I do not trust the administration at all.

Graham had actually told us what issues he was going to reaise and the questions he was going to ask before the hearings. He did asks about excutive power and other things that concern us.

I still think that if he heard something disconcerting enough based on a question another senator asked he would vote no if he thought he should. I trust him completely.

It’s just possible that if the level of communication were raised at the grass-roots level, it just might send a message to those in the political arena that the voting public are actually thinkers who need to be respected (even if only out of political expediency) and not merely puppets whose strings can be pulled at will.

NEH

Comment by TR0LL_v0.2.7b — January 14, 2006 @ 8:03 am
–

Until I found this site, a short time ago, I did not fully understand the ‘troll’ ident.

I checked my dictionary, and found this;

‘A supernatural being, conceived sometimes as a dwarf, sometimes as a giant, fabled to inhabit caves hills and like places’

And so, you identify yourself as a ’supernatural being’, and I have been referred to as a ‘troll’, so some here must believe I am also a ’supernatural being’ as well.

John,

what court were these papers delivered to?

One cannot convert simple software to rational thought, nor convice code to adopt an intelligent opinion. No matter how clever its output may appear, it still has no actual opinion, nor can it ever truly form any sort of thought of its own. It is simply a formal set of rules that dictate which trollish output its clever, yet mindless, subroutines will compile and post.

–

“Unless you enjoy the mental workout that an exercise in futility provides (or you’re beta-testing the latest compile) arguing with Troll-bot(s) is unproductive.”
–some Troll

Legal papers were delivered on Tuesday, the 10th of January, 2006. Copies were also provided to Congress.

Bests,
John

http://politicsofet.com

Comment by mighty aphrodite

Nope, don’t think so. Not enough effeminate venom.

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

“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,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”

“It is important to understand,” Gorelick continued, “that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”

Reporting the day after Gorelick’s testimony, the Washington Post’s headline — on page A-19 — read, “Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches.” The story began, “The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration’s quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.”

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. “Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise,” Gorelick said. “Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus.”

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames’s house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames’s lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it “does not restrict the president’s ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security.” In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

‘the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s – all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.”
NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told “60 Minutes” that the agency was monitoring “everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs.”
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling “60 Minutes” that agency operators “can listen in to just about anything” – while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The “60 Minutes” report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton “engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.” ‘

The Echelon Myth

We’re sick of all you trolls and right-wing know nothings coming to this board spewing your lies and refusing to see truth when it’s presented to you in black and white.

Comment by Amy — January 13, 2006 @ 10:53 am
——————

Amy,

After 18 or so hours here, I can understand how you wish those who do not agree with you would leave you to your own ideas.
The fact is that Echelon collected various types of commuication(s) and if you choose to totally believe Tenet then, I guess you believe him now?
The second fact is that voice communication was just one part of Echelon, and e-mail was one major segment. E-mail systems across the globe were probed, e-mail from/to your momie, poppie, mine and yours were scanned for certain identifiers. That is black and white.
I can only suggest you leave the personal attacks behind and open your mind to the truth, i.e. that both parties, all presidents have used these tactics.

Watched the esteemed prog professors and interest groups whine about Alito on C-SPAN this am. Watching Kate Michelman, as too many liberals do, personalize her fight for an abortion, as the end all and be all of “women’s rights” has that whiff of…hmmmmmm narcissism. (Sisters, Sing along with Kate…..me..me…me….meeeee.)

I adore sharp wit, loyalty, compassion and responsibility. I found much of liberalism overlapping and dependent on the promotion of continued victimhood. Enjoyed victimhood allows people to blame others and bask in the attention they receive from others. (By this statement, I do NOT refer to legitimate victims of violence, dishonesty or disaster. There are many people out there who deserve our compassion and generosity.) But sadly, there is a revered victim mentality in much of the hedonism and narcissism of the day. (A glaring example is found in Randy Shilts book, “And the Band Played On”, in which Shilts, a gay man who later died of AIDS, discusses the San Francisco gay communitities anger over the suggestion that gay “bath houses” should be shut down.)

When national minority leaders elevate the “cycle of poverty” conversation to include the growing, preventable and tragic, epidemic of illegitimacy, many more conservatives will be inclined to listen. I do not believe that a poor person is a poor parent and I do not believe that a wealthy person is a good parent. Throughout my career, I have encountered responsible and irresponsible parents in every economic sector.

Finally, I left the sacred halls of liberalism because of a disgusting promotion of envy. As the oldest child of a young widow who was a public school teacher, I was fortunate to have a mother who taught love, compassion and responsibility. She didn’t buy the “dog ate my homework” or “the other kids are doing it… or have whatever”. I have always been pleased when people succeed at their endeavors – and I am ALWAYS impressed when people do not give up after repeated failures. The road, and not the destination, is often the place for reflection, correction and wonder.

“crowing”? Come on, Paul. I was pointing out the likelihood of Alito’s confirmation, out of sheer frustration -as I said before. And I didn’t take any pleasure out of it.

This is a concerted coup — it’s not ordinary politics or ordinary times.

You know, it’s interesting you should use that word. I thought the republican push for Clinton’s impeachment is the closest the US has ever got to having a coup, in that a sitting president (and popular, to boot) was going to be removed from office by a relatively small clique.

I guess this is an extension of that push.

As for the rest of your post -I agree. This administration has shown very little regard for the rule of law.