K) etc, camera captures from covert lens at a meeting (requires additional supportive)...

The problem of course being when associations without substantive indication of activity or support come to light, they must be ignored until further additional supportive evidence is acquired.

Take another instance. NSA spies on a known terrorist website - they've confiscated UBL's 17th operations man in Afghanistan that Paki IIS confirms, and his bank account paid the ISP who was contacted covertly for the web tap.
They're on the site monitoring, and indiviuals surf to the site, which is displayed in Farsi.
Now, if someone "surfs to it ", is that sufficent evidence to track their IP number, and watch THEIR computer for illicit activity or terror cell connections, or 'go pick then up'! ?
What if the Website has a "make a username and login feature ". Is THAT enough to say, hey, this person actually logs in, and is therefore by law "legally" associating and agreeing they are with this terrorist and his site ?
What if the logger, types a posting somewhere on the site and states they disagree with the terrible things done to Islam by the great satan USA, and would like to know what they can do to help fight the Satan. ?
What if the logger, donates through paypal twenty-five dollars to help support the Muslim site ?
Is that enough to track their IP and snoop their computer, acquire their used name, and tap their phone ?
One has to realize, there are real questions that real FISA judges have the answers aren't easy.

Also, the 30 years of what goes is known by the largely stationary Bureaucracy of Justice Department. That's why what is denied (a cellphone number found with bin ladens deputy) is KNOWN to be denied.

Therfore, is is NOT applied for by Justice, and does NOT show up as a rejection from FISA.
(one could say Bush admin, is stupid and should have asked all sorts like that so thousands would suddenly show up denied by FISA (and therefore "publicly" make a case) ,but I'm not sure they have 50 extra people to fill out a thousand requests, and I'm not sure FISA judges would appreciate that, if you get my drift.)

It could be a new cell member checking in at the website to read some page that he was told to look for,with some first letters of each line indicating his contact location or something, having just hit the US University for courses on Botanical local plant studies and indigenous crop rotation technology as a cover (one of hundreds of thousands in our college exchange).
On the other hand it might be one of 2 million Muslims in the USA ( US CITIZENS) just screwing around on the internet, since they know Farsi language...and happening upon it.

So, it's your call FISA judge Will, which is it ? Do you NOT OK a tap of an innocent Muslim American, or - do you blindly declare as an evil Bush nazi would, " Throw that fucker in Gitmo ! " and expedite the TAP ?

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 05:48 AM

Have I ever called Bush a nazi?

I think we are both reasonable people and we, without legal experience, could determine what constitutes reasonable.

If someone browses a terrorist website, that doesn't seem to be a problem. If someone logs into one, even that might not be a problem (we are getting there). If someone donates money to a terrorist website, or writes an email that says "I hate America and wish to join you" that would constitutes REASONABLE evidence that this person means the United States harm and we should investigate. Disagree?

You seem to be applying an unnecessary burden on federal prosecuters that I don't necessarily think exists (THOUGH IF IT DOES we should eliminate said burden immediately). Warrants don't have to prove "guilt". No one is "guilty" as soon as a warrant is issued. If a prosecuter thinks that I have my wife hidden under my mattress and they have reasonable evidence to prove so, they can get a warrant to search my premise. But lacking a wife they cannot press charges.

I just doubt that there are any telephone numbers a *known* and *proven* terrorist can dial that a reasonable judge would discard as irrelevant. The cleaners? Let's hear what they have to say. Once it is determined that the cleaners is clean then we can move past it.

Why are we not picking up these known terrorists again? If they are domestic known terrorists on the phone plotting terrorist attacks against America... isn't it about time we bring these people in?

If they are, as you say, in America for years just kind of slumming around, and they are known terrorists, what exactly are we waiting for? Are we waiting for them to learn how to fly a plane?

Let's move past FISA for a moment. Let's agree and say that the warrant restrictions by FISA are too strict. No one, not even this current debate, has stopped the President from using warrantless taps. The entire FISA court could be briefed on the warrantless tap program and, if it is half as useful, reasonable, and necessary as you claim, they will probably say "This makes sense" and vindicate the President's actions as a matter of national security.

We can then move onto the next stage of the debate, how we monitor the President's warrantless wiretaps. The NSA can brief a judicial body on its methods and provide evidence of those methods or arguments for why those methods are important national security matters. For example, as we have agreed in this thread, it is of vital importance to know who is saying what on the receiving end of a *known* and *proven* terrorist's phone call. It's unfortunate that Harry's Cleaners oh so private phone call between a customer (who happens to be a terrorist) and a legitimate business owner is tapped. But it constitutes one of those civil liberties that might be worth infringing on to save lives.

The reason I would want a Judicial body involved is because what if the NSA decided that it wasn't merely coincedental that every terrorist happened to be muslim and decided that *all* communications between *all* muslims could be monitored. That might seem like the kind of case where civil liberties are infringed on frivolously.

I feel like I've made fairly unagressive/weak claims. Yes, the NSA should be allowed 1) to listen to telephone calls between people they can prove are terrorists and people they do not know are terrorists. No, I do not think the NSA should be allowed to listen 2) to a phone call between me and my girlfriend (because we are not terrorists). There must be a mechanism in place that ensures that 1) occurs and 2) does not.

The judiciary seems the branch best able to enforce this. It is the one most experienced with hearing arguments and making reasonable evaluations based on those arguments. It is the branch most likely to be concerned about the legal and constitutional ramifications of impinging on civil liberties vs. the national security risks taken by expanding "reasonable searches and seizures" to unreasonable standards.

This is not because I think the President is stupid, or because I think he is going to spy on political enemies, it's because I think if there isn't judicial oversight he *could* theoretically spy on anyone he wanted. Unless the NSA has to make an argument to someone, like you even, they can spy on anyone. You ask relevant questions in your post that I think have definitive answers. We could ask a court whether or not logging on to a website or paying money to a website or writing a post that says you hate Americans constitutes the kinds of behavior that should warrant investigation. Disagree?

The President should not be the final word in what constitutes a "threat" because he has a vested interest in warping that definition to meet non-national security issues, for example, that "threat" constitutes "member of the Democratic Party" or "Poster on Emily Messner's blog who was accused of calling the President a Nazi (incorrectly)".

Thought?

Posted by: Will | January 6, 2006 10:43 AM

"I just doubt that there are any telephone numbers a *known* and *proven* terrorist can dial that a reasonable judge would discard as irrelevant."

Oh, good then you entirely agree with the warrantless NSA spying.

Congratulations.

Judges that are reasonable, still have to follow FISA rules, even when they as well think it's ridiculous, as you obviously do as well.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 11:31 AM

"For example, as we have agreed in this thread, it is of vital importance to know who is saying what on the receiving end of a *known* and *proven* terrorist's phone call. It's unfortunate that Harry's Cleaners oh so private phone call between a customer (who happens to be a terrorist) and a legitimate business owner is tapped. But it constitutes one of those civil liberties that might be worth infringing on to save lives.
"

Oh, good. Glad to hear it. I see you understand, even if you don't agree.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 11:36 AM

SiliconDoc-

I don't have a problem with NSA warrantless spying on terrorists. I would prefer, if it was possible, that the NSA be required to get warrants to listen to telephones because it would represent a level of oversight.

If what you have said regarding warrants is true, and I have not yet taken this for granted, that a person who receives a telephone call from a *known* and *proven* terrorist does not constitute a "warrant" then that seems to be a problem with warrants that needs changing.

There is a world of difference between a) saying "Listen court. We can prove that your definition of warrants is too strict to enable us to defend this country. Here is body of evidence X to prove my point. What says you?" and b) bypassing the courts VIRTUALLY completely.

At the very least this allows an impartial body to evaluate those claims. If it turns out that evidence X is erroneous, for example the President decides that we need to monitor troop movements on the moon in order to ensure our national security, then the court can say "Hey George, that request is unreasonable." If the President wants to enter one of those gray areas we discussed earlier that might involve national security (though probably not) but definitily involves civil liberty infringement, then at least an impartial body will hear that argument and evaluate the claim more fairly then All The President's Men otherwise could.

As I have pointd out, the warrantless taps are ongoing. There is no reason to completely end this debate because it does not threaten those warrants. The debate is crucial because we can evaluate past actions of the President (to make sure he hasn't spied on innocent people unnecessarily) and ensure that he continues to spy only on potential national security threats and not political opponents, ex-girlfriends, etc.

I am assuming that you do not hold safety as an absolute over civil liberties. You make calculated risks with your life everyday when you enter a vehicle, take a shower (you could slip!), turn the stove on, etc. Presumably you do not think anyone should prevent you from doing these things in the name of your own safety. Some reasonable people might disagree about what constitutes a reasonable risk that is worth taking to safeguard our civil liberties, and what constitutes a security risk that is worth sacrificing civil liberties. The President cannot and should not be the final arbitrator.

Posted by: Will | January 6, 2006 11:47 AM

"The reason I would want a Judicial body involved is because what if the NSA decided that it wasn't merely coincedental that every terrorist happened to be muslim and decided that *all* communications between *all* muslims could be monitored. That might seem like the kind of case where civil liberties are infringed on frivolously."

The Echelon apparently sweeps that anyway, or whatever portion it is capable of.
Problem is we don't have 20 million agents to check over 10 phones each for daily messagings.

So even the ideation that such a thing can occur is prohibited by NSA employment numbers, and will be for a long, long time.

As has also been reported, 500-1000 actual warrantless info takes have been used.

You have to realize that is over 4 years, so we're talking 125-250 per year, or one every 1-3 days.

How long it would take to make that 2 million is something I'm not going to calculate right now.

It's the same ridiculous crap I heard after the war in Iraq went forward.

*The USA has spy satellites, they knew exactly what was there*

Well, people don't realize, many satellites( perhaps all of them ), certainly that are reported about, have a 7 minute window to look down on Iraq 4 times a day( as they loop the earth every 6 hours).

Iraq has something like 367,000 square miles of land. A satellite doesn't cover one square mile at high enough resolution to look at it all at once ( lens diameter and resolution restrictions).

So even say if a single satellite could hover above Iraq with perfect weather conditions ( no sandstorms, no clouds, no inversion weather, no sunspot troubles,etc) and see the whole 300,000 plus square miles at perfect resolution 24/7, how many people going to sit there and look at that, and sift through it ?

Can one person cover 20 square miles on their own ? 100 ? 3 shifts for that ?
How many square miles can you rule out ?Half perhaps ?

It's such a massive job for just one nation, Iraq, that you'd need 20,000 employees to just cover it.

The best you can do it hit known sites that are covered by (UNIMOVEC) - at GPS positions you are aware of, then look at the tops of those buildings, and make your conclusions ( as POWELL did in front of the UN before the war. )

You can see airports (you know where those are ), and planes - helicopters- some mining sites, roads, bridges...

You can't see through buildings.

Same with this NSA thing. People make ridiculous aspirations on the possible consequences, that are beyond all possibility, and then claim that is the ultimate result.

Well, it's hogwash.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 11:52 AM

"If what you have said regarding warrants is true, and I have not yet taken this for granted, that a person who receives a telephone call from a *known* and *proven* terrorist does not constitute a "warrant" then that seems to be a problem with warrants that needs changing. "

Look, they did what is right and within the authority. They went out of their way though, to do what you suggest.

There was a lawsuit against FISA, filed by Bush Justice. They put out feelers toward congress.
Two no goes. The Patriot Act was bad enough to get.

People will just have to face reality.

"The debate is crucial because we can evaluate past actions of the President (to make sure he hasn't spied on innocent people unnecessarily) and ensure that he continues to spy only on potential national security threats and not political opponents, ex-girlfriends, etc."

Certainly that is the only real concern. I agree with that.

I also want that Barrett report so I can see all that nitty gritty on the Slickie and his soon to run Witchie. LOL

Ok, well, I'm satisfied now you have an understanding with what I've replied to, even as you are not sure about realities of the facts as I presented, I appreciate knowing you comprehend.

That is a huge relief. I really appreciate it.

As far as solutions, I'm not willing really to claim I know what is the right one to an oversight, to allay your concerns.
I am willing to see what they come up with, which in my estimation will be some sort of updates to FISA on a regular basis, and the intel committees.

In other words I don't think they'ell do much different, except add more meat for the complainers, give em a few details once in a while, tell em how they got BBB ( if they haven't already), give em some fat to chew so they can tell a few stories at the retirement family picnic in ten years.

I don't like the fact that there will be pressure now for those informed to babble.
It will be a question that will be pressed on the people in the know for quite some time I guess.

Since NYT could be charged, the top and the two reporters, there may be more coming, as NYT holds an ace supposedly, of more information.
They may ploy a threat that release will occur if they are persued hard on the open full blown investigation.
They may ploy some other threat. ( news agencies as large as NYT have a "NNA" packed full of terrible details of things they've never printed).
(Even our local paper here does, and I know that from direct personal experience.)

Note, from the last NYT incident, the "hated right wing reporter Judy Miller hit the clinker", not one of their left wing darlings.

Not sure how they are going to handle this current situation, I posted the two reporters names from NYT in another post, but it appears they are lefties, so they are coddled darlins' at NYT, not tolerated wings for "balance", you know like Alan Colmes at Fox.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 12:17 PM

"I am assuming that you do not hold safety as an absolute over civil liberties. You make calculated risks with your life everyday when you enter a vehicle,"

Yeah, that reminds me. I think it was you who made the argument in a back prior post that if Bush eliminated vehicles that are dangerous for instance, we'd all be safer, but we don't do that.

Well, problem is eliminating cars means a lot of people would starve, not have a job, and have one helluva a foot doctor bill. OUCH !

Same with this spying.

Reasonably, for instance, Green Man Nader might have said, " We need to force the car manufacturers to tag the seat springs tighter with higher tensile metal, because 14 out of 1,000 wind up sproinging within 2 years and in several cases have taken out the drivers jewel rack".

That of course is more akin to your argument. Tag the steel encased spying better, so those circumstances where Ted Kennedy's liquor and hooker charges are snooped, doesn't occur 14 of 1,000 times.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 12:28 PM

"Rockefeller's letter was questioned by you. Do you have evidence that it was a forgery? "

Haven't heard the reply yet.
If the WH says they got it, good enough for me. If they still can't find it, doesn't mean it's a forgery, but it makes the suspicion remain.

" Is it somehow unreasonable that Rockefeller might not know the legal ramifications of a warrantless spieing program? "

Sure it is. They are almost all lawyers, he's been there how long, since the crafting of FISA I believe, he's an old timer. Of course it's unreasonable.

"Even if the President did something illegal the SIC wouldn't know."

Of course they would. What is it 90+ percent are lawyers. Knowing these secret issues is their specialty. It's outright ridiculous to think they wouldn't.

What Rockefeller did was complain because he felt constrained from making politics out of it.
If he had persmission to go rangle, special permission, why then when it became political, as it now has, he could blame a staffer.
We can be more than certain he ran a scenario by someone he knows, as did probably a few if not all the others.

One thing is clear so far, the head judge of FISA felt it was fine.
That's a pretty big endorsement.
I haven't heard some big complaint from that judge, have you?

I am glad the known left wing lib quit, though, LOL.
I hope a bunch of the left loons quit.

Look, the dippy demos didn't whine either.

We already went over the bigshot demos who never whined, even after leakage.

What we will hear is a bunch of rhetoric.

" Does Bush think the SEC should be abolished as well ! " shrieked the Pelosi as Schumer patted her shoulder and nodded his head, " So his big money friends like Ken Lay never get caught! ", she finished, as Schumer shook his head from side to side tipping it toward the floor.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 12:42 PM

1) Your repeated mention of the Barrett Report is important. The injustice you claim that is the Barrett Report only occurred because there were insufficient oversight methods in place to ensure justice was served. The President did something illegal (allegedly) and his DoJ (in house) backed him up on that. Now you are telling me that what this President does is legal and that the NSA (in house) will back him up on that.

2) You still think I am clinging to this million warrant crap. I am not. If we are legitimately talking about data mining, which would involve snooping through millions of pieces of data, the NSA doesn't have the "man power" to snoop, let alone issue warrants for all that snooping. It would be done by computers utilizing alogrithms.

Here comes the oversight (without the terrible "w!" word). Computers do what people tell them to do. If someone enters the alogrithm to search for the word "bomb" this would represent a method that is up for judicial review. Do reasonable people think "bomb" is a good enough indicator that someone is a terrorist? To make this claim you would have to argue via past empirical collected data, you would have to argue against the euphemistic use of "bomb", you would have to prove that the computers required X amount of "bomb" references, so on and so forth. These are the kinds of things that reasonable people can disagree on, which is why a judicial board should be the one to arbitrate (and not the NSA, who may decide that people who say "the Democratic Presidential candidate is the bomb!" need to go to be spied on, which they do not).

You can treat it (ok ok, bad word) as a blanket warrant. If you fire at a police officer and then run into someone's house, that officer does not need a warrant to pursue you into the person's house. Though it be an infringement on civil liberties, the police officer is pursuing a dangerous criminal who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is capable and willing of harming people.

After the fact the home owner (unrelated to the criminal) might file charges. And a reasonable judge will hear the case, hear the officer's rationale, and find the break in emminently justifiable.

We apply the same standards to listening to terrorist's phone conversations. If Osama Bin Ladin calls you, any reasonable person would agree that we should hear what you have to say. That seems like a good standard for intrusion, yes? My question: who enforces that standard, the NSA or a neutral judicial body? I say judicial body. Disagree?

3) Assuming that Bush could issue waivers for all people who could prove that they required a car to a) reach their job and b) feed themselves, would you authorize the President to restrict automobile use for people who didn't meet those waivers?

Here's an easier one. Motorcycles are far more dangerous than automobiles. Would you support the President, in the interests of safety, if he said all Motorcycle use is banned?

I am making essentially an EXTREMELY weak claim, Silicon. Are there any instances at all where you are willing to sacrifice your safety for something else? You know getting to work represents a possibility that you might die. Do you still drive to work? Why? Is that what one would call a "calculated risk" (because the actual risk is very low but what is sacrificed by not engaging in the activity is very detrimental)? Isn't it possible that people can make calculated risks about national security vs. their civil rights? For instance, do you think the President should be able to monitor all phone calls indiscriminantly (since this would certainly make us safer)? Do you think we should raise taxes by 15% and give all the money to the NSA (since this would certainly make us safer)? Do you think we should prohibit international telephone calls or flights (sine this would certainly make us safer)? How about flights in general? Is anyone going to starve because they couldn't get on an airplane?

4) So the SIC is qualified to monitor the President's behavior because most Senators are probably also lawyers? Are you saying that if more farmers, and not lawyers, were on the SIC you would agree that its oversight was ineffective?

Do you agree that knowing Employment Law may not qualify someone on Corporate Law? Or Patent Lawyers may not know much about Family Law? Or that simply having a judicial doctorate does not make someone an expert on Federal Law, Constitutional Law, or Privacy Law?

Posted by: Will | January 6, 2006 01:40 PM

Posted by: Will | Jan 6, 2006 1:40:55 PM

) Your repeated mention of the Barrett Report is important. The injustice you claim that is the Barrett Report only occurred because there were insufficient oversight methods in place to ensure justice was served. "

Wrong.People break laws.People are unethical. Doesn't matter how much oversight there is.

If you get 12 new Justices to go over warrantless tap info, it does nothing to guarantee snooping on political opponents is not occurring.

"The President did something illegal (allegedly) and his DoJ (in house) backed him up on that."

Well, it appears the FBI and IRS did. Hillary's friend head of IRS. I don't recall the FBI colluder's name.

DOJ told Nixon no, he fired one, fired another I think, and then there was Bork.

" Now you are telling me that what this President does is legal and that the NSA (in house) will back him up on that. "

It certainly appears that way.

" 2) You still think I am clinging to this million warrant crap. I am not. "

Good.

"If we are legitimately talking about data mining, which would involve snooping through millions of pieces of data, the NSA doesn't have the "man power" to snoop, let alone issue warrants for all that snooping. It would be done by computers utilizing alogrithms."

Yes, it is.

" Do reasonable people think "bomb" is a good enough indicator that someone is a terrorist? To make this claim you would have to argue via past empirical collected data, you would have to argue against the euphemistic use of "bomb", you would have to prove that the computers required X amount of "bomb" references, so on and so forth. These are the kinds of things that reasonable people can disagree on, which is why a judicial board should be the one to arbitrate (and not the NSA, who may decide that people who say "the Democratic Presidential candidate is the bomb!" need to go to be spied on, which they do not)."

LOL - Oh man. More fear. NSA experts have to do the list. I'm not sure I want robed boors telling NSA they have a word wrong.

I think the report to whomever would say XXX numbers of mobiles tapped 2 ends 45 days, XX terror leads tracked xx still in process, X abandoned, X captures.

Something like that. Certainly they should have an explanation or outline of procedure to be able to understand what is going on, but I believe it isn't mystical to them.
They probably have a good idea what is going on already.
For the FISA Judges, you merely tell them what you've tapped/tracked that you didn't request the warrants for.
The numbers captured on Binni ali baba cellphone, 22 of them.

There will be bruised egos. They're outdated, unessential, an impediment to security.
Heck they are already really, except for the procedure they keep alive.
It's as if they are merely a time delay mechanism so things don't get out of hand.

They ought to bug the lefty fuck that quit, he might be a blabbermouth. LOL


"You can treat it (ok ok, bad word) as a blanket warrant. If you fire at a police officer and then run into someone's house, that officer does not need a warrant to pursue you into the person's house. Though it be an infringement on civil liberties, the police officer is pursuing a dangerous criminal who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is capable and willing of harming people."

Yeah, exactly. The shot is the fact that it appears there's association with a terrorist. I'm sure many consider that a possible spitwad, and they aren't wrong, problem is it might be bradley tank. When a Judge can't determine that- FISA is a problem.

" After the fact the home owner (unrelated to the criminal) might file charges. And a reasonable judge will hear the case, hear the officer's rationale, and find the break in emminently justifiable. "

One wonders what happens when the 72 hr provision is used, and they come back to FISA and FISA says, ummm...uhhh.. nope this isn't a go, sorry.
I've heard exactly one comment on that on TV, and the person said, " Then they say... then he shrugged his shoulders."

LOL

"We apply the same standards to listening to terrorist's phone conversations. If Osama Bin Ladin calls you, any reasonable person would agree that we should hear what you have to say. That seems like a good standard for intrusion, yes? My question: who enforces that standard, the NSA or a neutral judicial body? I say judicial body. Disagree?"

Hey, they can't enforce that standard.
You know you're talking about rewriting the law.

"3) Assuming that Bush could issue waivers for all people who could prove that they required a car to a) reach their job and b) feed themselves, would you authorize the President to restrict automobile use for people who didn't meet those waivers?"

The law already does that.

" Here's an easier one. Motorcycles are far more dangerous than automobiles. Would you support the President, in the interests of safety, if he said all Motorcycle use is banned? "

Avoiding an accident by limiting useage with enforcement is like avoiding a terrorist attack by limiting use with enforcement. No ass on a motorcycle ? No terrorist on a bombpack.

" I am making essentially an EXTREMELY weak claim, Silicon. Are there any instances at all where you are willing to sacrifice your safety for something else? "

Sure. I drive the car, dangerous. I allow the government to install the traffic light and limit my freedom of movement so I am safer.
On the weekend I do off roading, dangerous, sacrificing safety for the thrill and excitement.
Libs cry the butterflies are endangered on the sand dune, and take away my freedom.

"You know getting to work represents a possibility that you might die. Do you still drive to work? Why? Is that what one would call a "calculated risk" (because the actual risk is very low but what is sacrificed by not engaging in the activity is very detrimental)?"

Yes. Your point ? I should calculate the terror risk as less than the phone tap risk? I don't. Do you ?


" Isn't it possible that people can make calculated risks about national security vs. their civil rights? "

Sure, it's possible people are idiots as well, since they have a pretty crap idea about what terror risks are.

" For instance, do you think the President should be able to monitor all phone calls indiscriminantly (since this would certainly make us safer)? "

How would that make us safer ? How could anyone do it. I just went over the impossibility.

If a life extending drug that doubles your life is available shouldn't everyone take it ?

If monkey fly out of moore's baggy unkempt jeans, isn't that trick better than the wizard of oz tv monkeys ?

Bush's NSA spying HAS MADE US SAFER AND WE HAVE PROOF POSITIVE.

MONKEY HAVE NOT FLOWN OUT OF MOORE'S ASS, AND WE HAVE PROOF POSITIVE.

" Do you think we should raise taxes by 15% and give all the money to the NSA (since this would certainly make us safer)? "

ARE YOU INSANE ? OR JUST ANGRY ?

SHOULD BILL CLINTON RAPE EVERY BERKLEY TEENAGER AND GET FREE GOVERNMENT ISSUED CONDOMS AND ABORTIONS FOR IT ?

" Do you think we should prohibit international telephone calls or flights (sine this would certainly make us safer)? "

LIMIT YES. THEY ARE IN FACT.

"How about flights in general? "

YES, DONE ON 911. WAKE UP.

"Is anyone going to starve because they couldn't get on an airplane?"

YES, THERE ARE SOME WHO HAVE THAT FATE. LOOK NORTH TO THE ICECAP BUSH AND HIS EVIL OIL BURNERS ARE MELTING.

"
4) So the SIC is qualified to monitor the President's behavior because most Senators are probably also lawyers? Are you saying that if more farmers, and not lawyers, were on the SIC you would agree that its oversight was ineffective? "

No, in that case it's probably even better since they aren't filled with illusions of grandeur.

" Do you agree that knowing Employment Law may not qualify someone on Corporate Law? "

Not when they're hired in the corporate law office.
Does Rockefeller need to see Donald Trump ?

" Or Patent Lawyers may not know much about Family Law? "

Patent lawyers don't write divorce suits, and noone elects them to.

Why is Rockefeller such an incompetent.

He needs to be fired.

"Or that simply having a judicial doctorate does not make someone an expert on Federal Law, Constitutional Law, or Privacy Law? "

Yeah, what 30 years of doing your job isn't enough.
Fire that idiot !


I guess we'll have to have some lib training sessions for the incompetent liberals all over congress.

John Conyers comes to mind. Man, where did that idiot come from ? Someone give that freak 8 cups of coffee so he can get up to speed.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 6, 2006 04:12 PM

SiliconDoc-

Does agreeing with me disgust you that much?

People can disagree about degrees of government intrusion. You aquiesce to the government putting in traffic lights because it would make you safer. You would probably not aquiesce to the government lowering speed limits 10-20 miles per hour just because it would save lives.

You aquiesce to the government when it says you must volunteer your baggage for a search at the airport. You would not aquiesce if the government said it was illegal to fly airplanes if they said it was for your own safety.

If the NSA is too small to monitor all the information we need it in order to have 100% certainty that terrorist transmitions will be intercepted, maybe we could accomplish this by quadrupling their budget and paying for it with big tax hikes. Would you agree with this tax hike offered in the name of national security?

Some imaginary person X might aquiesce to the government saving them from terrorists utilizing warrants. Same imaginary person X (though certainly not you and probably not me) might *not* aquiesce to unlimited government searches because they are not afraid of terrorists.

That's the whole point. Not that you are wrong, but that people might disagree with you about where that fine line between security and civil rights needs to stand firm. I have no problem listening to any recipient of a telephone call from Osama Bin Ladin, but the NSA sure as hell doesn't get to do that behind completely closed doors.

NSA experts might hate a particular group. I don't know them. I do not vouch for NSA experts. And if they don't have to explain their reasoning for using the word "Bomb" vs. the word "Hangglider" to anyone, then who are you or I to say they won't start monitoring people who hangglide? Their word?

It is clear that Rockefeller, by his own admission, is incompetent. The reason the SIC should act as oversight is because the people who brief them offer substantive descriptions of what they are doing. It is clear from Graham and Rockefeller's testimony that this information is either a) lacking in substance (in Graham's case it just isn't delivered AT ALL) or b) the person receiving the substantive information isn't competent enough to evaluate it.

Posted by: Will | January 6, 2006 05:47 PM

Will, when you make ridiculous statements, expect a ridiculous answer, not a disagreement.

"If the NSA is too small to monitor all the information we need it in order to have 100% certainty that terrorist transmitions will be intercepted, maybe we could accomplish this by quadrupling their budget and paying for it with big tax hikes. "

Will, noone has requested a that, except you.
Are you going to whine about the budget next? Is that what you're really trying to do ?

"Would you agree with this tax hike offered in the name of national security?
"

No but you would, that's what lefties do, throw money at the government for huge overbloated programs, while they complain about efficient streamlined means of stopping two huge terrorist attacks post 911.

"That's the whole point."

It is exactly. It's the whole point.

"Not that you are wrong, but that people might disagree with you about where that fine line ..."

Fine line you've drawn there. 15% budget increase for NSA, for total hauling. Sounds
like a leftie commie plot to me, but then those are the ideas found swirling around in the left's brain.
Next is the 15% of the entire economy, a full 150% increase in yearly government spending to infinity, for the Witchie healthcare plan. Forget 12.5% social security fica, make it 45% ! Ys, we know what you're up to. Then some lamer doctor who doesn't really get paid to patch up the Al Qaeda nuke victims. What a loose cannon !


"I have no problem listening to any recipient of a telephone call from Osama Bin Ladin, but the NSA sure as hell doesn't get to do that behind completely closed doors."

Well, better let your comrades know what we're talking about before they shutdown national security on a kook whim.


" And if they don't have to explain their reasoning for using the word "Bomb" vs. the word "Hangglider" to anyone, .."

Clinton ran ECHELON, and cranked that muther fucker wide open with the new computer technology during his 8 year criminal reign. Where was wee Willie Wonka then ? Oh,that's right.

"It is clear that Rockefeller, by his own admission, is incompetent."

Oh no ! I've convinced him of something I don't believe ! roflmao
He's playing you Will. You are his, what do they say " useful *(pawn) " (censored for politeness).

"It is clear from Graham and Rockefeller's testimony that this information is either a) lacking in substance (in Graham's case it just isn't delivered AT ALL) or b) the person receiving the substantive information isn't competent enough to evaluate it."

Or, they're full of it and playing politics. Hmmm, what are the chances of that, like oh,95% ?

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 7, 2006 01:56 AM

I appreciate your post very much Jersey Independent.

I find so often we get a big legalized lawerly debate that circles the wagons on all sides, arguing the outcome of the case not yet launched or declaring it's conclusion for or against in it's absence, when more practical considerations are in order.

I note that WILL has engaged me on the practical considerations quite extensively in other threads, that has elicited a different direction of discussion and a finer analysis of practical considerations as can be best guessed and surmised from the media, which are not more or less accurate than the educated guesses we see concerning legalities here, but are more to the central point concerning actual application, instead of postulations on the various doctrines of law that may or may not be settled.

"The farther you live from the World Trade Center, the easier it is to forget. You people that think the NSA is coming after you in Idaho or Vermont or someplace are way too full of yourselves. "

This I see is quite to the practical considerations of the issue. One can clearly see that simple governmental staffing precludes the horrors that are often claimed to be around the corner, although one could rightly claim a worry of politcal attack misuse, which of course could occur in any bureaucracy, and perhaps has even in FISA granted warrants since the late 70's.

" We are looking for guys named Marwan and Ramsi who call Wazeristanand Peshawar, get it? Whose names or email were linked to either a cell phone or computer grabbed off al Qaeda prisoners. If you're calling them, you've got problems. "

One would hope so, and this is a practical consideration in the Executive authority Bush asserted.

" If they called you, even if it was a wrong number or Chinese take-out, you've also got problems. Tough luck. "

This is also a practical consideration, and one can certainly find a few news stories that show some errancy has occurred in the WOT, as is common in all security measures, even the often ridiculous but successful airport security TSA enforcements.

" The investigation that is needed is by a special counsel seeking indictment of the NSA leakers and NY Times reporters.
Posted by: Jersey Independent | Dec 28, 2005 11:20:11 AM "

That investigation has been launched, although not by Special Counsel so far. I have posted in another thread the "Pentagon Papers reporter's" analysis of the possibilities of indictments.

His take on it is that the top NYT two are vulnerable to indictment already, before further investigation, and that the two reporters that gleaned the top secret information can be charged as well.

I frankly am concerned with the loose lips in DC and around the USA, and that might be a good topic for another thread someday, but one recalls even the Air Force 1 daily changed "codes" were leaked somehow on 911, we've seen Los Alamos Labs and several others of the governments top research and National Secrets facilities stripped of what could be all data on their computer systems, and other dangerous leaking of secrets in the WOT, like the Qaeda in Pakistan that had direct email computer contact as our asset, blown wide open and Rumsfeld publicly querying in congressional session, " Can we keep a secret anymore? "

Secrets are considered dangerous as the attack goes against the government, but one must remember that in many cases secrets the government has can be dangerous in someone else's hands.

I am particularly concerned by the hands off approach to several high profile Muslim organizations and personages, and have followed some very disturbing developements that fly under the normal radar main media screening.
One that comes to mind is the very recent firing of the (OMB? The big one that purchases for the government) top procurement management director, who was found to have falsified his application for the position and excluded ties to terrorist organizations named on the State Departments list, and indeed prosecuted by the government recently.
That is a VERY important position to be in, to be able to see the governments purchases and direct them, and it went way under the radar screen of the press, and could very well have been an espoinage position.
I note more of it, in the recent case against the professor in Florida, who won against the government, and not widely reported was the Muslim FBI agent that blew the case by completely refusing to wear a wire for the FBI in several of the sting operations claiming Muslims don't spy on eachother. When fellow FBI agents and a few more senior ones complained, they were slammed into a multi-cultural training session.
One should note these type incidects, and it is too bad the anti-secret-spying group doesn't note them more, as it could in fact bolster their case against more government instrusion when it is clear to (me) that the government is not handling even their own internal security properly.
I consider this issue a dangerous one, as there was a big clamour post 911 to treat all Muslims in the USA with deferrence, and positions and appointments in our government were steeped up extensively, and takings for translation and politcal correctness were greatly encouraged, and we saw during Katrina FEMA government relief workers sent to "multi-cultural" workshops for full weekends before being sent down to help the people in disaster.

I sure hope we haven't excused proper safety and vetting in the name of PC kindness in more areas and in bigger ways than the few very important ones I've noted here, but my estimation is we very definitely have.

Here is a peek :

http://www.sperryfiles.com/revelations.shtml

Posted by: Silicondoc | January 7, 2006 05:00 AM

Posted by: Emily Messner | Jan 4, 2006 4:01:43 PM

ACTUALLY, NOT, REALLY POSTED AT THIS TIME:

Posted by: Emily Messner | Jan 4, 2006 12:51:26 PM

I GUESS THE CUNT WAS TOO LAZY, OR DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS TO EDIT MY MESSAGE.

YOU'LL HAVE TO DELETE THEM YOU LOW LIFE FUCKING DIHONEST NON-LEADER.

Emily, I see you're so low as to be a total fucking CUNT LOSER, and edit your little shitty attack against me, TO TRY TO COVER THE LIES I POINTED OUT YOU SPOKE.

YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SHIT FORUM , AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR LEFT WING ASS.

I WILL NOT BE RETURNING, BECAUSE YOU ARE A DIRTY LITTLE FUCKING LEFT WING FULL OF SHIT LYING CUNT.

NOW YOU HAVE A REASON, LIKE ANY WORTHLESS PIECE OF LYING SHIT, YOU DO WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO TO ANY OF YOUR PRESCIOUS FULL OF SHIT CONTINUOUSLY ATTACKING DARLINGS.

SEE YOU LATER FUCKHEAD, I WON'T BE BACK.

TIME FOR YOU TO FUCKING DO IT CUNT.

YOU FUCKING NEED TO, DON'T YOU, YOU FILTHY FUCKING EDITING WHORE.

Posted by: SiliconDoc | January 7, 2006 03:34 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.