Comments on: Fox’s Wendell Goler: Secret Wiretapping Program Used 18,000-Plus Times http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/ Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:48:15 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Douglas Willinger http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-1149623 Douglas Willinger Sat, 18 Nov 2006 04:54:33 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-1149623 I dared to write about the US Govt's betrayal of its South Capitol Mall proposal, and got ambushed by 20+ black-cloathed police ... wwwfsbushs.blogspot.com wwwfreespeechbeneathUSHS.blogspot.com wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com I dared to write about the US Govt’s betrayal of its South Capitol Mall proposal, and got ambushed by 20+ black-cloathed police …

wwwfsbushs.blogspot.com

wwwfreespeechbeneathUSHS.blogspot.com

wwwsouthcapitolstreet.blogspot.com

]]> By: Robert http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-429097 Robert Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:43:41 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-429097 What we have here is a reporter creating news. Picture a reporter at a press conference stating I have information that the wiretaps were 100 million...is that true. Whether its 1 or 100 million the person giving the conference is not going to confirm any number or get into anything. So naturally the 100 million number gets traction among those that dislike the program...never mind that it was created by the reporter in the first place. Interesting. What we have here is a reporter creating news. Picture a reporter at a press conference stating I have information that the wiretaps were 100 million…is that true. Whether its 1 or 100 million the person giving the conference is not going to confirm any number or get into anything. So naturally the 100 million number gets traction among those that dislike the program…never mind that it was created by the reporter in the first place.

Interesting.

]]> By: I-RIGHT-I http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-344547 I-RIGHT-I Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:54:43 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-344547 Restore America’s credibility by putting Bushco on trial at the Hague, and if convicted by a jury (composed of 12 top judges randomly chosen from 12 different countries) then administering punishment against Bushco in accordance with the decision. Comment by big dave from queens I've got a better idea cocksuker, let's put you on trial in Texas. If you pass you get to go to prison without being raped by a Longhorn. How's that sound? Restore America’s credibility by putting Bushco on trial at the Hague, and if convicted by a jury (composed of 12 top judges randomly chosen from 12 different countries) then administering punishment against Bushco in accordance with the decision.

Comment by big dave from queens

I’ve got a better idea cocksuker, let’s put you on trial in Texas. If you pass you get to go to prison without being raped by a Longhorn. How’s that sound?

]]> By: john_rice@neitherparty.org http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-341842 john_rice@neitherparty.org Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:52:54 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-341842 Are my calculations wrong or suspicions misplaced? Didn't Bush claim that he reapplied to snoop at least 30 times, and that each application was for 45 days? Doesn't that add up to the original plus 30 re-ups totaling about 46.5 months? I'm wondering why he chose not to be specific as to how many times he sought and was granted approval? I suspect it wouldn't take much to prove he started the spying even before 9-11 occurred. Any FOIA on the specific number of reauthorizations granted Bush? Just curious. Regards,,,John ( john_rice@neitherparty.org ) Are my calculations wrong or suspicions misplaced?
Didn’t Bush claim that he reapplied to snoop at least 30 times, and that each application was for 45 days?
Doesn’t that add up to the original plus 30 re-ups totaling about 46.5 months?
I’m wondering why he chose not to be specific as to how many times he sought and was granted approval? I suspect it wouldn’t take much to prove he started the spying even before 9-11 occurred. Any FOIA on the specific number of reauthorizations granted Bush?
Just curious.
Regards,,,John
( john_rice@neitherparty.org )

]]> By: surfdal http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-334592 surfdal Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:02:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-334592 too damn bad bush wasnt busted getting one of those highcrime bj's instead of simply abrogating our constitution in every way imaginable..maybe then we could get enough moral outrage going to run his azz off.. too damn bad bush wasnt busted getting one of those highcrime bj’s instead of simply abrogating our constitution in every way imaginable..maybe then we could get enough moral outrage going to run his azz off..

]]> By: Winston Smith http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-334120 Winston Smith Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:44:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-334120 I am so happy Big Brother is watching me and keeping me safe from terror. I love Big Brother. 18,000 just isn't enough. I think they should be given unlimited powers so they can keep me safe from all the evil around me. I am going to install homeland security surveillance cameras in every part of my house and am going to go get verichipped so they can make sure I am safe and so they can stop Osama if he tries to break into my house and chop my head off. Winston Smith Oceania I am so happy Big Brother is watching me and keeping me safe from terror. I love Big Brother. 18,000 just isn’t enough. I think they should be given unlimited powers so they can keep me safe from all the evil around me. I am going to install homeland security surveillance cameras in every part of my house and am going to go get verichipped so they can make sure I am safe and so they can stop Osama if he tries to break into my house and chop my head off.

Winston Smith
Oceania

]]> By: elmoron http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-333176 elmoron Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:07:04 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-333176 Giacomo, I was watching c-span today and one Michael Woods, an attorney and former head of the FBI National Security Law Unit (1999 - 2002) was the guest. The moderator asked "How does this work? How do these 11 judges meet and what are there responsibilities?", Woods replied: "The Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Court is a court that is, it's like a part-time court, and these are all regular US federal District judges, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints judges to this Foreign Intelligence Survelance Court on a rotating basis. They serve for 7 year terms and they sit, one at a time, to evaluate requests from the government to conduct survelliance for national security purposes. So this is the court that when people speak of the FISA process, this is the court that actually sees applications from the FBI, or the NSA, and determines whether or not the legal standard has been met to authorize survelliance." The moderator then displayed a chart indicating that in the most recent figures from the year 2004, the FISA Court had 1,758 applications submitted. 1,754 were approved. 3 of those applications were withdrawn. Apparently 1 was rejected. Mr. Woods agreed. "Yes. Yes, the numbers for the FISA Court always look this way. There have been many years in which the Court has not rejected or modified any applications. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS THAT THE LAW THAT CREATES THE COURT ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CERTIFY THAT THE LEGAL STANDARD HAS ALREADY BEEN MET. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IN ORDER TO GET IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, YOU ALREADY HAVE TO CROSS THE HIGH LEGAL THRESHOLD, THE SAME LEGAL THRESHOLD THE JUDGE IS GOING TO APPLY. AND SO IT IS VERY UNCOMMON FOR A MATTER TO REACH THE COURT THAT HAS NOT ALREADY RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF SCRUTINY AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT." (caps are mine) The question for me remains, why would you not go and get a FISA judge to approve the application? Either you were deliberatly thowing down the guantlet regarding Executive Power "erosion" or, you knew you could never convince the AG & others in the loop at the Justice Dept that your intended targets rise to the level of terrorist and are not in any way political. It's very scary and very disappointing, and the Administrations explanations thus far are not cutting it for me. Giacomo, I was watching c-span today and one Michael Woods, an attorney and former head of the FBI National Security Law Unit (1999 – 2002) was the guest. The moderator asked “How does this work? How do these 11 judges meet and what are there responsibilities?”, Woods replied: “The Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Court is a court that is, it’s like a part-time court, and these are all regular US federal District judges, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints judges to this Foreign Intelligence Survelance Court on a rotating basis. They serve for 7 year terms and they sit, one at a time, to evaluate requests from the government to conduct survelliance for national security purposes. So this is the court that when people speak of the FISA process, this is the court that actually sees applications from the FBI, or the NSA, and determines whether or not the legal standard has been met to authorize survelliance.”
The moderator then displayed a chart indicating that in the most recent figures from the year 2004, the FISA Court had 1,758 applications submitted. 1,754 were approved. 3 of those applications were withdrawn. Apparently 1 was rejected.
Mr. Woods agreed. “Yes. Yes, the numbers for the FISA Court always look this way. There have been many years in which the Court has not rejected or modified any applications. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS THAT THE LAW THAT CREATES THE COURT ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CERTIFY THAT THE LEGAL STANDARD HAS ALREADY BEEN MET. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IN ORDER TO GET IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, YOU ALREADY HAVE TO CROSS THE HIGH LEGAL THRESHOLD, THE SAME LEGAL THRESHOLD THE JUDGE IS GOING TO APPLY. AND SO IT IS VERY UNCOMMON FOR A MATTER TO REACH THE COURT THAT HAS NOT ALREADY RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF SCRUTINY AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.” (caps are mine)

The question for me remains, why would you not go and get a FISA judge to approve the application? Either you were deliberatly thowing down the guantlet regarding Executive Power “erosion” or, you knew you could never convince the AG & others in the loop at the Justice Dept that your intended targets rise to the level of terrorist and are not in any way political. It’s very scary and very disappointing, and the Administrations explanations thus far are not cutting it for me.

]]> By: Frisko Charlie http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-332546 Frisko Charlie Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:46:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-332546 The one piece of the picture is constantly being left out - the role of Condolezza Rice as Security Advisor. She must have participated in the decision to go ahead with this. The one piece of the picture is constantly being left out – the role of Condolezza Rice as Security Advisor. She must have participated in the decision to go ahead with this.

]]> By: Mark http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331769 Mark Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:13:06 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331769 If gonzales and the adminsitration say it is in the 500 range and that it was only people with terrorist conections we must assume that it is in the thousands and includes poltical enemies. With this adminsitration I no longer trust anything and have to believe the worst, and that reality is going to be far worse than what they present. If gonzales and the adminsitration say it is in the 500 range and that it was only people with terrorist conections we must assume that it is in the thousands and includes poltical enemies. With this adminsitration I no longer trust anything and have to believe the worst, and that reality is going to be far worse than what they present.

]]> By: big dave from queens http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331641 big dave from queens Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:33:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331641 Restore America's credibility by putting Bushco on trial at the Hague, and if convicted by a jury (composed of 12 top judges randomly chosen from 12 different countries) then administering punishment against Bushco in accordance with the decision. Restore America’s credibility by putting Bushco on trial at the Hague, and if convicted by a jury (composed of 12 top judges randomly chosen from 12 different countries) then administering punishment against Bushco in accordance with the decision.

]]> By: angry donkey http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331472 angry donkey Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:36:30 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331472 George Bush deserves a fair trial. and yes, America does act like a bully sometimes. George Bush deserves a fair trial.

and yes, America does act like a bully sometimes.

]]> By: Giacomo http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331364 Giacomo Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:19:44 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331364 <em>I noticed the 72 hour provision of FISA, and I noticed it when it was brought up at Bush’s press conference. I noticed that Bush brushed it aside too. The 72 hour retroactive provision of FISA makes these warrantless wiretaps completely inexcusable. </em> I think the issue here, while not stated, can be fairly deduced. Quite simply, the burden of proof needed to get a warrant may not be present on the individual(s) they want to monitor. In that case, they couldn't get a warrant. This is on one part very troubling (for if there's not enough evidence, should they be listening) and on another part somewhat evident (suspected terrorist(s) are not qualified by some "threashold" of evidence, but, rather, a series of troubling acts). I can see both points in this debate right now. I don't want willy nilly wire taps, but neither do I wish to hamstring the NSA (the formation of which was developed out of the Army's monitoring program) ... Someone on Fox (I know that for some of you that disqualifies this comment, but TP posted a Fox reporters comments so I will as well) ... I believe it was a Constitutional attorney from Georgetowne siad that the President is not so much limited by the Constitution as he is by politics. He states that it is common for ALL Presidents to use a wide interpretation of the powers given to them by the Constitution ... where those powers "upper most" end is mostly where political restraints (and citizen sentiment) say they end. Another thing that seems to be coming up often is a discussion of admissable evidence and criminal law. This is not the basis upon which the White House is authorizing surveillance ... the basis is upon "war" powers implicit in the Constitution (on another thread I quoted the three instances that the White House is claiming allows this ... if people want to read it, I'll re-post it here). Again, in time of war the President has inherent powers to allow surveillance ... we will see how this plays out. If it comes out that Bush used these powers for political gain, I think the uproar will gain momentum ... if not, I don't believe it will. I noticed the 72 hour provision of FISA, and I noticed it when it was brought up at Bush’s press conference. I noticed that Bush brushed it aside too. The 72 hour retroactive provision of FISA makes these warrantless wiretaps completely inexcusable.

I think the issue here, while not stated, can be fairly deduced. Quite simply, the burden of proof needed to get a warrant may not be present on the individual(s) they want to monitor. In that case, they couldn’t get a warrant. This is on one part very troubling (for if there’s not enough evidence, should they be listening) and on another part somewhat evident (suspected terrorist(s) are not qualified by some “threashold” of evidence, but, rather, a series of troubling acts). I can see both points in this debate right now. I don’t want willy nilly wire taps, but neither do I wish to hamstring the NSA (the formation of which was developed out of the Army’s monitoring program) …

Someone on Fox (I know that for some of you that disqualifies this comment, but TP posted a Fox reporters comments so I will as well) … I believe it was a Constitutional attorney from Georgetowne siad that the President is not so much limited by the Constitution as he is by politics. He states that it is common for ALL Presidents to use a wide interpretation of the powers given to them by the Constitution … where those powers “upper most” end is mostly where political restraints (and citizen sentiment) say they end.

Another thing that seems to be coming up often is a discussion of admissable evidence and criminal law. This is not the basis upon which the White House is authorizing surveillance … the basis is upon “war” powers implicit in the Constitution (on another thread I quoted the three instances that the White House is claiming allows this … if people want to read it, I’ll re-post it here). Again, in time of war the President has inherent powers to allow surveillance … we will see how this plays out. If it comes out that Bush used these powers for political gain, I think the uproar will gain momentum … if not, I don’t believe it will.

]]> By: unbelievable http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331358 unbelievable Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:15:50 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331358 <em>Kudo’s to ABC’s NIGHTLINE! They actually presented the facts! Every Legal Scholar agrees that Bushie committed a Federal Felony that is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. They all agree that this crime was also a Constitutional crime and is an impeachable offense. Finally, mainstream media is reporting the truth. Comment by Susan — December 21, 2005 @ 12:10 am </em> Wow! Its seems just like Christmas!! Oh wait, it really is... Still great news, thanks for sharing it! Kudo’s to ABC’s NIGHTLINE!
They actually presented the facts!

Every Legal Scholar agrees that Bushie committed a Federal Felony that is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

They all agree that this crime was also a Constitutional crime and is an impeachable offense.

Finally, mainstream media is reporting the truth.

Comment by Susan — December 21, 2005 @ 12:10 am

Wow! Its seems just like Christmas!! Oh wait, it really is… Still great news, thanks for sharing it!

]]> By: unbelievable http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331355 unbelievable Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:11:37 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331355 <em>once again william wallace’s antics derail discussion on this thread. this is a problem which needs to be solved. everyone learn how to not engage the trolls so we can have gainful discussion. please. Comment by John Ehrlichman — December 20, 2005 @ 10:35 pm </em> John, KillCon and I started boycotting wwwingnut wallace yesterday. We're trying to spread the word to ignore him. Not all trolls, because we know the importance of debating them, but wallace is just spewing nonsense that clogs the posts because he is looking for attention by any means necessary. once again william wallace’s antics derail discussion on this thread. this is a problem which needs to be solved. everyone learn how to not engage the trolls so we can have gainful discussion. please.

Comment by John Ehrlichman — December 20, 2005 @ 10:35 pm

John,

KillCon and I started boycotting wwwingnut wallace yesterday.

We’re trying to spread the word to ignore him.

Not all trolls, because we know the importance of debating them, but wallace is just spewing nonsense that clogs the posts because he is looking for attention by any means necessary.

]]> By: Giacomo http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331349 Giacomo Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:08:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331349 <em>The Sadducee’s were a Judeo sect that did not believe in Heaven, and they did not believe in Hell. So once more O’Reilly shows us just how much he really knows about nothing. But he did end the show with one little gem of wisdom. He said “who know’s, maybe I’m the dummy” Amen Mr. O’Reilly, amen. </em> Let me take the opportunity to agree with Worfeus (since they seem to come so infrequently) ... The Sadducees (some claim that John the Baptizer was a member of this group) did not believe in a duality of the afterlife. That comment begs the question though ... are there any Saudducees left? If not, then perhaps O'Reilly was speaking about current Judeo/Christian thought. Did you also notice a retraction on last nights show (during the discussuion of the school in Plano, Texas)? O'Reilly said, "I was wrong" about the school asking the kids not to wear red and green (the school only said that decorations had to be white ... not student clothing). It was kinda a half-a*#ed retraction ... but a retraction none the less. The Sadducee’s were a Judeo sect that did not believe in Heaven, and they did not believe in Hell.

So once more O’Reilly shows us just how much he really knows about nothing.

But he did end the show with one little gem of wisdom.

He said “who know’s, maybe I’m the dummy”

Amen Mr. O’Reilly, amen.

Let me take the opportunity to agree with Worfeus (since they seem to come so infrequently) … The Sadducees (some claim that John the Baptizer was a member of this group) did not believe in a duality of the afterlife.

That comment begs the question though … are there any Saudducees left? If not, then perhaps O’Reilly was speaking about current Judeo/Christian thought.

Did you also notice a retraction on last nights show (during the discussuion of the school in Plano, Texas)? O’Reilly said, “I was wrong” about the school asking the kids not to wear red and green (the school only said that decorations had to be white … not student clothing). It was kinda a half-a*#ed retraction … but a retraction none the less.

]]> By: Comment deleted http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331336 Comment deleted Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:59:49 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331336 [Comment deleted by admin] [Comment deleted by admin]

]]> By: S.D. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331276 S.D. Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:02:01 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331276 Hey!! Doesn't he know that He's Fox "News" Employee?!?!? Shocking! So, What other Crimes will GW Cop to?? He apparently feels he's above the law and has no problem admiting to an Impeachable offense... Hey!! Doesn’t he know that He’s Fox “News” Employee?!?!?
Shocking!

So, What other Crimes will GW Cop to?? He apparently feels he’s above the law and has no problem admiting to an Impeachable offense…

]]> By: Locke http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331267 Locke Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:46:56 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331267 <em>MrTimPa, no decent patriotic American calls his country a “bully.” </em> <em>Comment by wwallace</em> He does if he believes his country to be bullying the rest of the world. Such is his right, and his duty. True patriotism is getting involved in the fight for TRUTH, DECENCY, and THE AMERICAN WAY, even if that includes defying a false and incompetent leader. MrTimPa, no decent patriotic American calls his country a “bully.”

Comment by wwallace

He does if he believes his country to be bullying the rest of the world. Such is his right, and his duty. True patriotism is getting involved in the fight for TRUTH, DECENCY, and THE AMERICAN WAY, even if that includes defying a false and incompetent leader.

]]> By: SKdeA http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-331021 SKdeA Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:41:16 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-331021 Wow, what a day! I kind of like the wwallace protest poetry though... Wow, what a day!
I kind of like the wwallace protest poetry though…

]]> By: Jay Randal http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/program-goler/comment-page-2/#comment-330822 Jay Randal Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:13:38 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/?p=2950#comment-330822 President George W. Bush incriminated himself, by admitting he authorized wiretaps on American citizens without court orders. It is the "smoking gun" for his impeachment! VP Dick Cheney also put his foot in his mouth, yesterday, by saying the wiretaps are protecting America > lol President George W. Bush incriminated himself, by admitting he authorized wiretaps on American citizens without court orders. It is the “smoking gun” for his impeachment!

VP Dick Cheney also put his foot in his mouth, yesterday, by saying the wiretaps are protecting America > lol

]]>