Administration’s Response To Greenwald Is Contradictory and Inaccurate
Administration’s Response To Greenwald Is Contradictory and Inaccurate
Glenn Greenwald discovered that in 2002, Sen. Mike DeWine proposed loosening the standards for domestic surveillance in a significantly more modest way than the President’s controversial program. DeWine’s proposal would have lowered the standard for obtaining a warrant for surveillance of foreigners within the United States from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion.” The administration (and Congress) rejected DeWine’s proposal as unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional.
Greenwald’s find has attracted the attention of the media and provoked a response from the administration. Here is Justice Department spokesperson Tasia Scolinos:
The FISA “probable cause” standard is essentially the same as the “reasonable basis” standard used in the terrorist surveillance program. The “reasonable suspicion” standard, which is lower than both of these, is not used in either program.
There are two fundamental problems with this argument:
1. It completely contradicts what the administration said earlier this week. Scolinos claims “reasonable basis” is pretty much the same as “probable cause.” On Monday, Michael Hayden – former NSA director and currently Deputy Director of National Intelligence – said that Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program was started precisely because it lowered the standard in a significant way.
2. The legal analysis is wrong. Scolinos falsely claims that “reasonable suspicion” is a “lower” standard than “reasonable basis.” The term “reasonable basis” has no real meaning in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. To the extent that “reasonable basis” does have meaning, it’s used interchangeably with “reasonable suspicion.” For example, in the Supreme Court case of Florida v. J.L., Justice Ginsburg wrote: “The officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J.L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search.”
The administration’s effort to kill this story isn’t off to a good start.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
hey scotty, wanna dance?..your so use to it. You can dance,evade,play down, muddy the waters etc., but PEOPLE are not stupid like YOU.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:16 amYou people (liberal Dems) are truly pathetic. Get a grip. The Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls. They were all international calls between suspected Al-Quaeda operatives and whoever was calling them. Even if it was illegal – which it wasn’t – isn’t this a good idea, anyway? Can you actually sit there and critize the NSA for spying on suspected terrorists? Ask yourselves that, and please, be honest.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:18 amGood post. That quote from Scolinos makes no friggin sense at all from a 4th Amd perspective.
But I think you’ve got a typo: “To the extent that ["reasonable basis"] does have meaning, it’s used interchangeably with “reasonable [suspicion].â€
January 26th, 2006 at 10:20 amCheck that first sentence in 2. I believe there’s a “not” that not be there.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:25 amThe president authorized listening to international calls, which by definition include a person in country and a person out of the country. Therefore they were spying on both a person in country and a person out of country, and the former entails domestic spying.
I laugh at you concludes “isn’t this a good idea, anyway.” First, that is why there was a FISA court. Second, why on earth, given the fact the President has already lied when he told us that all such eavesdropping was done with warrants, do you believe that only international calls were targetted?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:25 am“The Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls.”
This is not a statement of fact. It’s an exercise in faith. The fact is, we have no idea. You apparently trust the current adminitration to tell the truth. I, for one, do not. They’ve lied, misled and gratuitously smeared good honest Americans for too long. They no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt and I’m not the only one who feels this way.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:26 amThanks for everyone who picked up my typos. They are fixed now.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am“The Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls. They were all international calls between suspected Al-Quaeda operatives and whoever was calling them.”
If that’s the case, why couldn’t he get warrants from a rubber-stamp court?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:27 amLaugh at yourself, dumbass “I laugh at Dems.” Why does the administration have to have a different story every day? Why did they have to come out lying about the law and its application in the past?
Why do you just repeat whatever you’re told? Oh, that’s right: you’re one of the minority in this country who’s still dumb enough to be a conservative. But daddy’s still protecting you from the big, bad brown people, right?
Except when he doesn’t, that is.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:27 am.
For the laughing fool…”Iraq, Katrina, the budget, mine safety, prescription drugs—each and every one a monumental screw-up. What possible reason do we have to presume that the administration hasn’t screwed up the NSA eavesdropping program?”
Keep hoping child. Someday even you may grow up.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:28 amDammit some of those phone calls were mine. I may be foreign but I’m no terrorist. I didn’t vote for or against Bush, or the NSA not having the chance, and nothing gives your country the right to spy on me.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:29 amFrom Scolinos’ bio: “She practiced law in California from 1999 to 2001.”
Ah, well, that helps.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:29 amUh, please present your proof of the facts of the wiretapping program you are asserting as you laugh, smart guy. While asserting in unison with the president might have been proof enough back in ‘02, today with a president who is a known and fully discredited serial liar the standard is back where it should be – president’s word + evidence = proof.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:29 amThe other, even more fundamental problem, is that the legal standard, whatever it is, must under the Constitution be applied by a court.
It is no answer to say the president or night shift supervisor at NSA is applying it unless there is judicial review, preferably in advance, of that application.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:30 amGreat post. Fnook is right, though, about the typo — actually I think there may be several in point 2. Don’t you mean that Scolinos falsely claims that reasonable suspicion IS lower than reasonable basis? Or that she falsely claims that reasonable basis is no lower than probable cause? Incidentally, it’s Florida v. J.L..
January 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am#4, #5, #6-
Again, be honest with yourselves. I’ll ask again: Do you believe that spying on the phone calls of suspected terrorists – people who are linked to Al Quaeda, or some other terrorist group, which all these targets were – is a good idea?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:30 amOh, I love the ScottyDog definition of ‘domestic’. It’s the William Gibson definition of cyberspace: in which country do your phone calls take place? Well, if you’re a US person living in the US, and you’re being spied upon, you’re under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Parse that, wingnuts.
Does that mean that if someone beats up a spouse who isn’t a US citizen, it’s not domestic violence?
16. That’s why the law exists, numbnut: to make that kind of surveillance legal. Why can’t your King follow the law of the land?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:34 amThe issue is whether there should be oversight of such a program or not, not whether it’s a ‘good idea’. The fact that we have a program for oversight in place says we already agree as a society that it’s a ‘good idea’, so put that straw man away and address the real argument or, alternately, shut the fuck up.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:34 amI’m sure Ilaughatyou(Dems) will apply the same trust to PRESIDENT HITLERY CLINTOON when she takes over the White House (or any other DummycRAT) and starts conducting warrantless domestic spying. I’m sure that trust in the executive will be there, just as solid as it is now.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:34 amRepeat after me: rule of law. Rule of law. Rule of law.
Has a nice ring to it.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:34 am#2 Hey fathead: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Agency_spied_on_Baltimore_0110.html
This is illegal. Quaker peace groups? Suspected terrorists?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:36 amI Laugh, if the person in question is in fact a ’suspected terrorist’, then there must be some factual, evidential basis to have such suspicions, in which case there is no reason to not go to the FISA court for a warrant.
Make strawman arguments much?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am#2 – It was illegal. There is no question about the illegality of the action, but you refuse to read the article.
Also, how are we supposed to know if they were only illegally wiretapping conversations with terrorists? Take their word for it? Not likely! When your words and your actions disagree with each other, believe the actions: they BROKE THE LAW!!!! Their disingenuous arguments to try and explain how their illegal actions were somehow ‘legal’ under their strained and twisted logic only underscores their ability to ignore the written laws whenever they want to do so.
To be honest, I feel that anyone who is willing to sacrifice their liberties for security deserve neither liberty nor security. (Yes, I ‘stole’ that from one of our revered founding fathers.)
I think your inability to hold the Republican party to the same standard that the Democrats were held under President Clinton shows your bias and partisanship. When people (like you) place bias and partisanship above the rights and laws set forth in the constitution, you express your contempt for America and everything that America was built upon.
Do we need to stop the terrorists? OF course, nobody is saying anything differently. To claim that the spying the current administration has engaged in does not need to follow the established laws and regulations is to say that the “rule of law†is crap and useless. Stick that in your pipe and choke on it.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:36 amDo you believe that spying on the phone calls of suspected terrorists – people who are linked to Al Quaeda, or some other terrorist group, which all these targets were – is a good idea?
First of all, the only claim that these people are “linked” to terrorists is being made by the Administration. We, the People, dont let Execitive Branches independently decide who is a “suspect,” without some sort of oversight, which, under FISA, they could get 3 days later.
Second, YES; spying on terrorists is a fine idea. Breaking the law is not. What’s your response goping to be when the name “laughing at Dems” is treated as a “threat” by some future Democratic Adminisatrion, and your phone is tapped without court approval?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:36 am“DeWine’s proposal would have lowered the standard for obtaining a warrant for surveillance of foreigners within the United States from “probable cause†to “reasonable suspicion.—
This is good. We’ve got the lawyers arguing over minutia regarding when the President can or can not sneak a peak at what a foreigner is up to in this country, a country at war?
Would these be the same lawyers that try and argue that captured foreign terrorist have the same rights and access to our legal system as do American citizens?
Here’s my suggestion and it has no basis other than common sense. We may spy on suspects at will provided they are not citizens of the USA and all that is required is that an agent of one of our national security services deem the intrusion appropriate and sign off on the matter. End of story. If a US citizen is unfortunate enough to be on one end of the conversation too bad for him.
How’s that grab you Judd? Do you see a slippery slope there?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:38 amDoes that mean that if someone beats up a spouse who isn’t a US citizen, it’s not domestic violence?
Not only that, it’s perfectly OK even if the spouse is a U.S. citizen, so long as they use a weapon manufactured in Taiwan for the beating.
Because of course that’s an international weapon.
Thanks for clarifying that, Scotty.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am#19-
Hillary will never sit in the White House. As a current Gallop poll shows, she is already a loser (51% of participants said they would not vote for her.) And this poll was conducted before the actual campaign, before the Repulicans let loose all the skeletons in her closet and completely discredit her sorry ass.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am#16. Bogus question. It should read “Do you believe that spying on the phone calls of suspected terrorists in accordance with FISA and the constitution – people who are linked to Al Quaeda, or some other terrorist group, which all these targets were – is a good idea?
Then the answer is YES. Otherwise, NO.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:39 amTo laugh:
Perhaps given enough chances you will actually read a reply..yes surveillance on terrorist groups is a good idea, a marvelous and necessary idea. FISA easily allows it. The warrantless NSA method is not only unecessary for that surveillance, but it is subject to abuse at every level.
To reject the NSA spying is not to deny the need for tracking terrorists, it is to reject a method that could be used to track you.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:40 am#16, you are missing the point, laughing hyena boy – the FISA law allowed the Administration to retroactively seek permission to wiretap the people you state calling US citizens – but HE DIDN’T EVEN TRY. That’s the break in the law. No one is arguing that listening to terrorists is bad, but not even bothering to use the law that was set up to allow it is the issue. Be honest with yourself and inform yourself of the issue, fathead.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:40 amHillary will never sit in the White House.
so basically, you’re willing to condone unconstitutional and illegal actions by the President, because you’re pretty damn sure only right-wing Republicans will occupy the White House for the rest of your life.
Why do you hate America?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:40 amI laugh at you (Dems) -
The issue isn’t whether the national security apparatus should gather intelligence about al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda operatives. In the United States of America even the President needs a warrant to spy on Americans. He didn’t bother to obtain one. That’s the issue.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:40 am#16 – Ask yourself, and be honest about it if you dare:
If all it takes to ‘legally’ spy on the calls that terrorists are making is to get the rubber-stamp court to say “Fine by me!”, why didn’t President Bush do it?
In fact, President Bush didn’t even have to get permission, he could get ‘forgiveness’ after the fact by going to the court and saying “Oh, I’ve been wiretapping some calls, please say it’s ‘ok’ so I don’t do anything illegal.â€
But no, he couldn’t even follow the established law and get permission NOR firgiveness! It’s much easier to get forgiveness after the fact than get permission before the fact, but he couldn’t even do that!!!!
That begs the follow up question: if he didn’t follow the law to begin with, and didn’t follow the law after the fact, why did he do it???
Now, try answering that question, if you will!
January 26th, 2006 at 10:41 amThe point is not whether Hitlery will be in the White House, dumb fuck. Notice I wrote “or any other DummycRAT”? The point is that I don’t think you’ll be so trusting of a president doing this shit when you don’t like who’s president.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:41 amTo the trolls: I have to admit that lying and law-breaking in matters of national security is trivial in comparison to lying about a blow job.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:42 amYou win.
#25-
Hell yeah, I-Right-I. But don’t mention common sense to these people. They live in alternate universe where all common sense is completely disregarded.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:42 amNow, try answering that question, if you will!
he won’t. He’s either too stupid or too dishonest to do so.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:42 amWe’ve got the lawyers arguing over minutia regarding when the President can or can not sneak a peak at what a foreigner is up to in this country, a country at war?
Um, nope.
As I’m sure you understand, unless you’re extremely stupid, that’s not what anyone’s arguing. What Chimpy is arguing is that he can spy on American citizens in the U.S. without Court approval or review. The Constitution and federal statute requires him to do that.
Read the Fourth Amendment. It’s much shorter than those long, complicated Dr. Seuss books Mommy reads you at bedtime, and it even uses small words.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:43 amAnd back on post – the swerving and weaving in the Administration story points to a huge pile of poo somewhere. Now who has the guts to pull it out? Will there ever be a list of who/what/when of the calls tapped?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:43 amI must have missed that part of the Constitution where it says the President is above the law and impeachment is reserved solely for lying about blow jobs.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:44 ami laugh at you reminds me of ned.
you’re a sorry piece of work guy. seek help, please.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:44 am#34-
Please, let’s be civil, and stop the name calling and smearing. Oh yeah, I forgot. That is what you liberals do best.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:45 amHell yeah, I-Right-I. But don’t mention common sense to these people. They live in alternate universe where all common sense is completely disregarded.
Actually, that is a pretty crushing and convincing argument. I got nothing to say. Other than how curious it is that you’d choose to come argue with people who have no common sense. That’s kind of weird, you have to admit.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:46 amBeen reading your Gestapo manual again, Adolf? Why are you wrong again IRI? Because the 4th amendment of the US Constitution says so. No Constitution, no USA, end of story.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:46 amDon’t usually condescend to reply to trolls (ilaughatyou) but really, do you think anyone doesn’t want suspected al-Queda and other terrorists to have their calls monitored? If our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are so incompetent that they can’t find these people by using proven law enforcement and intelligence techniques then we’re all f**ked anyway, no matter how much information they gather and by whatever means they use to do it. Instead of more dots to connect, they need to connect the dots they’ve already got, and they had plenty of them leading up to 9/11/2001. Please take your straw men and play with them somewhere else.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:47 amDomestic and International as defined by the PHONE COMPANY billing procedure isn’t what’s defined in the law.
The standard here is defined by FISA, and it’s conversations of a US Person. Tapping those without a warrant is illegal, even if they’re not in the US.
It’s BS to think that if the calls were AQ related there would have been any difficulty in getting FISA warrants.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:48 amSame author wrote both of these:
Hell yeah, I-Right-I. But don’t mention common sense to these people. They live in alternate universe where all common sense is completely disregarded.
Please, let’s be civil, and stop the name calling and smearing. Oh yeah, I forgot. That is what you liberals do best.
Fuck Huuuugh.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:49 amTo all-
Well, I have to go to work. Before I go, one parting shot. I’m going to put on my smear-monger liberal persona now, and say……….. I piss on all you. Stop the hate, and support our national leaders. Stop aiding the enemy. I’ll bet you all are really happy that Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Because you hate our country, and will even gloat over the successes of our enemies. I pity all of you.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:49 amDon’t be mad at I Laugh, pity him.
His capacity for reasoned, logical debate has atrophied due to too much worship of George W. Bush and too much brainwashing by right-wing hate radio.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, IL.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:49 amI Laugh, why do you hate the Constitution, the very foundation of the USA?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:50 am#48, hey Laughing Fathead – Teddy’s calling you out:
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country.â€
January 26th, 2006 at 10:50 am-Theodore Roosevelt
“To announce there must be no criticism of the President, and to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonous to the American public.â€
– President Theodore Roosevelt
Are you unpatriotic, servile, morally treasonous or all three?
judd why don’t you bood idiots like #48?
They really do a dis-service to your intent.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:51 amStop aiding the enemy.
The enemy is people like you who wish to destroy our freedom and liberty.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:51 am#36 – Actually, it’s the same lawyers that used the twisted logic that “we don’t torture like the terrorists, but ignore the torture we do while we’re in other countries”.
It’s so sad that the elected Republicans refuse to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Much like “Right between the I’s” refuses to believe that the “rule of law’ was good enough to impeach one President, but not good enough to impeach another President.
Double standards, thy Party is Republican!!!
January 26th, 2006 at 10:51 amYeah, lying to start wars, enrich corporate sponsors and spying on citizens just ain’t the big deals that lying about consensual sex was.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:53 amMaybe someone can help…I recall reading from blog sites shortly after this wiretapping story broke that an NSA supervisor estimated about 500 calls a day were being monitored, and another NSA employee said the monitoring was going to numerous “generations.” In other words, if person A called a “suspicious” person overseas, then all calls of person A were then monitored. Person A calls persons B,C,D,E, etc., all within the U.S. NSA then monitors all the calls of those people, and so on. If 500 calls a day are being monitored, either the terrorists are really chatty, or NSA is spying on totally innocent people. My problem is being unable to locate those statements from the NSA people. Can anyone help?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:55 am#48 and what does Hamas winning an election have to do with hating the US? Last time I looked Hamas hasn’t committed an attack on the US? Anyone?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:55 am#55 – Don’t you DARE hold President Bush to the same standards that were held to President Clinton!
Are you trying to help the terrorists?!?!?
Pres. Bush can break all the laws he wants, kill and maim anyone he wants, incarcerate anyone he wants, and start wars for all the oil he wants! To claim otherwise would mean he would have to take personal responsibility for his actions, and everyone knows that the Republicans may be many things, but “personally responsible for their actions” sure ain’t one of them!
January 26th, 2006 at 10:57 amAnyone catch Bush’s news conference this morning? CBS’ John Roberts asked him about this issue, and as usual Bush danced around the issue. I believe John asked him if Congress was willing to change the FISA law to accomodate what Bush is doing, would he support it? Bush pretty much gave a non-answer, and once again said what he was doing was legal. I wonder why no one had the balls to ask him about Sen. DeWine’s proposal in 2002 and why the admin rejected it?
And this broken record about “We briefed members of Congress” is getting tired. The fact that he briefed them is meaningless.
Notice that Bush never says “I briefed members of Congress and they gave approval for my plan.”
January 26th, 2006 at 11:02 amIt’s too bad that “Laughing Boy” hates the American Constitution, and thinks that it was meant to be broken at the whim of an out-of-control, irresponsible, hypocritical Republican President.
Of course, this does mean that the precedents that are set by this administration will carry over into the next Democratic administration:
1 – Need justification for a war? Lie about it, and nobody will hold you accountable.
2 – Need to wiretap anyone? Claim it was only for terrorist calls, and nobody will ask for proof.
3 – Need to imprison some people without habeas corpus applied against them? Call the ‘armed combatants’ and nobody will question your reasons.
4 – Need to stop people from questioning your illegal actions: call them un-patriotic or un-American and you get a free pas an NOBODY will ever question your motives!
Sounds like America is going to hell in a handbasket, and it’s all because of the elected Republicans.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:04 am#25:
If a US citizen is unfortunate enough to be on one end of the conversation too bad for him.
Take it up with the mo-foing US Constitution, numbnut. And if you don’t like it, go somewhere that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:05 amThere’s something the Republicans don’t get (I-right-i, “I laugh at you,” you guys reading this?):
1) The program itself gathers such a mountain of information that it doesn’t work; it doesn’t actually help find or catch terrorists:
“According to the FBI, there’s nothing “targeted and focused” about it — the program produces a flood of useless tips involving conversations of innocent Americans. In bureau field offices, the NSA material is viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more “calls to Pizza Hut,” one official, who supervised field agents, said.”
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6417.html
Damn. The FBI agents who are actually trying to catch terrorists seem to think the data mining’s program is useless. Forget about the question of whether it’s Constitutional or not: it doesn’t work. You guys get that? It *doesn’t actually help us catch terrorists.* Not a bit. And it’s a Republican program wasting the time of the people who are trying to catch them.
Tell me again why you support this program? Or the administration? Jesus. This program is actually *harming* national security.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:06 amApparently, the trolls think that the US Constitution amounts to ‘minutia’. Thanks for being honest, at least.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am#53 The enemy is people like you who wish to destroy our freedom and liberty.
We need to just repeat that over and over. If terrorists hate us for our freedom and liberty, how do we beat them if we let our government destroy our freedom and liberty??
January 26th, 2006 at 11:07 am#59 – Also, notice that they’ve stopped spreading the lie: They had the same information we did!
It’s been exposed that they picked & chose the information that congress was provided to support their decision that was already made.
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Pres. Bush and his administration used to be great at this, but their house of lies is starting to crumble. Hopefully, it will happen in time to save the constitution and the freedoms on which America was founded.
I wish the Administration and Pres. Bush didn’t hate America, the constitution, and the “rule of law” as much as they obviously do.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:08 amYou know, this could all be cleard up within a couple of weeks and be relegated to the annals of history with one simple action.
What would be the problem with holding a closed door session with a bipartisan group of senators, say 3 from each party, and allowing them to view the list of people monitored to date, with an explanation as to why the NSA deemed it necessary to do so. Hmmmm?
IF, as Bush is saying, this is legal, no harm was done, there’s nothing for the American people to be concerned about, blah blah blah, then what would be the harm?
January 26th, 2006 at 11:09 amBlack’s Law Dictionary definition of “reasonable suspicion”:
Emphasis mine.
There is no definition for “reasonable basis” because that phrase simply does not exist as a legal term of art. It is simply fabricated. “Reasonable basis” is just another way of saying “reasonable basis for suspicion” …or, more simply, “reasonable suspicion”.
As the main post suggests, there is not a single case in the history of American jurisprudence which suggests that there is a “reasonable basis” standard which is somehow different than a “reasonable suspicion” standard. It’s one thing for laymen like Gen. Michael Hayden not to know, but the DoJ lawyers who are making up this new standard should have their licenses revoked.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:15 am#66, trouble with that is, the Republicans in the room could not be trusted to put their party aside for one minute while they assess the damage done to the US constitution…. which three? Santorum, Frist and Hatch?
January 26th, 2006 at 11:15 am#66 – What would be the harm?!? My God, man! Expecting the current administration to actually take responsibility for their actions?!?!? Expecting Pres. Bush to take responsibility for his actions?!?!?
It would mean the Republican party would have to start practicing what they preach! Dogs & cats sleeping together!! MASS HYSTERIA!!!!!!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:18 am#16,
Let’s number the assumptions, shall we?:
1. “…spying on the phone calls of suspected terrorists”
2. “…people who are linked to Al Quaeda”
3. “…some other terrorist group, which all these targets were.”
Now, whom to you go to conduct oversight of these claims? Bush? I’m not saying they’re not actually catching the communications of suspected terrorists, but unless there’s oversight, we have no way of knowing for certain. It is, take my word for it, a violation of our constitution. You’d do well to give our Founding Fathers a little more credit when they created the checks and balances in our system of government.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:20 amWho cares about hilary clinton in office…I just want competent leadership…I’d prolly even be able to deal with GWB, if he were competent, and if the people that were in his administration were competent when it came to upholding the constitution, but they are only competent in dictatorship like actions.
I ask you this simple question: How does your logic jive with the fact that the administration can go to FISA within 3 days of the emergency wiretap and that they choose not to do that? Do they think there is a mole at FISA? Please, provide any other ideas you have as to why they legitimately could not go to FISA after the fact.
Is that answer too much to ask for? I want to be logical for you guys, but you aren’t giving us anything to work with. It’s like telling someone that everything they think is wrong (even if it isn’t) and then calling them insane when they start running up to everyone trying to scream that people are manipulating their reality. You are deliberately putting us in a position where we can’t do anything right.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:21 amTim Russert just said on Matthews’ post press conference analysis that:
“The bill went nowhere in congress.”
I guess that the Bush Administration did not feel the change was necessary mattered.
Tim, so naive, such a tool.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:22 amalso…the argument that these are international calls because the phone companies supposedly would bill at those rates is ridiculous. The phone companies rules apply to the phone companies and certainly are not within the scope for determining the answers to our constitutional questions.
Again, do I need to have a passport to call another country? When I am calling someone in another country, am I subject to all of their laws?
January 26th, 2006 at 11:24 amTo add to #59, also in responding to John’s question, Bush said that if he went to Congress to get the FISA law amended, “we would be giving the terrorists details about the program.”
Say what?
No one is asking for the damn instruction manual. All that is being requested (and HAS been requested per Sen. DeWine’s proposal) is that the law be amended so that there are no questionable actions being performed by this (or any future, for that fact) administration.
People, this ties in with earlier claims by the administration that by revealing this program, we’ve exposed our most cherished secrets. Not so. I can (and have) posted links to news articles that the entire world can view that announced specifics of the intelligence gathering activities. Not how they work, but what it is we are going to be monitoring, including cell phone conversations and e-mails.
And I think it was former NSA Director Michael Hayden who was asked by a reporter if he thought the people being monitored suspected anything? He said something like, “well, if they were suspicious, they didn’t act like it.”
January 26th, 2006 at 11:28 am#69
Easy, soldier! (pun intended)
It was a rhetorical question. I know it’s an impossible request, but it still felt good asking it.
:)
January 26th, 2006 at 11:33 amAgain, do I need to have a passport to call another country? When I am calling someone in another country, am I subject to all of their laws?
When you’re on an international flight with a US carrier, you’re subject to Federal law right through the duration of the flight.
Anyway, this is smoke and mirrors: when a person being spied upon is a US citizen in the US, it’s domestic. Simple as that.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:34 am#75 – Thanks for the laugh!
I tend to get a bit hot under the collar when trolls use straw man arguments to justify the unjustifiable, or disingenuous arguments to support Republicans when they lambaste Democrats for the same thing.
I guess I find hypocrisy the worst of sins, and I believe that the Republicans have become the master of the hypocritical in the current political climate which we now find ourselves.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:40 am#68 & #69
Well, the next logical group to review it would be the FISA court, but we all know hell will freeze over before ANYONE gets to review that list. Unless, of course, it still exists and gets leaked.
But remember (wink, wink), everything is all legal, no harm was done, no innocent Americans were targeted, we are doing this in the name of national security…there are no worries, you’re eyes are getting heavy…you are getting sleepy…very sleepy…deep sleep…slowly drifting away…
See, I can catapault the propaganda with the best of them!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:40 amDan Bartlett, speaking for the White House said that everyone being spied upon had a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches.
In another White House press release, before this picked up steam, it was explained that only international calls and related domestice calls were being tapped.
The NSA leaks tell us that 18,000 Americans were spied upon.
Now that’s 18,000 Americans mass murderers with a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches. Over all that’s likely tens of thousands of commuter trains blown up since Bush took office. We might be talking about over 200,000 dead from blowing up weddings and churches.
But when the White House does identify an American as having a history of blowing commuter trains, weddings and churches, they at least tap their phones. They are doing something after all.
Besides, the Congress gave the President the legal authority to disregard the US Constitution somehow. And anyway, spying on Americans without a warrant is allowed under the 4th Amendment. Just Ask the President.
Besides, Bush isn’t doing anything Milhouse didn’t do.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amThe Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls.
Comment by I laugh at you (Dems)#2
laughable,
PROVE IT!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:43 amYou guys need to realize that applying for warrants is hard work. You gotta type up crap and write in plain English. And you gotta do it within a couple of weeks of the spying incident. That’s like !dude!, getting your homework turned in on time!
Then you gotta find a Federal Judge that,
1. Isn’t a Muslim Terrorist.
2. Will issue a warrant in connection with terrorist activity or possible mass murder.
Federal Judges that are law abiding citizens that want to help in the fight against crime and terrorism are difficult to find, according to White House sources.
This stuff is hard. It’s hard work. It’s real hard. It’s hard.
And dudes, Milhouse set the precedent here. It’s ok. “If the President does it, it’s legal.” – Milhouse
January 26th, 2006 at 11:46 amWell, the White House first was saying that they did spy on domestic phone calls, but soon changed their story.
And politicians always tell the truth.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:48 amBushiva has ZERO credibility…
Watching that press conference was the moral equivalent of watching Baghdad Bob ranting about Iraqi forces beating back the American military onslaught…
Bushiva is the fundamental human persona of lying til they believe every word you say…
When he said about Jack Abramoff, “I don’t know the man”, it sounded like a reprise of his, “Kenny Boy who?” denial…
Shame on America for allowing this sociopath to remain in office one more day!
January 26th, 2006 at 11:53 amI love the don’t help the terrorists argument.
The underlying assumption is that terrorists don’t know that they are being sought after or that governments will try to track and bug theur calls.
Nope, it’s common knowledge that terrorists walk around carrying signs proclaiming them to be terrorists. If we let them know we can read, they’ll stop doing that. No one tell the Terrorists that US Government Agents can read.
Every American knows there’s a chance that a the government or a hacker is listening to their calls. It all goes over the internet trunks. Anything you say might be recorded by unsavory persons for illegal reasons. People engaged in terrorism are gonna be especially paranoid, because we’re out to kill them and they know it.
So the whole, don’t let the terrorists know we’re after them argument, get you off to arguing something stupid. They know we’re after them. They know that calls they make are probably monitored.
But that’s no reason to trash the US Constitution or engage in criminal behaviour.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:54 am“The Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls”
Are leaking classified information? That’s crime you know. It’s anti-American and helps the terrorists, when you tell them thta the President isn’t spying on domestic calls. Now they’ll only make domestice calls.
Don’t help the terrorists by telling tham that domestic calls are safe from illegal spying.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:56 amI don’t see what all the fuss is about.
“Wiretapping terrorists requires a court order.”
-George W. Bush
January 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWe progressives are all wasting our key strokes on “laughable”,IRI and all the other inbred Bushites…
…they don’t believe for one minute that Bushiva is using this warrantless eavesdropping to spy on Al Qaeda/terrorists only…
They DON”T CARE, as long as their gods Bushiva and L’il Dick LOOK LIKE they’re, ” ‘protectin th’ ‘merikin people”…
They don’t believe for one minute that Bushiva and L’il Dick aren’t spying on political enemies…
They DON”T CARE, as long as the republiscum party “wins”…
They don’t believe for one minute that Bushiva and L’il Dick aren’t lying, thieveing, mass murdering profiteers…
They DON”T CARE, as long as Bushiva and L’il Dick don’t prevent laughable, IRI and the other inbred degenerate scum from carrying out THEIR daily lying, scheming, thieving, and profiteering…
The Bushites are all amoral, psychopathic, pathological lying scum and each other’s soulmates…
That’s why they stick together so unwaveringly…
January 26th, 2006 at 12:12 pmUm, nope.
As I’m sure you understand, unless you’re extremely stupid, that’s not what anyone’s arguing. What Chimpy is arguing is that he can spy on American citizens in the U.S. without Court approval or review.
Comment by Gee
No, that’s not what he said. That’s what the ratbastardcommiemofos say. George said he spying on foriegn nationals. You say he is spying on US citizens. Let’s see, who to trust and believe, George or you. Humm….
January 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pm#86
Yeah, but remember what the administration’s reply was when his quote was pointed out?
Something like (and someone correct me if I am wrong)…
“At that time, the President was referring to wiretapping activity as provided by the Patriot Act.”
January 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pm#88 your pants are on fire, Adolf:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html
January 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pmwait…isn’t the CIA whistleblower saying that it is going beyond just foreign nationals? And I haven’t heard this clarification in all of Scotty’s contortions…I would think that would be the part they emphasize.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pmWe progressives are all wasting our key strokes on “laughableâ€,IRI and all the other inbred Bushites…
…they don’t believe for one minute that Bushiva is using this warrantless eavesdropping to spy on Al Qaeda/terrorists only…
Comment by big papa
I believe it. I see no advantage to using this as a ploy to spy wholesale on political enemies as they would certainly get caught at it. Berger got caught stealing secret papers that made the Donks look bad. Hillary got caught snooping through her enemies IRS files. Bill Clinton got caught using the IRS as attack dogs for personal and political revenge. Everybody gets caught if they cheat. I want the terrorists to get caught and I don’t GIVE A DAMN ABOUT SO CALLED RIGHTS OF FOREIGN NATIONALS. Whatever “rights” they have is what we decide they are. So STFU and get me a beer.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:40 pmwhere is the oversight, who’s policing the police ??
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hayden.html
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF
NSA DIRECTOR LT GEN MICHAEL V. HAYDEN, USAF
HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
12 April 2000
The National Security Agency (NSA) performs electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information for the military and policymakers. As the Director of Central Intelligence noted, NSA provides valuable intelligence to U.S. Government consumers on a wide range of issues of concern to all Americans, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are subject to strict regulation by statute1 and Executive Order2 due to the potential intrusiveness and the implications for the privacy of U.S. persons3 of these activities. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are also subject to oversight from multiple bodies within all three branches of the Government. These safeguards have ensured that NSA is operating within its legal authority.
….
Conclusion
In performing our mission, NSA constantly deals with information that must remain confidential so that we can continue to collect foreign intelligence information on various subjects that are of vital interest to the nation. Intelligence functions are of necessity conducted in secret, yet the principles of our democracy require an informed populace and public debate on national issues. The American people must be confident that the power they have entrusted to us is not being, and will not be, abused. These opposing principles–secrecy on one hand, and open debate on the other–can be reconciled successfully through rigorous oversight. The current oversight framework reconciles these principles. It serves as a needed check on what otherwise has the potential to be an intrusive system. The regulatory and oversight structure, in place now for nearly a quarter of a century, has ensured that the imperatives of national security are balanced with democratic values.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#92, Adolf, its the rights of US citizens that is the issue. Shall I call the firefighters for you?
January 26th, 2006 at 12:48 pmOh well, if you want to use your monkey brain to decide american politics, that’s your right. But I feel sorry for you, and your partisan friends.
Comment by RightPunch
So far my monkey brain has proven to be more evolved than yours. My guess it has to do with the drugs you take and the classes you skipped, but I could be wrong about that. I may just be genetically superior.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#95 – which police, the local and state, or the ‘coming soon to a street near your house’ Homeland Security Gestapo:
January 26th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#97 ah yes, back to that theme, Adolf?
“The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it.” – taken from a 1942 pamphlet distributed by the Nazi Race and Settlement Head Office entitled ‘Untermensch’”
January 26th, 2006 at 12:54 pm[...] And as Think Progress notes, there really is no defense coming out from the administration that meets even the basic requirements for truthiness or competence. What Americans really need is an honest administration to lead America forward. [...]
January 26th, 2006 at 12:58 pmCrazed Ranting. “Hillary will never sit in the White House!” Crazed Ranter runs off, screaming…. Gosh, well, she not only sat in the WH, she lived there for 8 years. I understand you meant as President, but facts is facts, dont’cha know? Poor thing….
January 26th, 2006 at 1:02 pm“Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain’s pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.”
“Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24find.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
January 26th, 2006 at 1:04 pm#96, and I also believe someone established yesterday that the 4th amendment also protects legal residents of the US too against warrantless searches.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pmTime these jokers stopped dancing and started doing the “Perp-Walk”
January 26th, 2006 at 1:09 pmIf these phone calls were being made to/from terrorists as the republican ‘partisans’ claim, why not arrest them? If we know they’re terrorists, then shouldn’t we just have their phones blocked and/or them arrested? Unless you mean ‘terrorist suspect’, in which case you’re saying that spying on americans is justified based on unfounded suspicions. Nice. How quickly the partisan brain is willing to disregard the freedoms and values they ‘claim’ to be fighting for on a hypothetical suspicion.
Poor babies, when you guys grow up and realize that we were nearly nuked and your parents and grandparents didn’t flinch. Then maybe you’ll remember to turn of that partisan brain and act like a courageous american who fights first and foremost for our civil liberties, and not for the right to bash a fellow american because you disagree with their skin color or ‘lifestyle’. Poor things, I feel so sorry for you.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pmMy favorite Bush-apologist defense in this whole NSA thing is the argument that it is too time-consuming to prepare warrant applications for the FISA Court within 72 hours. Powerline and Attorney General Gonzales keep whining about it (”You need lawyers! Someone has to certify it!”).
Yeah, right. Anyone buy that?
Consider:
In the 2000 election challenges, the Bush legal team was hastily thrown together. Yet somehow, time and time again, they were able to generate 50+ page legal briefs overnight for submission to various courts in D.C. and Florida, as well as accompanying affidavits, etc.
By contrast, a FISA warrant application requires the recitation of the facts that give rise to the need for a warrant (a page or two at most), and a few BOILERPLATE statements to the effect that “I certify that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge”. And a guy to run it up the street.
It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when properly motivated.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:33 pmSince we know already that the administration’s “interest” in civilian Americans suffices to warrant NSA collection of that person’s communications, beginning before the Oath of Office was administered (read the interviews with NSA personnel); since we see that Al Queda was never targeted during the first nine months of the program (if ever?); and since we have before us the example of the infiltration of the Quaker community; is it a reach to conclude that this administration believes it has the right to do as necessary to save us from ourselves? If left to our own devices, we might elect a democrat – or AT LEAST a Democrat – to some office!
January 26th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWatching Bushiva lie in that press conference today had to make everyone step back and say, “you know you gotta give it to this guy, he doesn’t waiver one bit.”
That line about “not knowing” Jack Abramoff really put him up there in the Liar’s Pantheon…
…with the greats like say…oh…Bob Hope in “Casanova’s Big Night”…
every time Bushiva’s lips moved during that press conference today all I could hear was…
“Phar-pha-phar-pha-pipick”…
January 26th, 2006 at 1:49 pmSomething else to ponder (as if we don’t have enough on our plates). This is a bit lengthy, so stay with me.
Quote:
He [Bush] also said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.” Any domestic calls, the president said, would go through the secretive FISA court.
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html)
Quote (from Gonzales):
But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 and there have been tremendous changes in technology since then. And what the folks at the NSA tell me is that we do not have the speed and the agility in all cases to deal with this new kind of threat under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that’s why we believe and the president believes that these authorities are necessary in order to effectively defend this country against another attack by al Qaeda.
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/gonzales/index.html)
Alrighty.
- I think we all agree that there is little doubt that there are terrorist cells here in the U.S.
- Which means that in all likelihood some of them are going to communicate in a way (e-mail, cell phone, etc.), within the U.S., that can be easily wiretapped.
- The administration has graciously pointed out to us that a call which is both placed and received in the U.S. is classified as a domestic call.
- These communications may involve plans for impending terrorist acts. (Cheney himself said the secret NSA program has saved “thousands of lives.”)
Question to ponder: If speed is such a crucial issue, prompting the administration to bypass FISA, why is this standard only being applied to international calls?
Does anyone else see a conflict in reasoning? Am I missing something here?
January 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm#88 he’s not just spying on foreign nationals in teh US. He’s spying on anyone here believed to be either an associate of Al Qaeda or have some other connection but at this point, quite frankly, I don’t give Monkey Boy any benefits of the doubt. He’s been shown to be full of shit so many times I don’t know why this would be any different. And spying on those dangerous Quakers? Oh yeah, gotta keep an eye on them and their fire-bombing asses. Them and the Amish-the ratbastards. And I’m sure many of you have seen how many cops they assign to oversee peaceful protests. I know here in southern Cali (hotbed of Al Qaeda, the IRA, Hamas, Algerian rebels, Catalan rebels, teh Judean People’s Front, the People’s Front of Judea (Life of Brian reference)) there are always cops out there, eying us suspiciously. They think they slick but they ain’t slick. They’re about as obvious as a big zit on your nose.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:02 pm#111 – I don’t think the Amish use phones, dude. Now there’s a group of Americans the NSA really needs to keep a watch over – they communicate in ways that just are not easy to snoop. Quick somebody call Chertoff – he’s missing out on a whole subculture of possible subversion. Are the Amish allowed to use TNT? Gunpowder?
January 26th, 2006 at 2:16 pm#97 ah yes, back to that theme, Adolf?
“The sub-human,
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
I certainly wouldn’t call anyone sub-human even after having read everything Charles Darwin ever wrote. But on the other hand if one is to “believe” in the evolutionary process one must believe in genetically advanced divisions (races) within homo sapiens. Certainly practical everyday experience shows us it’s true and the written history of humanity backs up that personal experience just as the fossil evidence backs up Darwinian Evolution when applied to the animal kingdom; and what are we if we are not animals?
Of course we mustn’t talk about it but we must believe it and since you first called me a monkey brain I guess you do. Of course you do because you’re smart enough to understand that we are not allowed to cherry pick just the facts we like, the ones that do not trample someone’s self esteem. In a scientific field as mature as this one we must take it all unless we can prove by scientific method that some exceptions apply, but so far not so good for the unenlightened lower orders, no?
Just don’t say out loud that complex organisms that evolved out of the slime into the shape of a man are not all evolved equally. That they are not endowed by the slime with certain unalienable rights. That just won’t do so repeat after me….Everyone has perfectly equal monkey brains.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:32 pmthe FISA law was written in 1978. We’re having the discussion in 2006. It’s a different world.
And FISA’s still an important tool. It’s an important tool, and we still use that tool.
But, also — and I looked. I said, “Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?” And people said, “It doesn’t work in order to be able do the job we expect to us do.”
Well, the constitiution must really be out of date. I guess old George thinks it is a nice tool as well and he will change it as he see’s fit. On the advice of his lawyers.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:33 pmIf the NSA knows that Al Queda is calling to the US, they must know where the calls originate from. So go get them where the calls originate. I thought we were fighting them over there so we didn’t have to fight them here. Or does Dubya have a different agenda for his newly acquired (stolen) powers?
January 26th, 2006 at 2:42 pmIt seems to be a given that there are terrorist cells operating in the United States.
Maybe there are. It seems there was one operating in full view of the FBI before 9/11.
But how many can we expect? One, two, maybe three?
How many warrants an hour do they need?
And yes, our government should get warrants and spy on people who may pose a terrorist threat. I want them to.
Getting warrants doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
It only seems to me that it would be a big deal if you don’t want to ever be subject to any oversight.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:12 pmCouple of questions, couple of comments.
Has anybody been able to figure out why?:
When Bush Inc is pinned down and asked about the scope of their spying without warrants, they say, “it was very narrow, focused and limited. Out going or incoming calls only”(international).
Yet, when questioned why they didn’t go through FISA, they say, “the magnitude of our PROGRAM would’ve been hindered by FISA”. What happened to narrow, focused and limited?
Comments later.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#113 actually it was Rightpunch who called you monkey brain, Adolf, I call you Adolf. He was a social Darwinist too wasn’t he?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pmI believe it. I see no advantage to using this as a ploy to spy wholesale on political enemies as they would certainly get caught at it.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 26, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Okay, I’ll give you a valid, perfectly logical explanation on why someone does something that someone else has already been caught doing – ego. They think the previous people were incompetent and that this time, they are will be smarter about it and will not get caught.
But – before you scoff, consider that the first 100 people arrested, tried, convicted and jailed for first degree murder hasn’t stopped the rest…
January 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pmSo far my monkey brain has proven to be more evolved than yours. My guess it has to do with the drugs you take and the classes you skipped, but I could be wrong about that. I may just be genetically superior.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 26, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
IRI, what the hell are you thinking? You’re gonna go to Hell for saying the word Evolution without saying ‘evil’ in the same sentance. RightPunch might forgive you, but will Baby Jesus?
(See how much easier it is to be an Atheist. No angry deities to fear…. no delusions… no effort at fabricating lies to cover previous lies… )
January 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmJust don’t say out loud that complex organisms that evolved out of the slime into the shape of a man are not all evolved equally.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 26, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
You never answered my question on the Intelligent Design of the human appendix… Why is that?
And you do know that you were once a single cell – you mother’s egg. And that in 9 months you evolved into a 7 to 10 pound fetus. And that in 18 years you evolved into an adult (physically anyway). Why then is it so hard to believe that ’slime’ evolved into broad and diverse lifeforms over the course of billions of years?
January 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pmSee how much easier it is to be an Atheist. No angry deities to fear…. no delusions… no effort at fabricating lies to cover previous lies… )
Comment by unbelievable
I’ve never done anything the easy way. But if an atheist is smart he fears as well. He fears other atheists. There is no greater monster on this earth than the man who thinks that there is no God and therefore nothing to fear but other men.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:39 pm#66
Shoot, I’d be happy if the Administration would let the FISA Court review the list. Give us some oversight — please.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pm#122: Oh, how wrong your are: we know Bungle to be a “God-fearing” man (or is that monkey?) yet we have nothing to fear BUT der Bungle. He is just SO certain that God is on his side, after all, that a little torture and a few lies and electoral fraud cannot undo the Salvation he expects for damning the rest of us.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:46 pmBut if an atheist is smart he fears as well. He fears other atheists. There is no greater monster on this earth than the man who thinks that there is no God and therefore nothing to fear but other men.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 26, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
Oh being an Atheist is hard. You know how many Christian crackpots make it so?
Atheists do not fear other Atheists. We fear people who base their life on fear. History has only produced a tiny fraction of blood-thirsty Atheists, and yet an ocean of violent Christians. The fact that 15% of the world’s population is Atheistic, while less than one percent is in jail should demonstrate how wrong you are.
I’m a vegan. I don’t eat animals.
I’m a pacifist. I don’t believe in war 99% of the time.
I’m a teacher. I make my living through education (using the mind to solve problems, not violence).
If this is how you define a monster, I don’t want to meet your definition of an angel…
January 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pmYou never answered my question on the Intelligent Design of the human appendix… Why is that?
Comment by unbelievable
Some questions have no answer in logic and I am trained to think problems through logically and critically, therefore no answer but faith. I don’t know why men need nipples or why women need a brain either. Some things are just too great for me.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:47 pmSome questions have no answer in logic and I am trained to think problems through logically and critically, therefore no answer but faith. I don’t know why men need nipples or why women need a brain either. Some things are just too great for me.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 26, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
This one has a very logical answer. It’s called Evolution. And unlike your invisible idol, it is visible in everything that exists.
Men don’t need nipples. They have them because all initial human life starts out female (your body is created from a female egg after all), and it’s not until later in development that the ‘button’ evolvedsinto gender specific genitalia. By then, the nipples (and mammories don’t continue to develop) Evolution? Yes. Intelligent Design? Nope.
Some things? I’d say about 90%… therfore that would be ‘most’
So whatever happened to your ‘cute Mexican’ in San Antonio?
January 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pm“Keep good relations with the monkeys.”
January 26th, 2006 at 4:00 pmGeorge Bush The Economist, June 12, 1999
What happened IRI… I thought you liked getting beaten up by girls?
January 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pm“There is no greater monster on this earth than the man who thinks that there is no God and therefore nothing to fear but other men.”
This is back to the religious theory that children are born evil and don’t learn right and wrong until they leanr about God.
I don’t buy it. People who don’t believe in your specific God aren’t all great and horrible monsters.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:18 pm“I’ve never done anything the easy way. But if an atheist is smart he fears as well. He fears other atheists. There is no greater monster on this earth than the man who thinks that there is no God and therefore nothing to fear but other men. I-RIGHT-I”
Morality doesn’t come from fear, it comes from compassion. As the Christian efforts in the crusades and Nazi holocausts demostrate, the ‘fear’ of god doesn’t prevent men from doing bad deeds, it excuses them for their evil. When you believe that God can forgive you of all of your evil, then who cares whether or not your fellow man does? When you have atheism, you are responsible for your own actions, your own forgiveness, and for the forgiveness of your fellow man – because that’s all you’ve got. It’s actually much more in relationship with yourself and society, and probably why athiests have much lower crime rates than those who identify as ‘christians’. I’d be happy to point you to the statistics, but as we’ve clearly established the ‘partisan’ and the ‘religious’ don’t engage the reason centers of the brain – so an active or intellectual dialog with you would certainly prove fruitless. But I forgive you for only being able to operate out of your monkey brain. It’s just a limitation of those who are weak of mind and partisan of spirit – and clearly something you have no active or conscious control over.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pmBut I forgive you for only being able to operate out of your monkey brain.
Comment by RightPunch — January 26, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
I think you just insulted monkeys…
Excellent post on the issue of morality that Christians claim to have a monopoly on. I do find that as an Atheist, I am more moral than I ever was as a Christian (who felt compelled and obligated to be ‘perfect’ and ’superior’). After all, it is human nature to want what you can’t have. By restricting what the Christians can and cannot do to a very narrow spectrum, it virtually ensures that more than most will not be voluntarily ‘moral’. IRI is a prime example.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:35 pmI would just like to say that it should be disturbing to those defending Bush , that the president has chose to leave these so called “known terrorists” on the street with only a wiretap to protect the American people.If they are in fact”known terrorists” then what the hell are they doing roaming the streets of America?It seem Bush HAS NOT done his job to secure the homeland if he is letting “known terrorists” live free.,,,,Try this again,, He KNOWS they are terrorists, He KNOWS enough about them to know their phone number,therefore He KNOWS where they are yet he is not smart enough to KNOW to remove “known terrorists” from society?I hear a lot of screaming on the right about how Bush MUST wiretap so we can be safe, but that is flat out bullshit..a wiretap is not a some kind of a gas bubble that makes terrorists un able to commit crimes ,rightie logic only works in comic books.Ask your boy king why he leaves these so called terrorists on your streets,leaving them with the ability to commit acts of terror.See if you find a answer in your talking points that will help your little afraid selves sleep tonight.Stop drinking the koolaide!
January 26th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThis is back to the religious theory that children are born evil and don’t learn right and wrong until they leanr about God.
Comment by Weaseldog — January 26, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Anyone who could consider an infant ‘evil’ has more pressing problems than his or her after-life situation…
As a teacher, I have seen hundreds of kids. They are most definitely born blank slates, which eventually become cluttered with the indocrination of their parents. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, kids from loving and generous families are loving and generous kids. Those from neglectful, angry families are themsleves angry and neglectful. No amount of learning about gods changes that.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pm#131, 132: You shame me: I thought to make the point that the man most to be feared is ALWAYS the man in league with God, but your clarity far exceeds that which I brought to the issue. Bungle and that whole clique put me so much in mind of Torquemada: some, true believers that no sin so great but to be expunged in sufficiently copious flow of (others’) blood; some, merely grasping the opportunity to enjoy infliction of pain and degradation (upon others, of course); and some, cynically caring not whither the conflict goes, so long as a few nuggets fall to their hand.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pmHistorically, I have never resolved in my mind the conflict among these motives in the actions of Torquemada, although I believe limitation of intellect bends Bungle personally toward true believer.
Excellent legal analysis, Judd.
January 26th, 2006 at 4:57 pmAgain, I ask…
When monitoring international communications and a need to act arises, the NSA needs to act with speed and agility not afforded by FISA.
When monitoring domestic communications, speed and agility are obviously no concern when we need to take action.
Why the difference?
January 26th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#2 You people (liberal Dems) are truly pathetic.
Gee, I dunno. I’d argue that someone who wants to sacrifice all of their constitutional rights to a lying moron could be described as “pathetic”.
Get a grip. The Prez didn’t spy on any domestic phone calls. They were all international calls between suspected Al-Quaeda operatives and whoever was calling them. Get a clue. First of all, you don’t know what they were, because they were warrantless. The judges didn’t get to look at them. All you’ve got is Bush’s word on it. Need I say more?
Even if it was illegal – which it wasn’t – isn’t this a good idea, anyway? Can you actually sit there and critize the NSA for spying on suspected terrorists? Ask yourselves that, and please, be honest.You know, a hell of a lot of Americans have given their lives to protect the freedoms we have today. If we wanted to let a king have absolute control over our lives, we’d have thrown in the towel a long time ago. I understand there are a lot of people in this country who are clueless about the Constitution and how our country was founded and all that boring history stuff, and I understand that it’s so much easier to vote Republican than to actually think about this stuff. But, if you’re going to believe everything that Bush says, could you just believe one thing that I’m going to tell you? If you give up these rights, you’ll never get them back without a revolution. If you let Bush do whatever he wants to because we’re “in a state of war”, we will always be in a state of war. Count on it.
Oh, and one more thing. Open your goddam eyes, would you?!
January 26th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#137 When monitoring international communications and a need to act arises, the NSA needs to act with speed and agility not afforded by FISA.
Gosh, that argument’s never been addressed before. How much more “speed and agility” do you need than ‘immediate’? For the benefit of those people who didn’t hear it the first zillion times it was said, here goes: FISA doesn’t require a warrant prior to eavesdropping. They have up to 72 hours (that’s three days) after the fact to get the warrant. If that’s too restrictive, then their motives are suspect. And the other thing that’s been repeated ad nauseum for a few weeks now, but somehow you missed it, is that out of 18,000 requests for warrants only 5 have been turned down.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pmConley,
I don’t think we’re saying different things at all… because it is the same thing – just phrased differently…
A few weeks ago, a troll complained about someone comparing Bush to Hitler. I countered with some general similarities to which he or she said “Can you give examples of Hitler’s theocratic statements?” Easy peasy… So I did.
The next comment was the same sentance, but with Bush instead of Hitler. I think he|she thought that I was cornered. I think I gave 5 quotes of his off a conservative website who found them to be acceptable.
Needless to say, I never heard further from the troll.
And I think that’s a standard example of the neo-conservative, Christian mentality. They believe God justifies their actions, and therefore will create some magic to make them win when defending his religion. These are the same people who thank god when they score a touch down or win an award for acting, singing, tap dance… all the while thinking they’d been blessed – but not the helpless victims of abuse, rape, and worse.
January 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pmTroll #2 .
January 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pmYes it is a good idea to tap the phone calls of terrorists IF you get the warrant either before OR AFTER the wiretap (within 72 hours) otherwise it is ILLEGAL. The FACT that Bush did not even try to get a warrant PROVES he is not just wiretapping “Terrists” he is wiretapping political enemy’s, peace groups, ordinary everyday people. He is DATA MINING otherwise he would hAVE SIMPLY GOTTEN THE NEEDED WARRANTS TO MAKE THE WIRETAPS LEGAL. So YOU ask yourself this,: If Bush is ILEGALLY wiretapping people with no ties to terrorists why? Lastly if he is caught in this lie what should his punnishment be? Should he be IMpeached for lying numerous times to YOU about why he made theses ILLEGAL (By definition) wiretaps?
Bush would like to think of the law as he thinks of senior citizens. When they get too old, they are disregarded, soon discarded.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:35 pmBenign neglect — don’t acknowledge them, don’t work with them, sooner than later, they will die.
First, ignore the law, then deny its effectiveness.
Ya know i wouldn’t mind the chimp doing this if he did it legally but of course he didn’t.Secondly if he was actually listening in on “terrists” i wouldn’t mind but hes not,he’s spying on Green Peace,PETA and a wide variety of “terrists” of this sort.Do you really think this guy wants the “Terrist”threat to end?Why would he want that when its all he’s got?If he really wanted to end it he would have went over and knocked the living snot out of the House of Saud,but no,he goes and picks a fight with the weakest kid on the block and now that weak kid is bloodying his stupid face all over the place.Please be realistic,he will never be serious about ending the “Terrist” threat,and if you think he is then you are as stupid as him,maybe even stupider if thats possible.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:41 pm#139
Jimb…
Hey, dude! I’m on your side! Did you bother to read the entire post? It was a short and sweet repeat of #110 which I posted earlier today.
My comments are in the context of what the Bush Administration is saying. What I am trying to do is point out what is one of many contradictions that I have not seen, well, pointed out.
Let me try again. Bush is saying he authorized the NSA to wiretap international communications without warrants because speed is of the essence in some situations, and they don’t have time to fool with FISA. But for domestic wiretapping, speed is apparently not any concern because, as Gonzo has said, they go through FISA.
Again, why is there a difference? Cell phones, satellite phones, e-mail, Web access — all of this can be used domestically or internationally. My inquiry is more or less directed towards those who support Bush’s secret plan. I’m interested to see what they say.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:58 pmi r i-look, you’re still here, whether you’re lurking or whether you’re just playing devil’s advocate for a cause you doubt and just need some more convincing. But come on over to our side. If you’re really interested enough in the country to spend most of a workday “arguing” (if we can call your arguments that) over an issue of importance, perhaps there’s still hope for you. Coz the Republican party couldn’t give to shits about you. And they’re going down; the snake has been cut off at the head and it’s obvious…you don’t wanna be the last rat clinging aboard a sinking ship do ya?
January 26th, 2006 at 10:54 pmI Laugh at you:
The last time I knew, William Saffire, an infamous New York columnist, wasn’t/isn’t a terrorist. He lives in the United States and yet a trace was placed on his home phone. A few weeks ago, he informed Tim Russert on Meet the Press that they even listened in on his wife’s phone conversation with her GYN…Saffire’s a true conservative if there ever was one. My guess is that he criticized Bush and/or his administration in one of his written pieces; it is a well known fact that this administration goes after anyone who dares to criticize them.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:57 pmBush is wiretapping everybody now, unless you are dirt poor Republicans in Kansas or other states with no importance > lol.
January 27th, 2006 at 1:29 amWhat happened IRI… I thought you liked getting beaten up by girls?
Comment by unbelievable
With me it really doesn’t matter if you think you’re on top. You’re still getting screwed. %)
http://patteran.typepad.com/patteran_pages/images/image0011_1.jpg
January 27th, 2006 at 9:55 amCoz the Republican party couldn’t give to shits about you.
Comment by tc
That’s bad. Just think how much less they care about semi-literate head banging non productive members of society like you? I think suicide or Kanaduh is your only way out.
January 27th, 2006 at 10:32 amJanuary 27th, 2006 at 11:08 am
IRI, This must be right up your alley, Right?
Comment by No Freedom!
Why do you say that?
January 27th, 2006 at 11:44 amI see no advantage to using this as a ploy to spy wholesale on political enemies as they would certainly get caught at it.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #92
Inoperable-Rectal-Infection,
Bushiva is doing everything he can to head these Feb. 6 and beyond Congressional hearings and calls for a Special Prosecutor to investigate this illegal wiretapping off at the pass, EXACTLY because he’s going to get caught having spied on his political enemies and dissident groups…
As for Clinton, if what they did was soooo illegal then why didn’t your Al cracker republiscum controlled congress choose to impeach him (her/them) on those charges, rather than the blue stained dress?
They sure as hell investigated everything from his eating habits to his bowel movement schedule…
…tell me where I can deliver that beer…
January 27th, 2006 at 1:08 pmBig Papa – your crudity reminds me of a cross section (note I did not say “cross-dressing”) between Joe Keg and RyaNNe. P.S. the NSA just called – put down that pizza…
January 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pm…tell me where I can deliver that beer…
Comment by big papa
Just get it cold and I’ll come over. That is as long as I can fly out of Hobby and you’ll do the airport p/u thing.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWith me it really doesn’t matter if you think you’re on top. You’re still getting screwed. %)
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 27, 2006 @ 9:55 am
Not by you. With the way you argue, the only thing you’re screwing is your own hand… As usual.
If it were all up to you, I’d still be a virgin.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pmIf it were all up to you, I’d still be a virgin.
Comment by unbelievable
So in other words you met someone with lower standards than mine????? I really don’t want to meet that guy.
January 27th, 2006 at 4:40 pmSo in other words you met someone with lower standards than mine????? I really don’t want to meet that guy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 27, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Only to those who consider Naval Academy and Harvard graduates inferior to you (hint: no one).
Your next Govenor: Kinky Freeman. hahahahaha…
January 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pmOnly to those who consider Naval Academy and Harvard graduates inferior to you (hint: no one).
Your next Govenor: Kinky Freeman. hahahahaha…
Comment by unbelievable
It’s unlikely you could attract a Naval cadet without a blue dress and decent smile and I know several Harvard alum I wouldn’t let shine my shoes but you go to far making fun of Kinky and Texas. I’d take Kinky any day over the stupid lying broad we had in here for awhile and Gov. Homo we have now. Kinky Rocks!
By the way, you tell on yourself by choosing to use academic flash and sizzle as a meter for a mate and a claim to class. Character is what counts and what keeps us together through think and thin. Oh well, it took me a long time to figure it out too. I went for brains and beauty when I should have looked for a good cook with dish pan hands.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:45 amBy the way, you tell on yourself by choosing to use academic flash and sizzle as a meter for a mate and a claim to class. Character is what counts and what keeps us together through think and thin. Oh well, it took me a long time to figure it out too. I went for brains and beauty when I should have looked for a good cook with dish pan hands.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 28, 2006 @ 11:45 am
People don’t get into the Naval Academy or Harvard without being exceptional. Other old boyfriends are also equally successful because they are the sort of men who only get that far because they had the character, intelligence and charisma that men like you don’t.
Just because you personally have never met an attractive, intelligent and interesting woman who thinks for herself doesn’t mean we don’t exist. In fact, we generally avoid men like you to begin with.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI went for brains and beauty when I should have looked for a good cook with dish pan hands.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 28, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Actually, men like you should go for a good golden retriever. It’s more your speed…
January 28th, 2006 at 1:08 pmActually, men like you should go for a good golden retriever. It’s more your speed…
Comment by unbelievable
I had both. Sure miss my dog.
January 29th, 2006 at 6:51 pmYour ex wife has your dog?
Maybe time for a new relationship, sans the woman.
All joking aside, only women with low self esteem are willing to be with a man who wants to be ‘in control’ of the relationship. Not all women cheat. I never thought it was respectful. If I wanted out, I ended the relationship before moving on. Not all women are gold-diggers. And not all are stupid. I will admit, I’ve known more men get burned in relationships than the other way around. And in all of the really bad situations, the woman was a trophy instead of a partner. I’m telling you – look for a best friend. Not beauty alone. And until then, you’ll do better of with a new dog… :)
January 30th, 2006 at 9:40 amYour ex wife has your dog?
Maybe time for a new relationship, sans the woman.
All joking aside, only women with low self esteem are willing to be with a man who wants to be ‘in control’ of the relationship
Comment by unbelievable
Men are NEVER in control of “the relationship” but, they’d better control the “ship”. A boat can have only one captain if it’s to go anywhere but in circles.
Yep, she got the dog. I thought about fighting it but two things stopped me. First, she took better care of the dog than I had either the time or the inclination to. Exercise twice a day, dog sitter when she was gone more than 24hrs, vet bill at the slightest sniffle or scratch and the damn dog (115 lbs of him) slept with her every night. Second, when I brought up the subject she went for the Winchester 12 gauge pump shotgun. (I’m not kidding) That pretty much cinched it for me. The dog was lucky to have her and I’m lucky to be alive and single. It worked out well for everyone.
January 30th, 2006 at 10:56 amMen are NEVER in control of “the relationship†but, they’d better control the “shipâ€. A boat can have only one captain if it’s to go anywhere but in circles.
The ’ship’ in relationship is not a reference to an actual boat, you know? No one should be at the helm of a relationship like it is a boat… it’s supposed to be about a partnership (again no reference to boats of any capacity), two people who love, respect and support one another as equals. More like a business than a ship.
What kind of dog?
January 30th, 2006 at 2:41 pmWhat kind of dog?
Comment by unbelievable
Did you see the link to the pic before they deleted it? WTF?
January 31st, 2006 at 9:41 am