BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional
BREAKING: Federal District Court Rules NSA Wiretapping Program Unconstitutional
Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
A separate federal district court in San Francisco had previously rejected the administration’s argument that the courts could not hear the case due to a “state secrets” privilege. The lawsuits have alleged that NSA program violated the First and Fourth Amendments, as well as a number of federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The defendants included AT&T and the federal government.
Check back for more updates.
UPDATE: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion HERE. She writes:
In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained.
UPDATE II: Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner blasts the decision as a “terrorist-friendly ruling.”
UPDATE III: A copy of the injunction HERE. It enjoins the administration from “directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program.”
UPDATE IV: White House Press Secretary Tony Snow: “We couldn’t disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Not if Chimp say’s it’s constitutional.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amThose damn liberal activist judges.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amWhat a surprise.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:58 amAnother victory for the Constitution.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:59 amI knew if this got to an honest judge that it would be ruled unconstitutional.
All the phone companies that went along with this are in deep doo-doo now.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:59 amGonzo and Chimpie will take it to the Supremes. They own them and they will give it the thumbs up.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmYou know what this means… another terror alert is on the way!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmI predict a berating of the judiciary from the Republicans and assorted Bush cultists along the lines of: “You can always count on the judiciary to make stupid rulings.”
Yeah, dem darn liberal activist judges… why do they insist on upholding the law? Who do they think they are anyway?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmYa think!?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI hope 300 Billion is enough punitive to teach these folks a lesson.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmI’m surprised at this ruling considering that after 9/11 all branches of your government seemed to acquiesce to the executive branch. Is it possible that the other branches of your government are beginning to wake up to the fact that George Bush has created a dictatorship all but its name
August 17th, 2006 at 12:04 pmwow, justice prevails.
now, how soon can we get the executive branch traitors of the constitution to make reparations for their actions?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:06 pmI bet blowhard Sean Hannity will be blowing a gasket on this one, today.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmSo… the Bush Cabal wasn’t able to influence all the judges they thought the could?
Hmmm… better get Darth Cheney and Alberto G. on the line and ask him to do some explaining…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm‘Bout Time!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmWonder what Rove and Cheney will pull outta their evil asses on this one.
(notice I didn’t even include chimpy since, well, he really doesn’t matter, never did)
Wake me up, I must be dreaming…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmNo. 6 said they will take it to the Supreme Court and will have this ruling overturned. I’m not so sure. Look at the way the SCOTUS ruled against the administration on the military tribunals thing. I’m not saying that it won’t be overturned, but I don’t think this is a slam dunk for the administration at the Supreme Court.
I agree with No. 7 that there will be another terror alert or something to pull the attention away from this. Count on it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pmI wonder how the Supremes will vote?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:09 pmOne more reason to conduct a legitimate investigation into the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program after the Dems win the House majority. The rubber stamp Republican controlled House is going to be exposed for the knowing co-conspirators they are.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#8 Gregor,
I agree. I expect to hear Republicans denounce the ruling while claiming that this ruling would endanger more American lives. (No rational explanation, BTW, for just how that would happen.) Then I expect to hear some of them say, “So what? Even if the program was unconstitutional, the President should still be allowed to do this under his ‘inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief’.” This will eventually lead into, “We just all have to accept that ‘in time of war’, there are certain provisions of the Constitution that just can’t be upheld, and we’re just going to have to get used to it.” Those Republicans are the authoritarians, and they must all be removed from political office.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pmI wonder how the Supremes will vote?
Comment by Mysterious Traveler
6-3. One Republican will vote with the two Democrats to make it look bipartisan.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWaiting for a Bushie to say, “Oh, we knew THAT! How about some NEWS?”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pmLegally speaking this wasn’t a close call. Unfortunately we have an executive branch that doesn’t care much for our legal system.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:14 pmNow THAT is something you would not see in a “islamofacist” state. And if the NeoCons had their way it would also be something you would never see in a “christofacist” state.
The spirit of America still stands.
However now the next move is the NeoCons. Will they stand up for American values or will they stand down with the likes of Al Qeada?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pmIndeed #18, i wonder too if #17 is on the money with his conclusion.
I hope SCOTUS wakes up to this executive power grab, however with the court stacked against our favor, we shall see.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmHey guess what? Forget another terror alert. Jon Benet Ramsey possible killer is stealing away all the headlines now. Ten years later.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWill this matter to the Bush administration? No. They’ll write this off as the work of traitorous activist judges. The erosion of our constitutional rights will continue.
http://www.harmoniousdissent.blogspot.com
Ken Lay to be cleared off his crimes? Yes, because he’s dead.
Only on Harmonious Dissent, the BRAND NEW blog from SSA
Plus, check out SSA’ new political blog Political Buzz
August 17th, 2006 at 12:16 pmhttp://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
Perfect timing!! The Ramsy murder case will get all of the press. No one will ever now.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmSNOW: We think that there are judges in the Federal District Court who are members of Al Qaeda. You know? Everytime the constitution is upheld, we are helping terrorists.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmIt will be overruled by the end of the news (sic) cycle.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBTW nice pic of Ops Bldgs 2A and 2B.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:20 pm[...] Some breaking news you may want to hear about… Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pmchimp decides what is and isn’t constitutional. if he decides to do it, it’s not illegal.
Send them all to jail!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pmDuh.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmWhere have the Democrats been on this issue?
When it goes to the Supreme Court and Bush loses again, Bush and Tony Snowjob will tell us that the court basically agreed with them. Then they’ll get their faithful lapdogs in Congress to try to pass a law that makes it legal to violate, ignore, and/or shred the Constitution.
For the benefit of all the profoundly dense righties out there, we need to repeat this one word loudly and frequently:
“Warrantless”
Warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless warrantless
Did you get that Mehlman? WARRANTLESS!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmHere comes Scalito to save the day.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIt’s not illegal if the President does it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmIt’s not immoral if the USA does it.
Blah blah blah…
The Supremes are onholiday and the next term does not start until Sept 25th.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmThey could resolve this by election time if they really struggled.
Now if this congress was not crooked, they would be drawing up articles of impeachment as we are discussing this. But with the Rubberstamp Republicans in control, it will not happen
Vote the Rubberstampers out!!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pmWhy does the Constitution hate our freedom?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:25 pmRegardless of what happens in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, regretably this decision will ultimately go down 5-4 at the SCOTUS.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:26 pmWhere have the Democrats been?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pmWhere have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
Where have the Democrats been?
The Democrats have been waiting for someone else to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong.
Where have the Democrats been?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmTerrorists wrote the Constitution. Just ask the British.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pm21: I’d go for 5-4 (or maybe 6-3) on the SCOTUS vote. Thing you have to keep in mind is that FISA is the bit of skin that the judicial branch has in the game. SCOTUS can de-value obeying and following due process of law at the peril of everything they’re supposed to be holding dear and sacred.
Scalia will probably dissent — he thinks people should trust the government. There’s an outside chance he might not, though, because he might have some respect for his post and be slightly irked that the White House doesn’t have enough legal council to know to change laws instead of breaking them.
Thomas will dissent — he lives in his own little freakish world.
Roberts will probably dissent — I suspect he also wants people to trust the government and will rule on that instead of anything related to common sense.
Alito may not dissent — he’s got a high bar for what it takes to break a law, but he’s most likely to be annoyed with the president for breaking a law instead of having it changed. His opinion will read something to the effect of “Dear Mr. Prez: I luvs u so very much, u is so cool, but wtf are you breaking laws? Just change them! Geez! Don’t you know any better?”
All others will be opposed, but they’re going to come back and in a second breath — probably 6-3 or 7-2 — absolve the corporations of blame for complying with the requests of the federal government. Allowing private corporations to share blame is bad for their stock price and bad for compliance with future federal government requests, legal or otherwise. Only a real due-process freak with SOX compliance crammed up their nether-regions would think that a private corporation really should’ve told the federal government to get stuffed.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pmI will NEVER let the Democrats EVER FORGET that they stayed silent on this.
And I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pm#43 – Where have the Democrats been?
Well, it appears that they have been pointing out that our Constitution is indeed in crisis. Where would you like them to be? Elsewhere, perhaps? Or maybe John Conyers isn’t a Dem any longer? What?
…Cafferty lays things out pretty well, describing my article on Bush Administration abuses, the failure of the GOP to perform its role as a check or balance on the executive, and the precarious situation these dangerous circumstances have left us in today.
[from: http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000518.htm ]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmLets say this slowly for all of our CON Friends who are going to have an F’IN conniption today about ACTIVIST JUDGES
WARRANTED WIRETAPPING OKAY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING NOT OKAY
GOT it CON morons !!!!!
IF you have a warrant which can be retoractive up to 72 hours prior, the President can wiretap potential terrorist suspects……
Fighting the war on terror does NOT mean we have to throw away the rule law that has existed in this country for ver 200 years……
We have faced threats before and followed the rule of law….
(And please, please dont give me the ‘faceless/nationless’ enemy arguement….b/c once you stop following certain aspects of our rule of law, any future suspects we capture will not be able to be properly and fully prosecuted under US law)
Got that Con Morons
August 17th, 2006 at 12:34 pmfrom #30 “BTW nice pic of Ops Bldgs 2A and 2B.”
Yeah, I was wondering about that picture. Shouldn’t there be a caption saying something like “This is a building which bears no resemblance to the NSA offices” or “Ample parking at Chuck E. Cheese.”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm#49 –
WARRANTED WIRETAPPING OKAY
WARANTLESS WIRETAPPING NOT OKAY
This is exactly the point!
Nice of the court to point this out. Again.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm#45 I am guessing that Alito, who worships executive power, will vote to reverse, and Roberts, who seems like the supreme legal technician, will vote to uphold.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmA proper well thought out ruling, but this Administration will just ignore it.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmEveryone knows the constitution is subversive and terrorist-friendly. Bush is just trying to save us from it.
To save the rest of the world too, apparently. At the tail end of a New York Times article we get:
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
It’s been 45 minutes and the trolls haven’t got thier talking points yet! Of course, we know what they will be.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:39 pm#46 – Yeah that will help. Good plan.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmA vote for candidates other than Democrats is a de facto vote for the Republican Nationalist Socialists.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSad sad sad. This court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSpying on Americans without oversight is UNacceptable.
Spying on anyone in the world without oversight is only acceptable for national security.
Spying on Americans without oversight is ALWAYS UNacceptable.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pmThis court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
Comment by Douglas G
San Francisco or Michigan?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmWayne Schneider,
I am afraid we’ve either been around neo-cons too long, or have become psychics.
The Republican excuses/non sequiturs you list, in that order, are what I’d expect too. They don’t seem to understand the concept of checks and balances.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:45 pm[...] –from Federal District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling issued today declaring the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional and ordering an immediate halt to it. In a similar recent case, a federal court in San Francisco bought the administration’s “state secrets” argument that the program was too sensitive to even be examined by the court, and dismissed the case. Judge Taylor, a federal district court judge in Detriot, was unmoved by such arguments. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 12:46 pmI hate to be sinical but what happens if Bush flips off the courts? Bush has said F U to the Congress, F U to the Constitution… what’s to stop him from saying F U to the Courts?
It’s not like Congress has a police arm that could arrest him. Its not like the Courts can either.
My fear is that Bush has been above the law for so long, I don’t have much hope this will change anything at all.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI’m sure George will try to attach a signing statement to the ruling…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:48 pmI’d love to see him fail to comply with this, can you say
“grounds for impeachment”?
Here is the NeoCon answer to this….
Remember Kaa the snake in Jungle Book?
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me
August 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pmShut your eyes and trust in me
#57
Sad sad sad. This court in San Francisco, has had most of it’s cases overturned. This will be another.
Wrong court. This is the one in Detroit.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pmKathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner blasts the decision as a “terrorist-friendly ruling.â€
The only people who really know what terrorists want is the terrorists themselves. So, it makes sense that people like Cheney and the crackpots over at NRO seemed to be so well versed.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pmSome might say that anyone who upholds the Constitution is a terrorist sympathizer.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pmNo Shit Assholes
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#60 Thanks, Gregor,
I was afraid it was just me. Looks like Ms Lopez has started the process. (”terrorist-friendly” is about the same as saying it would endanger American lives.) Let’s see if they spew out the rest, too.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pm#63 – I hate to be sinical but what happens if Bush flips off the courts? Bush has said F U to the Congress, F U to the Constitution… what’s to stop him from saying F U to the Courts?…
This is where Congress has the power to remove a sitting pResident.
If Dems win in November, look for several investigations into Bush Cabal wrong-doings. Followed by impeachment proceedings.
If ReichWingNuts retain power and control of Congress after November, then I seriously fear our country will never ever recover. Seriously. If we are this unfortunate, maybe Canada, France, or Italy might not be bad places to live afterall…
August 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#65 — That’s where that’s from? Siouxsie and the Banshees do a great version!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pmThis is good news.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pmLike there was EVER any doubt. The fascists live to obfuscate words and their meanings. If pretty obvious what the fourth Amendment says. But the neocons twist words to make it seem as if there is a contraversy where none exists, then rationalize their ILLEGAL behaviour based on their own made up contraversy. It’s nice to see the system work the way the founders intended.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmHere’s the injunction:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with Defendants, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (hereinafter “TSPâ€) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISAâ€) and Title III;
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DECLARED that the TSP violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ data-mining claim and is DENIED regarding Plaintiffs’ remaining claims;
“IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety.
“IT IS SO ORDERED.”
August 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm[...] What’s next? VP can’t shoot people in the face? link. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pmWayne Schneider,
Ms Lopez’ piece is right on cue: Although the headline reads “terrorist-friendly ruling”, it is actually a “he said, she said” type of comment. She never explains why, in her opinion, this is a “terrorist-friendly ruling”. I guess she expects her readers to take her word for it, or she thinks it is self-evident.
Someone has yet to explain to me why abiding the law and complying with the constitution are “terrorist-friendly” activities.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#73 The system will have worked when anyone who is responsible or complicit in criminal behavior (which includes any government employee — read “public servant” — who acts against the constitution) is properly punished. Until then, it is still just talk.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#74 – HOLY SHIT! That’s one hell of a strong injunction. Wow!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:01 pmIt’s curious….reading the comments, the only person trying to threadjack is DLC are frauds.
I figured this one would bring them out of the woodwork. Good job people.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmIt enjoins the administration from “directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program.â€
Jesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmI got ten bucks sez Tony Snow uses the phrase “activist judges” within the next twenty-four hours. Any takers?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe Free Republic has a thread on this for those of you with strong stomachs and a desire to hear the other side ranting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685330/posts
Its hard to read the free republic very long, there are some posters I never want to meet in person.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pmIf Dems win in November, look for several investigations into Bush Cabal wrong-doings. Followed by impeachment proceedings.
Of course, because the Dems hate Bush. That is their agenda if they win back the congress. There are going to be 2 years of non stop investigations. That’s all they got.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pmIts hard to read the free republic very long
Don’t like to have your views challenged?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pmJoementum:
In the lastest poll among likely voters in CT, Lieberman’s lead is 13 points.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pmCall it a short-lived legal battle in the war against the U.S. being waged by the Civil Liberties Mafia. I think they should drop the “A” and all pretext of being “American”. They no longer represent anything resembling America but instead seek out the fringe elements to strike down, muzzle, or curtail anything that might represent an American culture. They did the yeoman’s work in the 60s and 70s but since there aren’t that many civil liberties being violated they have invented new ones to protect. Imagine someone being offended by a cross at a military cemetery? How about Santa Claus (closet pedophile) showing up at a elementary school? Or a court house displaying what could be termed the first social laws ever? You know those horrible Ten Commandments? Don’t steal, lie, murder, or honor your parents! Oh the horror if people lived by those rules!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pmJesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Comment by Mr. Big
Wrong…
This means that FISA must be allowed into the INNER CIRCLE of trust so that we can “trust” BUT VERIFY the COEQUAL branches of government!
As the LEFT has been saying ALL ALONG … spy on the terrorists, but enforce “seperation of powers” which means sharing the power… and spying on Americans is GREAT power and it is never to be “entrusted” to a small circle of partisans.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm#82 – Its hard to read the free republic very long, there are some posters I never want to meet in person.
There are sooooo many folks on the Rabid Right who are in serious need of treatment.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm“This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.”
there was no plot to bomb the bridge. some idiot “terrorist”/patsy was going to try to cut the bridge down with a blowtorch.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pmUmmm.. would that be the Brooklyn Bridge “plot” that had no plan, no weapons, and no means? What proof is there that thie warrantless spying halted it (there is no such proof as the entire thing is so secret that only those personally “o.k.ayed” by Mr. Bush can know any details… tis true)), AND that the spying COULD NOT have been done by the legal means available? And “in part”? So, other (legal?) means were used? Were THOS means sufficient?
Mr. Big (troll), do you suggest, then, that whoever is prez has utter and unquestionable authority to do as he or she pleases in the name of “National Security”? Will you sing the exact same tune regardless of who is prez (say, Clinton? Lamont?), or are you just a Bush-loving partisan whose loyalty is not to the country, not to the constitution, but rather to a political party with an extremist theological ideology? Where is your loyalty? If the Prez has this authority, then you will defend it regardless WHO is prez, right?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pmThis means that FISA must be allowed into the INNER CIRCLE of trust so that we can “trust†BUT VERIFY the COEQUAL branches of government!
There isn’t enough time to fill out a 52 page warrant. These internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pm#87 – …As the LEFT has been saying ALL ALONG … spy on the terrorists, but enforce “seperation of powers†which means sharing the power… and spying on Americans is GREAT power and it is never to be “entrusted†to a small circle of partisans.
Exactly!
Which leads to an interesting point: Dems are the ONLY ones in this case who are trying to protect US citizens and their rights as granted by US law and the US Constitution.
Why do ReichWingNuts hate America?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pm#84
LOL
HAving your views challenged?? Good one. Here’s a summary to my last two visits to the FREE republic:
ME: I disagree
Them: if you don’t like it go to DU, you’re banned.
Freeperville is a joke.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmOf course, because the Dems hate Bush. That is their agenda if they win back the congress. There are going to be 2 years of non stop investigations. That’s all they got.
Comment by Mr. Big
Works for me. Of course, I don’t like the prick myself. Just like the Repugs hate Clinton. Same shit, pal, and its sauce for the goose, huh?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThe beauty of this ruling is you know Bush and Cheney won’t stop. The Dems take the House in November, the NSA and FBI whistleblowers who have been persecuted by the Neocons will be all too happy to turn on the Bush Crime family and testify Bush/Cheney continued the program despite the court order. Perfect impeachment.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmLiberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Why would following the law lead to the deaths of Americans? How does abiding the law weaken the hunt for terrorists?
It is a bad thing to allow the powers-that-be to break the law at will. You do realise that Republicans won’t be in the White House forever, don’t you?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pmin any case, this is great news for the rule of law and to show everyone how blatantly illegally the administration has been acting!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmWhat proof is there that thie warrantless spying halted it
This is from the New York Times: Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThere isn’t enough time to fill out a 52 page warrant. These internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
Comment by Mr. Big
This isnt the 1800s… we have these things called computers now… that excuse is a complete and embarressing joke. No reasonable business owner would accept that one… and the government works for us. So they DO have to explain themselves.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmLiberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Seems like following the law didn’t hinder the British from stopping terrorist plots one iota.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmAll the repulicans had was 6 years of non-stop investigations, so I don’t really see what your point is Mr. Big.
On topic, I think the real test will be, what decision the supreme court hands down. It maybe be closer then the white house would like. The SCOTUS, is not nearly as packed as the rapid right would like it to be.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#46
So you are blaming the Democrats for this? Dude, the Rupugs control both houses and the blocking votes on all commities. The democrats have held their own hearings, that the MSM has ignored.
So what are ya gonna do, vote Repug? lol
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmIt’s going to be overturned. The bottom line is, when the President ends up saying “National Security”, that’s where everything is going to come to a halt.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pmThese internatinal calls need to be tracked immediatly.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
I see you don’t know they have up to 72 hours to ask for a warrant after the wiretapping has started.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pmhonor your parents
Comment by Retired Republican Soldier
Show me in any law book where that is written into the laws of the US and you have my permission to put the commandments up in court. Oh also include the one about not worshipping other gods. I am sure that will be easy to find.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmWorks for me. Of course, I don’t like the prick myself. Just like the Repugs hate Clinton. Same shit, pal, and its sauce for the goose, huh?
Go for it. It’s just that voters are not going to like the Dem agenda of hating Bush and wanting to impeach him.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#105… it didn’t stop the court today, and in November I’m sure Conress won’t agree with Mr Bush and he and Dickie will be appropriately disenfranchised.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pm“big” – Taking a piss on the consitution out of hysterical ninny-fear was never a hallmark of Conservatives – what are you, exactly?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmThanks to the ACLU who brought the case against ATT and george’s co-conspirators.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmDems are the ONLY ones in this case who are trying to protect US citizens and their rights as granted by US law and the US Constitution.
Dems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmThe recent terrorist plot uncovered by the British demonstrates that 1) The terrorists are actively trying to kill Americans and (2) The British legal system is effective in detecting them. The NSA surveillance program has kept us attack-free for five years. If it is foolishly suspended by the ACLU action, the blood of the next attack, which will probably be nuclear, will be on the hands of the ACLU’s leadership, or what’s left of it, as NY and DC will be smoldering holes in the ground. ACLU will probably hold this second holocaust up a as “victory for the constitution”, as their wish for civil liberties martyrdom seems to match the terrorist death wish.
Those of you who see this as a victory are lambs headed for the slaughter. You have displaced your fear and hate from Al Qaeda, your real enemy, to your protecters, the Bush Administration and your own government. You are pathetic fools. Let’s hope you don’t get what you deserve, as fallout doesn’t differentiate red states from blue.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pm101: What “officials”? Who are they? Unless identified, this is hearsay. If they speak FOR rhe administration, and in defense of the program, they CAN have a name and a face to verify their credibility. Do they just happen to be NSA officials, who have a desire or political need to support unconstitutional activity?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmThe stupid part of this whole thing is all this NSA activity, remember the FBI said that they are getting THOUSANDS of referrals to investigate and turned up NOTHING doesn’t help keep Americans safer. It does however allow the republofascists to blackmail their political opponents and that’s why they are SO desperate to continue.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmFreeperville is a joke.
I don’t care for it either. I like to have my views challenged. Agreeing with each other really doesn’t go anywhere.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pm#113
I’m glad Mr. Big isn’t one of them who believes innocent before proven guilty.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm#96 – The beauty of this ruling is you know Bush and Cheney won’t stop. The Dems take the House in November, the NSA and FBI whistleblowers who have been persecuted by the Neocons will be all too happy to turn on the Bush Crime family and testify Bush/Cheney continued the program despite the court order. Perfect impeachment.
Precisely!
And EVERYONE knows that an impeachment of the Bush Cabal would be done for ALL the RIGHT REASONS!!! They have committed incredible crimes on, oh, so so many levels! Which is what impeachment must be used for!!!
None of this silly “… oh, he got a blowjob and defiled the sanctity of the WhiteHouse…” That’s NO reason for impeachment. It took small Republican balls to push that one through Congress.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pmI wonder why the injunction didn’t include the phrase
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm“Stop that Shit”??
Now you don’t care for it?
Make up your mind, either your ‘having your views challenged’ or you’re being banned for not being a sheep.
It doesn’t work both ways there.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#80? Prevented the bombing of the brooklyn bridge? Not hardly, the warrentless search program had ntohing to do with the brooklyn bridge plot, and it was guys who wanted to take the bridge apart withg blow torches, not bombs. Ultimately if they succeded it would have been because the thousands who cross the bridge hourly would have missed the guys with blow torches disassembling the bridge for a period od months or even years. Get a better example.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmWhat these bushies fail to understand is this court ruling does not mean that the US government has to stop wire tapping for national security. It means they have to start doing lawfully. That’s why the terrorists hate us remember. We have laws that we follow. Oh I see the bushies are so chicken shit anti-american that they would rather get rid of our laws and appease the terrorists than be the great nation we could be.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#80
Jesus I hope there isn’t another attack. If so, this judge appointed by Jimmy Carter is going to have blood on her hands, no? Liberals would weaken the tools needed to go after the terrorists. This NSA program in part prevented the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge.
Awright! Way to step up to the plate, Mr. Big!
Would it have made a difference if the judge had been one of the many judges appointed by a Republican president who have ruled against Bush in the past few years? Of course not. It makes no difference to righties. You’d throw them over the side anyway.
Do you know what “warrantless” means? “Liberals” are against warrantless wiretapping. Warrantless wiretapping is the same as warranted, except that the administration can keep it a secret from the FISA judges who they’re wiretapping. No oversight. Do you follow what I’m saying? Warranted wiretapping, NSA program = good. Warrantless wiretapping, Bush version of NSA program = bad.
“Bombing of Brooklyn Bridge”? I think you mean that nefarious plot by a mentally ill trucker to try to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. That’s the best they can point to as a success of the NSA surveillance? And did the NSA submit warrants to FISA for that, or not?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmThis isnt the 1800s… we have these things called computers now… that excuse is a complete and embarressing joke.
Filling out a 52 page warrant is a painstaking and time consuming process. These calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pm#114 – the lack of the NSA program kept us safe since WW II until 9-11, so I guess we don’t need the NSA program. The fact that we haven’t been attacked again is NOT PROOF the NSA program works as illustrated above. It is a logical fallacy to make that arguement.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmDems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
Comment by Mr. Big
Says who?
Trust in me, just in me
Shut your eyes and trust in me
You can sleep safe and sound
Knowing I am around
Slip into silent slumber
Sail on a silver mist
Slowly and surely your senses
Will cease to resist
Trust in me, just in me
August 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pmShut your eyes and trust in me
I see you don’t know they have up to 72 hours to ask for a warrant after the wiretapping has started.
That’s meaningless. There are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda. It would take a century to fill out all of those warrants.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pmHere’s how freepers challenge your views:
To: neverdem
Send her to Iraq and leave her in the street. See how they respect her “right to privacy” and even more her right to life! What a doofus!
60 posted on 08/17/2006 10:19:46 AM PDT by pepperdog
and here I was, thinking Iraq was safe.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmYeah, terrorist-friendly, in the way that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and James Madison were terrorist-friendly.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pmFilling out a 52 page warrant is a painstaking and time consuming process. These calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big
And I write software for a living … and there is this thing called logging you can do that records all your actions… and that can be submited to the FISA up to 3 days after the logging of the actions occured… and I am sure (since congress said it was true) that all the “unitary executive” had to do was come to congress to get the FISA law adjusted to accomidate the war on terror… BUT the NeoCons did NOT… which means they have something to hide…. that is NOT “trust but verify” ….
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pm#114 Terry, Your cowering like a bushpig. Stand up and defend your Constitution, weakling.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI see the trolls are raining down. Took longer than I figured.
Why don’t you IGNORE them? trying to discuss or argue with them is like fighting the wind. They don’t acknowledge when they are plainly wrong or lying, so where does it get you. Pass over them & just reat the next post.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThat’s meaningless. There are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda. It would take a century to fill out all of those warrants.
Biggest load of hooey I’ve ever heard. If there are “thousnads of terrorists” it’s too late. And you can start recording anythin and send a computer request to the court within 2 weeks. FISA approves almost everything. Load of crap.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThere are thousands of calls being tracked by people associated with al qaeda.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
How do you know how many there are?
Fact, links, evidence?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm#113 – Dems are upholding the rights of cizitens who are plotting and planning with al qaeda. This is what these international calls track.
I call BullShit!
Show your evidence. Fool.
We’re NOT talking international calls. We’re talking domestic communications. Dude. That IS INDEED illegal.
And the reason it is illegal is that some Replublican pResident took it upon himself to do seriously unreasonable things by our Civil Liberties.
Besides, your argument is a non-argument. Nothing prevents the CIA, NSA, FBI or any other US agency from doing it’s job.
Got Osama? I thought not. Fool.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmThe fascists want to record political opponents and blackmail them, and the salient point is YOU CAN’T BREAK THE LAW because YOU think it’s a good idea.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmJoementum:
In the lastest poll among likely voters in CT, Lieberman’s lead is 13 points.
Comment by Mr. Big
Lets hope you are right, Big. The polls also note that over 2/3′rds of voters voted AGAINST Lieberman in protest, and only about 35 percent voted FOR Lamont. Of course they would vote for Lieberman and put an independant in office instead of crossing over to vote for the Repugnican candidate.
I hope your moniker refers to your penis size and not your brain size, because history notes Joe would still vote with the Democrats 90 (NINTY) percent of the time so don’t start celebrating just yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmSeems like following the law didn’t hinder the British from stopping terrorist plots one iota.
The NSA assisted the British in foiling that plot.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThe emergency authorization provision of title III wiretaps, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2518(7), sets a deadline of 48-hours, and starts the 48-hour clock not at the time of authorization, but only once the interception `has occurred, or begins to occur.’
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp107&sid=cp107a7blf&refer=&r_n=hr328.107&item=&sel=TOC_64493&
If you can’t fill out a request for wiretap (warrant) within 48 hours of intercepting the designated call, YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING FOR THE NSA. YOU’RE FIRED.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#146 that’s a bigger load of crap. The British are really pissed geogie boy took any credit for something he had nothing to do with. See the deputy PM of Britian’s recent assessment of Mr Chimpboy.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#146
August 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThey had a warrant, shitless, dope.
Sorry tom #114, Terry nugent “red type” #117, back to your hole fella!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:27 pmThese calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big
Yeah, they move fast now. I heard that phone conversations moved slower a decade ago. Heeeeeellllllllllloooooooooo, hhhhhooooowwwwwww aaaarrreeeeee yyyooooouuuu.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:28 pm“The NSA surveillance program has kept us attack-free for five years.”
Opinion, not fact. They have so much information that they are WAY behind in just sorting through it… and this is because IT DOES NOT JUST TARGET INTERNATIONAL CALLS WITH KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. There has been no proof that this program halted ANY attack of any kind: there is only the hearsay of GOP paid media and people like you who disseminate disinformation who claim, vaguely, that somehow the program is useful, necessary, is not used for other purposes (like partisan political profiling), is not abused, and only involves known or suspected terrorists, and yet cannot supply any proof (the Brooklyn Bridge scare? PUULEEEZE! Got any others?). Why do you and your ilk fear oversight? Explain WHY oversight of ANY government program of any kind is a bad thing. Unless, of course, you feel that you are a servant to the government and not the other way around.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmnothing but lame excuses from “big” and the trolls, and their heroes. excuse-making is a sure sign of weakness and failure – always has been – just ask a real conservative
August 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmHow do you know how many there are?
Fact, links, evidence?
I believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest, try, and convict the people involved with the first WTC attack without the NSA getting into my personal phone calls. Oh how could we possibly stop terrorism with the NSA breaking the law? ROTFL.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:32 pmThese calls are being made fast, on different phones internatially. By the time the warrant is filled out, there would be no lead there.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
It doesn’t matter if the calls are made from different devices: FISA authorises “roaming” wiretaps, so it is the person who is tapped, not a specific phone.
And they still ahve 72 hours after the wiretapping has started to file for a warrant. They really have no excuse to not follow the law.
If the law is obsolete, a new one needs to be crafted. Nobody should be allowed to do as they please simply because the law is “too old”.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmWe’re NOT talking international calls. We’re talking domestic communications. Dude. That IS INDEED illegal.
These are not domestic calls. One part of the conversation has to be outside the country, which these are.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmThe NSA assisted the British in foiling that plot.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
The Bush administration already admitted they participation was minimal.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pmLets hope you are right, Big. The polls also note that over 2/3′rds of voters voted AGAINST Lieberman in protest, and only about 35 percent voted FOR Lamont.
The libs said that polls would show Lamont with the lead after his primary win. Bob Shrum said it on MSNBC. The opposite has happened. Lieberman’s lead has only been growing.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:36 pm“big” can you ever stop with the equivocating and prevaricating?? do you drive your car diagonally down the street? is one leg shorter than the other, such that you stand at a pronounced slant, because i’ve yet to see you take anything straight-on – you’re as pathetic as Clinon with his “meaning of “is”" answer – are you proud of that?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#140 kindness
But it is amusing, in a sick way, to torment the trolls.
Really, though, it has been my observation that even the worst of the trolls can stimulate useful, insightful, and interesting (and sometimes amusing) conversation by their comments. There are a couple who seem to actually have brain cells that haven’t been killed by the alcohol, cocaine, and whatever pain pills they happen to be on.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pmI believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
Because as we all know, all 5000 of those calls came in on the same day, and the US Government only has one employee that knows how to fill out a warrant. /sarcasm
What happened to the strong conservatives? I wish these right wing bed-wetters would stop using the Constitution as their diaper.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmI believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
Comment by Mr. Big
Just as I thought. Mr. Big has a small brain and an even smaller winkie. They can cut orders for thousands of National Guardsmen to be mobilized, deploy a division of 35,000 troops and all their equipment overnight toward a combat zone, and allow the oil companies to skim billions out of the taxpayers pockets, and yet can’t fill out the paperwork for a few thousand warrents?
You have a very small arguement there, Mr. Big.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#156
I believe the New York Times reported that there have been 5000 calls tracked between associates of al qaeda internatially. It would take forever to fill out all of those warrants.
How many people are working on it? How many leads per hour are they trying to follow? How many warrants per day would they have to write and have approved? If it takes that long to write warrants because there are so many lines to tap, how could they possibly have time to actually monitor all those calls? Do you have any idea or you just blowing smoke, as usual?
I mean, how many al Qaeda members are they trying to monitor? Thousands? Holy crap, al Qaeda’s really grown in the past few years. Recruiting must be going great for them.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmPoor trollies! The best they can do is wave around a dodgy Q-poll. I didn’t believe the Q-poll when it had Lamont up by a bajillion before the primary election, and I don’t believe it now. The internal polls are much more accurate, and none have been done (or been publicly released) yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmAnd they still ahve 72 hours after the wiretapping has started to file for a warrant.
This is what Powerline had to say on it:
If it takes “days, sometimes weeks” to assemble a FISA application, then 72 hours is not long enough to be confident the process can be completed. Anyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I’m afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmNot hardly, the warrentless search program had ntohing to do with the brooklyn bridge plot
Oh, really? What is your source for that, Mary Poppins?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pm#176, as I recall it says you have to submit the forms, it doesn’t say they have to be approved within 72 hours, another lie?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest
Clinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:49 pm“This is what Powerline had to say on it: ”
LOL
Yeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmrepublican agents of misinformation and propaganda will be working overtime in the leadup to elections.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmBecause as we all know, all 5000 of those calls came in on the same day, and the US Government only has one employee that knows how to fill out a warrant.
Still, if warrants were filled out for all of those 5000 international calls, there would be as many warrants filled out since 2002. It would be a whopping amount of warrants needed.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmMr. Big:
1) You do realize that the NSA assistance provided to the Brits in the recent terrorist plot did involve the granting of warrants…something that the Bush administration claimed up to that point couldn’t be accomplished. “Not enough time.”
2) I do believe the NSA wiretapping program does involve domestic-to-domestic calls as well as domestic-to-international calls. Here’s the catch:
Bush says that we don’t have time to get warrants for calls that involve an international aspect. Hence his order that the NSA bypass the FISA court.
However, for purely domestic calls, Bush has said he will go to the FISA court and get a warrant.
Question: why is speed so important on a call coming into the U.S., but apparently a purely domestic call from one terrorist to another is not?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmAnyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I’m afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
Comment by Mr. Big
I take it, you are saying the Administration needs to get its shit together and start trying to streamline the system instead of trying to bend or break it. Their party does, afterall, control all three branches of government and has no excuse for not doing so, don’t you agree?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmThis is my fav quote from freerepub:
“Yeah. Sure. Some pissant lib judge is gonna tell the NSA…….THE National Security Agency…..to just ’stop’ and by golly, by gosh they’ll just do that pronto, eh?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.”
This enlightened poster is obviously very well versed in the Constitution and how our goverement works.
Of course they are also touting about how she’s a Carter appointee and are trying to dig up dirt on her in preparation for the full frontal Swiftboating, probably starting now but will begin in earnest with the late afternoon Faux shows.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmClinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
And the section he quotes is the FISA standard. So you’re lying.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pmComment by Mr. Big
Logging… computers… the lawyers can argue amongst themselves all the want… but as long as the logs are sitting safely locked away from human touch then they can go about their normal busissness as they always have…. a few nips and tucks here and there in FISA and it would be clean and verified…. this is NOT the 1800s…
August 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmYeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
They are three experienced trial attorneys.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pmIf it takes “days, sometimes weeks†to assemble a FISA application[...]
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
And yet, nobody complained about it before. It worked well before the “war on terror” was unleashed on the world.
Again -if laws have not kept up with the times, the reasonable approach is to update them, not to ignore them and give the Executive a blank check to do whatever they see fit.
What you are arguing is that Americans should allow the president to uphold or ignore whatever laws he decides. Fact is, the president cannot make that determination.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:54 pmClinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big
Yep he sure did. And now because of his working with congress it is now illegal to do so without following specific guidelines that are part of the FISA law.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#192
Yeah, powerline, they’d never lie.
They are three experienced trial attorneys.
Comment by Mr. Big
——————————————–
Thanks for agreeing with me.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:55 pmYou do realize that the NSA assistance provided to the Brits in the recent terrorist plot did involve the granting of warrants
NSA supplied intel to the Brits.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pmSeems like Bill Clinton was able to stop the Millenium Bomb plot and arrest
Clinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
Again, this shows you are just plain lying and spouting bullcrap republican talking points.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pmClinton ordered a warrantless search of Aldrich Ames’ home. Because there wasn’t enough time. He was about to flee the country, Clinton thought.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
I admit I may be wrong, but my understanding was that he got the warrant after the fact and within the 72-hour window in accordance with the FISA law.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:56 pm#181 Are you sure that a warrant was not filed, as with the 72 hour FISA law?
Better still is the logic you use. I did not know that Clinton was THE role model by which all of our executive actions should be judged. You respect Clinton that much that you use him as a yardstick for acceptable and unacceptable behavior? I hope you’re not married, else your spouse may need to start monitoring YOUR behavior…
August 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pma few nips and tucks here and there in FISA and it would be clean and verified
As Powerline said, a FISA application can take days to weeks to prepare.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pmG-dub seems to have a woman problem.
They keep kicking his ass !
He knew this was coming so he went out and had pictures taken with a Harley?? WTF?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pmMr Big drew the short straw for troll of the day on this subject. Here’s a reminder of the score to date Mr. Big:
Constitution = 2 (Gitmo trials, Wiretaps)
King George = 0
Your boy is probably in an a tirade about now.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmIf it takes “days, sometimes weeks†to assemble a FISA application, then 72 hours is not long enough to be confident the process can be completed. Anyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I’m afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Then why the hell does the government run to FISA for calls originating and ending in the U.S.?
August 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmMR BIG
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.†That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
So you are a fascist troll spouting the party LIE regardless of the facts!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmBetter still is the logic you use. I did not know that Clinton was THE role model by which all of our executive actions should be judged.
Nevetheless, when Clinton needed to do a search fast of the home of Aldrich Ames, he didn’t get a warrant.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pmNSA supplied intel to the Brits.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
And the intel involved at least 2 calls coming in to the U.S. from the suspected terrorists. And let me put it in bold, because obviously you cannot f*cking read:
The NSA requested, and was granted, warrants for the wiretapping they conducted.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#205, you are A LIAR! See post #204, that’s the FISA standard Clinton signed. You are just lying.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:01 pmAs Powerline said, a FISA application can take days to weeks to prepare.
Comment by Mr. Big
And as CONGRESS said all the “unitary executive” had to do was go to congress to change in FISA how they can verify their actions…. and that would have allowed the exact verificatoin system that has been suggested. The NeoCons refused…. they are hiding something. There is no other reason outside of …. ego…. >-) … that would make them act that way.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:01 pmit doesn’t say they have to be approved within 72 hours
Again this backs up my point that it takes too long. Wating more than 72 hours for the freakin warrant to be approved is no good. The lead would have dried up by then. Why not just call the terrorist and give him a head’s up?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pmNevetheless, when Clinton needed to do a search fast of the home of Aldrich Ames, he didn’t get a warrant.
Comment by Mr. Big
Then get a warrant AFTER THE FACT up to 72 ours? 48 hours… whatever…
August 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pm#208 – …The NeoCons refused…. they are hiding something. There is no other reason outside of …. ego…. >-) … that would make them act that way.
I think it’s much more than ego that makes NeoKons act they way they have.
I’ll put money on future revelations about how the Bush Cabal used NSA gathered data against their political opponents.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmThen get a warrant AFTER THE FACT up to 72 ours? 48 hours… whatever…
It takes days or weeks to properly prepare a FISA application, according to Powerline.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:06 pm#205 So, it appears that Clinton DID get the warrant, as per law — do you think the Republicans who wanted to hang him over some hanky-panky in the WHite House would allow him a free pass on an unconstitutional search. Wake up, little boy.
And you substantiate my statement: you hold Clinton up as THE role model of American presidency. That is YOUR argument: Clinton did it (even though he didn’t), therefore it is ok to kind of do something more like that (just on a grander scale). i don’t care if George Washington did it! We have these things called “lwas”, and they are written down. If they become outdated, they are changed (or need to be) — but NO ONE can just ignore or break a law. Even if presidents in the past DID. THAT DOES NOT MATTER. Our legal system is not a “higgledy-piggledy the sky is falling” we’ll just create them as we go, someone did something kind of like this before so its o.k. The laws are written down. You follow them, or you are a criminal. period.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:07 pmMR Little Brain
You better reread the Fisa laws, your arguments are way off and showing your ignorance.
I say this is the first volley, the beginning of the end of Bushco’s Empire Building asperations. If he ignores the courts, the House has a constitutional commitment to draw articles of impeachment. If they do not, they are violating their oath of office as well.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmSo, it appears that Clinton DID get the warrant, as per law
No, he certaintly didn’t. According to National Review:
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.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmWating more than 72 hours for the freakin warrant to be approved is no good. The lead would have dried up by then. Why not just call the terrorist and give him a head’s up?
Comment by Mr. Big
You have a small point, Mr. Big. But a bigger point is why Bushco has wasted YEARS to fix the problem, ie, more personnel for paperwork, a special judge in place for secret wiretaps, perhaps some congressional oversight or a bill slipped thru congress that would allow it. We are, afterall, talking about violating the basic rights of American citizens.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:11 pmWho is this powerline that Mr. Big is quoting?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:12 pmAlso when Aldrich Ames house was searched FISA did not cover physical searches, so Clinton’s actions were legal
It takes days or weeks to properly prepare a FISA application, according to Powerline.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
First, I do not believe Powerline to be a relilable source for factual information.
Second, this statement makes nosense. If it really does take “days or weeks to properly prepare a FISA application,” then why in all these years have they not amended the FISA law to allow up to “days or weeks” to file? Apparently the three days given is adequate for most honorable purposes or FISA would have been changed long ago.
So what you’re saying here doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pmmore personnel for paperwork, a special judge in place for secret wiretaps
Beaurocratic red tape.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pm[...] Breaking news: A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmMr. Big — i really don’t care whether or not Clinton got a warrant. It has NOTHING to do with the NSA program. Care to address the fact that Clinton IS your role model for presidential behavior? Like I said… your spouse may hire a PI soon to watch you, you Clinton-Lover. The rest of the nation does not think that Clinton sets all presidential precedent. You apparently do. I can see where you’re problem is….
August 17th, 2006 at 2:18 pmthen why in all these years have they not amended the FISA law to allow up to “days or weeks†to file?
That’s a good point. Congress should look into that. But as is it right now, 72 hours doesn’t cut it in the fast paced world of international terrorist communications. It takes days, sometimes weeks to properly prepare a FISA application.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:18 pm#200
As Powerline said, a FISA application can take days to weeks to prepare.
Powerline’s full of crap. They flat out lie whenever it helps their case. It doesn’t take that long to prepare. It takes much less than the 72 hours the NSA is given to prepare it after the fact. AND, the FISA judges are available at all hours of the night and day to approve it. There’s no hold up.
You can tell Powerline’s AssRocket to stick it.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pmMr. Big — i really don’t care whether or not Clinton got a warrant. It has NOTHING to do with the NSA program.
It’s a precedent of “inherrent authority” granted to the President. Clinton used it and argued for it.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pmSecond, this statement makes nosense.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Wayne, correct me if I’m wrong, and I really mean that line, how hard would it be for the President of the United States to set in place a special judge with a few legal clerks from the FBI that could handle and move the applications for sensitive wiretaps in a timely manner? I say, not very damned long!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:20 pmI’m sure, because somebody with the name of chipeach has to be an authority on federal law.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#277 – Bluedog49, don’t confuse Mr. Big with the facts! He knows what he knows, and damn anyone who tells him the truth!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pmMr Big #215, so you lied that Clinton violated FISA law -
When Gorelick testified before the House Intelligence Committee in 1994 that the president had the “inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches,” FISA did not apply to physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, as Media Matters for America has noted. A year later, Congress — with Clinton’s support — amended FISA to require court orders for physical searches. The Clinton administration thereafter never argued that any “inherent authority” pre-empted the new warrant requirements for physical searches under FISA.
Admit it you parroted the right wing talking points and got caught not knowing what the hell you’re talking about hoping to bluster your way thru with bullcrap.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pmYou say National Review says otherwise.
National Review is correct. Clinton ordered a warrantless seach of the home of Aldrech Ames. This is a fact.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmIt takes days, sometimes weeks to properly prepare a FISA application.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Even if this is true, nobody should be allowed to ignore the law.
As it stands right now wiretaps require a warrant. And they will be until that law is changed.
Your argument “I know it’s the law but it’s too cumbersome to comply with” makes no sense.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmCome on. Mr. Big (and any other troll). Answer the question. Why is speed so important in a domestic-to-international call, yet it’s of no concern on a purely domestic call?
For your reading pleasure, from the mouths of your heroes in government:
George Bush:
Alberto Gonzales:
From CNN.com:
August 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
yep, republicans broke the law – and the constitution.
traitors to america.
what is the penalty for traitors?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:25 pmIn another life – I SWEAR to GOD, these bush loyalists would have PLEDGED ALLEGIANCE TO HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:26 pmMr. Big guy, after reading these posts all I see from you is a circular whiner. Bill Clinton, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion, red tape, days or weeks, Bill Clintion.
You better get up to speed in this decade before it passes you by.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:27 pmIs there any penalty that would be punishment enough for this treasonous bunch of traitors to the United States? They do not regret their actions, so I do very much hope that’s taken into account when they are tried for their crimes against humanity. The Bush/rethuglican house of cards is crumbling quickly.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pm[...] Via atrios comes news that a federal judge ruled the NSA domestic spying program unconstitutional. So, chalk one up to the good guys in the “Preserving Freedom in America vs. Fearmongering” fight: Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pmEven if this is true, nobody should be allowed to ignore the law.
Federal law can’t override the President’s constitutional powers.
Jamie Gorelick, talked about the “inherrent authority” that Clinton had.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#238
And Mr. Big still will not acknowledge that the intel that the NSA collected on 2 calls coming in to the U.S. from overseas, and shared with the Brits, was collected with warrants requested and approved via the FISA court.
Remember…Bush said we couldn’t do this. Not enough time.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmI think it’s much more than ego that makes NeoKons act they way they have.
I’ll put money on future revelations about how the Bush Cabal used NSA gathered data against their political opponents.
Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR
Remember the NeoCons swore up and down that Saddam had WMDs… and apparently it was just Saddams EGOMDs … Saddam held onto his ego to the very end rather than proving that he was no threat… dumb move really…
But that is why this whole neocon caveman think crap is dumb… two egos egging each other on can cause senseless destruction on the masses of people.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWhy is speed so important in a domestic-to-international call, yet it’s of no concern on a purely domestic call?
Because on purley domestic calls you need the warrant.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWeird thing is if you look at the PDF of the ruling, Hitchens is one of the plaintiffs.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmIn another life – I SWEAR to GOD, these bush loyalists would have PLEDGED ALLEGIANCE TO HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by madashell
Now that is just plain mean.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:31 pmBy the way, the fact of the matter is that FISA allows warrents to be in place and you can get “forgiveness” as long as you apply for the warrant within 3 days AFTER you’ve already been spying on someone.
So the current law is not too much of a burden. Unless you have a problem following the law to begin with.
So much for the calumny and mendacity from the current administration. When you refute current administration’s (obvious) lies, the cry foul. Much like the trolls have been doing thus far.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pmI went off to google and found powerline is a blog? Mr. Big is quoting a blog as a source of facts?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pmThis is so idiotic as to be impossible, I must be looking at a different powerline than Mr. Big.
Could someone please give me an accurate reference?
Joe – IF you knew the history of the rise of the Third Reich – you would have to AGREE!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pm#232, I love when these republofascists get caught lying then want to play word games. Mr Big said Clinton dit it, even though it wasn’t against the law then and implied he broke the law, when he is proven to have lied, or at best be ignorant of the facts he wants to play word games.
Mr Big #215, so you lied that Clinton violated FISA law -
When Gorelick testified before the House Intelligence Committee in 1994 that the president had the “inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches,†FISA did not apply to physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, as Media Matters for America has noted. A year later, Congress — with Clinton’s support — amended FISA to require court orders for physical searches. The Clinton administration thereafter never argued that any “inherent authority†pre-empted the new warrant requirements for physical searches under FISA.
Admit it you parroted the right wing talking points and got caught not knowing what the hell you’re talking about hoping to bluster your way thru with bullcrap.
Comment by bones — August 17, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pmAnd Mr. Big still will not acknowledge that the intel that the NSA collected on 2 calls coming in to the U.S. from overseas, and shared with the Brits, was collected with warrants requested and approved via the FISA court.
That may be true, but my point was that the NSA worked with the brits on foiling this plot. And your post here backs up my point, despite liberals here claiming that Bush had nothing to do with it. Fact is Bush, the Brits and the Pakistanis deserve a great deal of credit for foiling another 9/11.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pmYeah! The Constitution is in the house!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#251, where are your facts, are they as good as the facts that Clinton did it. If they are then your facts are nonexistant.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#228
#
I’m sure, because somebody with the name of chipeach has to be an authority on federal law.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
No, I’m just a little more discerning about who I go to for reference. Powerline’s an authority on right-wing bullshit and that’s it.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pmMr. Big:
OK, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Wayne. Perhaps you can tell me how hard would be for the President of the United States to set in place a special judge or even two, backed up with a few borrowed legal clerks from the FBI or the NSA that could handle and move the applications for sensitive wiretaps in a timely manner?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pm#251 – So, I guess that means you’re going to give Fmr. Pres. Clinton credit for avoiding the Millennium bombing, right? I mean, you asking us to take your word for pres. Bush helping the Brits, but not give any proof to back it up. There’s already proof that the Millennium bombings were cut short by Fmr. Prs. Clinton’s legal actions. So, where’s the props, Big Boy?!?!?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmBecause on purley domestic calls you need the warrant.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Boy, you are ignorant, aren’t you?
August 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmIF you knew the history of the rise of the Third Reich – you would have to AGREE!
Comment by madashell
I do. And I do.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pmHEY – don’t you know mr. bigot knows better than the FEDERAL JUDGE!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pmFederal law can’t override the President’s constitutional powers.
Comment by Mr.Whig — August 17, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
Thank you Matlock.
But you’re wrong.
The Constitution is the laws which define the powers given to the 3 branches and defines their powers and privlieges and the guidelines by which they execute those privleges.
So what you really meant to say was the President does not have the power to override Constitutional law.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pmFederal law can’t override the President’s constitutional powers.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
So what you are arguing now is that FISA is irrelevant, and that the Executive can order anything they want without any oversight or balances.
Jamie Gorelick, talked about the “inherrent authority†that Clinton had.
Although James Gorelick said the president has “inherent authority”, he didn’t say that authority was enough to ignore estalished judicial procedures. He also said that the law needed to be crafted carefully enough so as to not restrict the president’s authority to collect intelligence.
In other words, the president also has to abide by federal law.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm[...] YES!l Finally, rationality begins to assert itself again. The question, of course, is whether the authoritarian felons currently manning the controls of the administration will abide by the Rule of Law. Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pmyou lied that Clinton violated FISA law
But I never said Clinton violated FISA law. You lie by saying I said that.
I said when Clinton needed to do a search quickly of the home of Aldrich Ames because he was going to flee the country, Clinton ordered a warrantless seach. Clinton was right to do this in my opinion.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pmYeah! The Constitution is in the house!
No, an ACLU appoligist appointed by Jimmy Carter is in the house.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pmBecause on purley domestic calls you need the warrant.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
Let me expand. You didn’t address the issue. Bush’s argument that speed is oh so important on international calls falls flat on it’s face when the subject is domestic calls.
The point I’m trying to make is that if FISA is too slow for international calls, as Bush has asserted, then simple logic states it’s also too slow for domestic calls. But that’s not the case, is it? Bush isn’t bitching in the least about the speed of the process for domestic calls. Do I really have to explain it to you????
August 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pmFederal law can’t override the President’s constitutional powers.
Jamie Gorelick, talked about the “inherrent authority†that Clinton had.
Comment by Mr. Big
The presidents Contitutional powers does not include spying on americans without warrant.. basically because that would violate other amendments to the Constitution. Though there are several other points to this that has been documented through out history in Congress and the Supreme Court.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pmHEY MR. BIG – THE COURT DECIDED, NOT THE ACLU ATTORNEY!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pmSo what you really meant to say was the President does not have the power to override Constitutional law.
The President has the “inherrent authority” according to Clinton Justice offical Jamie Gorelick.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe President has the “inherrent authority†according to Clinton Justice offical Jamie Gorelick.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
James Gorelick never said that inherent authority gave the president privileges to ignore judicial procedures.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThat may be true, but my point was that the NSA worked with the brits on foiling this plot. And your post here backs up my point, despite liberals here claiming that Bush had nothing to do with it. Fact is Bush, the Brits and the Pakistanis deserve a great deal of credit for foiling another 9/11.
Comment by Mr. Big
They sure do… just like all the times from the 1990s that these same career people were doing the very same thing to stop terrorists. No new post 911 anti-Constitution methods needed.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pmA blow was struck for freedom and the constitutional rights of every American citizen today. For the mouth-breathers out there so certain this will be overturned, the first duty of an appellant court is to review the evidence and findings and UPHOLD the decision of the lower court if it is well-reasoned and supported by case law. Judge Taylor has written a brilliant brief of her findings and laid out a case so solidly against Bush’s violations of the 1st & 4th Amendments, FISA, and his oath of office that, if we had anything resembling a REAL House and Senate and not these rubberstampers in office now, Bush would be promptly impeached AND convicted and thrown out of office for his willful violations of the very laws he swore to enforce.
And spare me the Supreme Court will overturn nonsense, for the judge here extensively cites the recent Hamdan case where the Supremes also ruled that Bush has far exceed his authority under the law and Constitution. I doubt they would agree to hear this case as they typically do not waste their valuable time on cases where the findings of the lower court comport with earlier findings of the SC.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:50 pmBush’s argument that speed is oh so important on international calls falls flat on it’s face when the subject is domestic calls.
Speed is important on collecting both. But it just so happens that when you collect intel in purely domestic calls between US citizens, you need the warrant. There’s nothing that can be done about the time.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThe President has the “inherrent authority†according to Clinton Justice offical Jamie Gorelick.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Once again, thank you F Lee Bailey.
A. Clintons not the President genius. We can’t change anything he did, nor is going to “do” anything else.
B. Ms Gorelick is NOT an elected official. She is a law partner in DC with no Constitutional authority to say or do anything beyond that of a private citizen and an attorney.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:52 pmThe presidents Contitutional powers does not include spying on americans without warrant..
It does when they become a “foreign agent” when they collaberate with al qaeda.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:53 pmSpeed is important on collecting both. But it just so happens that when you collect intel in purely domestic calls between US citizens, you need the warrant.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
And theres the rub.
They DON’T get warrants, now do they?
Instead, Bush gave NSA authority to monitor ALL US Domestic calls and store them in large data warehousing facilities for later data mining key word searches.
And when the technically challenged bearucracy in this country begin to grasp that concept, your boys gonna have a whole new set of “challenges” to overcome.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:55 pmIf the Prez isn’t bound by federal law then I gues under the guise of national security he can steal your car, beat you to death, sleep with your 7 year old daughter, and burn you house to the ground.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pmIt does when they become a “foreign agent†when they collaberate with al qaeda.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Thank you Maxwell Smart.
But last time I checked my grandma isn’t collaberaing with Al Quaida.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pmA. Clintons not the President genius. We can’t change anything he did, nor is going to “do†anything else.
And yet, his warrantless seach based on his inherrent authority is one precedent for Bush to follow on the NSA terrorist survelence program.
B. Ms Gorelick is NOT an elected official. She is a law partner in DC with no Constitutional authority to say or do anything beyond that of a private citizen and an attorney.
Ms. Gorelick gave congressional testimony on the matter explaining Clinton’s position at the time.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pm[...] Jurist Think Progress POGO Blog [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 2:58 pmThey DON’T get warrants, now do they?
Well, yeah, apparently they do. According to some of the liberals here, warrants were gotten on the taps of the British suspects involved in that latest plot.
I’m sure when it’s feasable to get the warrant, the administration does it. But there are probably some time sensitive situations, where it would be impossible to do so. Not enought time, and you would lose the lead.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:00 pmAnd yet, his warrantless seach based on his inherrent authority is one precedent for Bush to follow on the NSA terrorist survelence program.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Precedent is set on lawful acts. Not unlawful ones Matlock.
But thanks for playing.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:01 pmJames Gorelick never said that inherent authority gave the president privileges to ignore judicial procedures.
It’s Jamie Gorelick. She’s a woman, not a man. Didn’t you see her sitting on the 9/11 commission? There are plenty of federal court rulings which establish and point to a President’s inherrent authority to conduct foreign survelence.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pmMs. Gorelick gave congressional testimony on the matter explaining Clinton’s position at the time.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
My grandmother can give congressional testimony too, but she still has no constitutional authority.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pmwhy the hell are we giving any time to mr bigot? Whatever Clinton may or may not have done has NO BEARING on the decision of the Federal Court. We are talking about NOW – NOT EIGHT YEARS AGO!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pmThere are plenty of federal court rulings which establish and point to a President’s inherrent authority to conduct foreign survelence.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Yea. Too bad we’re not talking about “foreign” surveillance.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pmBut last time I checked my grandma isn’t collaberaing with Al Quaida.
She’s not tapped. She’s not on the phone talking to al qaeda members on international calls, which is what the NSA terrorist survelence program is tracking.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pmAnd still Mr Big doesn’t learn. clinto worked for and signed into law the inclusion of physical searches into FISA after the Ames case as shown numerous times above.
And yet, his warrantless seach based on his inherrent authority is one precedent for Bush to follow on the NSA terrorist survelence program.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
August 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#65 — That’s where that’s from? Siouxsie and the Banshees do a great version!
just john – Belly also did a great recorded version (B-side). Tanya Donelly’s voice was perfect.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pmFact is Bush, the Brits and the Pakistanis deserve a great deal of credit for foiling another 9/11.
Comment by Mr. Big
They sure do… Comment by Gerald Gibson.
Good man. You deserve credit for being honest.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pmShe’s not tapped.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Yes she is genius.
And when you guys start to figure that out, maybe you’ll join us Americans again.
In the meantime please take 10 bucks out of petty cash and buy yourself a frontal lobe.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmYea. Too bad we’re not talking about “foreign†surveillance.
Yes you are. These are international calls.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pmSpeed is important on collecting both. But it just so happens that when you collect intel in purely domestic calls between US citizens, you need the warrant. There’s nothing that can be done about the time.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 2:52 pm \
Thank you for making my point! The main argument that Bush has in defense of warrantless wiretapping is that the NSA doesn’t have time to go through FISA.
Yet he says nothing…NOTHING…about the slowness when domestic calls are involved.
He constantly goes on about how technology (disposable cell phones, etc.) has evolved and how speed is so important and if al Qaeda is calling someone in the U.S. he wants to know about it.
But domestic calls, which also likely involve the same technology, which also likely involve al Qaeda operatives calling each other in the U.S.? Oh, we go to the FISA court.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pmYes she is genius.
lol, your grandma is not being tapped unless she is talking to al qaeda members on international calls.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:10 pmcan mr bigot explain why the QUAKERS were monitored? Can mr bigot explain why the peace movement/demonstrators were monitored in Santa Cruz? I could go on…..
August 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pmShe’s not tapped. She’s not on the phone talking to al qaeda members on international calls, which is what the NSA terrorist survelence program is tracking.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Well, that explains why our government needs the phone records of tens of millions of Americans. The country is overrun by terrorists!!!!
Run folks! Run for the hills!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pm#294, there’s nothing you can do about the speed when it involves domestic calls. The law clearly says you need a warrant. If a lead is lost, there’s not much that can be done about it.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:12 pmYes you are. These are international calls.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
No, I’m not Einstein.
These are domestic calls being listened to. ALL domestic calls.
Bush has already said so, if you LISTEN to what hes saying.
In fact, he allowed CNN to do a special on his program back in 03, where they took us inside NSA and demonstrated how if I say the word “bomb” on the phone, then super computers at NSA “begin” recording my conversation.
Now, I realize its hard for you to think, (makes your head hurt), but try.
Ask yourself this question Marconi.
If they can “start” recording when I say the word bomb, then how did they know I said the word bomb?
:|
August 17th, 2006 at 3:13 pmapparently mr. bigot is not aware of the fact that if a threat was imminent, they could move ahead – BUT THEY MUST GET THAT WARRANT AT LEAST 72 HOURS LATER.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:14 pmRun folks! Run for the hills!!!
The sky is falling, says the libs.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pmI hope my last comment didn’t cause you to blow a gasket or anything.
Try breathing into a paper bag.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pmThese are domestic calls being listened to. ALL domestic calls.
Do you have a source on that? That both parties are in the United States?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:16 pmMr. Big, save us the “not enough time bullshit” please. Its a morons response when the FISA law allows after the fact warrants. I think you don’t understand how big an insult that stupidity really is. You repeat over and over “I think you are so stupid that you will buy this lame ass weaseling” See? Might as well be calling us Macaca lovers.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#294, there’s nothing you can do about the speed when it involves domestic calls. The law clearly says you need a warrant. If a lead is lost, there’s not much that can be done about it.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Yes, there is. You can go to Congress and request that the law be amended. But Bush wasn’t interested in doing that for either domestic or international calls.
Let me put it to you this way: if speed is oh so important, why isn’t he bitching about the FISA act and how it slows the NSA down, and how we might miss important opportunities to catch terrorists and prevent attacks because, as you put it, the lead might be lost?
Hint: he isn’t.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:19 pmBUT THEY MUST GET THAT WARRANT AT LEAST 72 HOURS LATER.
Well, as I pointed out before, it takes days, sometimes weeks to prepare a FISA application. You willing to let that intel go away?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pmDo you have a source on that?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Sure.
George W something or another.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:20 pmDid you NOT GET THE GIST OF MY POST, idiot? I SAID IF THE THREAT WAS REAL – THEY COULD GO AHEAD and do what they have to do – as in tap their phone, AS LONG AS THEY GET THAT WARRANT LATER!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pmSure.
George W something or another.
That’s ridiculous. You should stick to comedy. You’re not half bad at it.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pmWell, as I pointed out before, it takes days, sometimes weeks to prepare a FISA application. You willing to let that intel go away?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:22 pm===============
Got a source on that?
I do believe I have found the reason for our trolls deficiencies – they are not capable of comprehending more than one sentence at a time.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pmas in tap their phone, AS LONG AS THEY GET THAT WARRANT LATER!
And if they can’t get the warrant in time, then what? If it takes days, sometimes weeks to make an application to FISA, that intel would be long gone.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pmthe lead might be lost?
Comment by WC — August 17, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
If Osama Bin Laden called Bush on the phone and TOLD him exactly when, where and how he would launch his next attack they still wouldn’t know what to do with it.
That crap about “crucial intelligenc” is just that. Crap.
Bush is doing what all republican presidents do. Spying on HIS enemies.
Not ours.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:24 pmHEY DUFUS – THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, THEY NEED – what part of my COMMENT DON’T YOU GET?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pmOr Maybe Elizabeth Smart will be abducted again, or that missing women from Aruba story will pop up with more ‘clues’…any brides run out of town lately? It’s gotta be breaking top news!
I think they’ve been busted on the terror alert scams, time for other diversions.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pmExpediency isn’t the issue. It doesn’t matter if it’s 72 hours or 72 days. Bush doesn’t want the FISA judges to know a) who he’s wiretapping and b) that there’s no probable cause.
Bush’s promise that he’s not tapping domestic-only calls is as believable as his claim that all wiretaps needed a warrant. Both lies.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pmBush is doing what all republican presidents do. Spying on HIS enemies.
Not ours.
There’s no merit to that.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:26 pmapparently mr. bigot is not aware of the fact that if a threat was imminent, they could move ahead – BUT THEY MUST GET THAT WARRANT AT LEAST 72 HOURS LATER.
Comment by madashell — August 17, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Add to that the fact that, as Bush has stated in the past (see my post #234 for a quote), people with ties to al Qaeda and/or their affiliates are the only ones being monitored, what are the odds that the FISA court would deny a warrant?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pmMr. Big your argument is that Bushies are too incompetent to do the job. Think(haha) about the it, your argument hinges on the fact that Bush minions can’t fill out the paperwork.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pmTHEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, THEY NEED – what part of my COMMENT DON’T YOU GET?
It sounds like you are taking my position that you don’t need a warrant for foreign communications.
Because without a warrant, you couldn’t use any of that information in court.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:29 pmThat’s ridiculous.
Comment by Mr. 2Big4hisbritches — August 17, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
No, its not.
Mr Bush spoke openly early on about his domestic spying program. Back in 03 when more than half the country was busy goosestepping to the reichstag band, Bush was much more open about his spying program. In fact, CNN did a story that ran for months, where they took us INSIDE of NSA, and showed us how they monitored ALL domestic calls for “keywords”.
They were clear about how if my grandmother said the word, “bomb” or “president” in the same sentence, that super computers at NSA would “START” recording the call for later analysis.
Now, having something you apparently are lacking, a functioning brain, I simply asked myself a simple question.
If they can “start†recording when granny says the word bomb and president, then how did they know she said the word bomb?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pmIf Osama Bin Laden called Bush on the phone and TOLD him exactly when, where and how he would launch his next attack they still wouldn’t know what to do with it.
I believe the news reported there have been 10 major terrorist plots interrupted by the Bush administration, including the plot that targeted the Los Angeles U.S. Bank Tower.
And the NSA supplied information to the Brits on the lastest plot.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:32 pmSo the Bushies are so incomptent some paperwork will cause them to fail?
Your making a really strong case the Georgie needs to be removed before he allows a massive attack on the US.
OOOPS TOO LATE.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:32 pmBush is doing what all republican presidents do. Spying on HIS enemies.
Not ours.
There’s no merit to that.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Really?
Then what was that whole Watergate thingy about?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pmWell, as I pointed out before, it takes days, sometimes weeks to prepare a FISA application. You willing to let that intel go away?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Bush is. Otherwise he’s be bitching about having to go get a warrant through FISA for domestic calls and how it slows down the process and how we don’t have enought time and how the terrorists will get away and how we will be attacked again and again and again.
But…he isnt.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm[...] That’s right, anyone with a 4th grade education who read the 4th amendment of our Constitution already knew what a Federal District Court in Detroit said today: The NSA unwarranted wiretapping program is unconstitutional. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmpeople with ties to al Qaeda and/or their affiliates are the only ones being monitored, what are the odds that the FISA court would deny a warrant?
Declining the warrant is not the issue. It’s the time needed to prepared the FISA application that is the main problem here.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:34 pmAnd the NSA supplied information to the Brits on the lastest plot
where the hell do they come up with this BULLSHITE~!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pmIf they can “start†recording when granny says the word bomb and president, then how did they know she said the word bomb?
Again, if she’s not talking to al qaeda on international calls she’s not being tapped. I’m sure even a “genius” such as yourself could understand that.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmJust read the opinion. It’s well written and will be hard to attack. The Judge goes back to the 1760’s in citing precedent for the need to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusion. The spin at RedState is that it’s some old ninny rambling for 45 pages…didn’t see that at all…
August 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmthat is what I said in last nights post. Though they try over and over and over to post their lies, they think we are WEAK nonthinkers as they are, and that somehow we will begin to BELIEVE THEM?????
August 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmReally?
Then what was that whole Watergate thingy about?
Oh yeah, Bush was president then. You’re a comedian.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmMr. Big is obviously a Turing Test. Some smart ass at MIT getting his/her jollies, or working on a masters thesis.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmI believe mr. bigot is a student of the COLLEGE OF ANN COULTER.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pmMr. Big is the classic example of a complete brainwash. He comprehends NO new information of any kind, and will not respond to anything that he does not have a “pat” talking point about. If you sludge therough all his posts, you WILL find that he does simply repeat the SAME (sometimes exact) points over and over again. As he is THE troll on this site right now, he is getting all the attention, and that must make him all fluffy inside. He has not once engaged in meaningful debate – same talking points, ad nauseum, even where refuted. I am all for stimulation for interesting conversation, but Mr. Big is entirely lame and tiresome, and incapable of debate or discussion. It has no new talking points. (and note, the more intelligent trolls have avoided this thread for all these posts….. hmmmm……)
(I may get moderated for this, but I hope not… I just can’t resist this quote that is just too appropriate): Talking to Mr. Big “is like mastrubating with a cheese grater: slightly amusing, but mostly painful” (Andrew Dice Clay).
Gotta fly.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pm345. In case this post was too much for you MR. BIGOT to comprehend – I believe you were just called a NONTHINKER! And I wholeheartedly agree!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pmAgain, if she’s not talking to al qaeda on international calls she’s not being tapped.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
What do you have a reading deficiency?
As I said, this is NOT something that was obscure. This was common knowledge a few years back.
Now listen closely cause I’m gonna say it again.
CNN DID A STORY ON THIS BACK IN 2003.
IN THE STORY THEY TALKED OPENLY ABOUT HOW IF SOMEONE SAID THE WORDS “BOMB” and “AIRPLANE” or “PRESIDENT” in the same sentence, SUPER COMPUTERS at NSA “START” recording the call for later analysis.
———
There, did you get that slappy?
I realize I used a few polysyllabic words there but try and keep up.
———
Now, IF they can START recording when we say certain “keywords” on the phone, then that leaves the obvious question.
How did they KNOW we said those keywords???
Are we learning yet?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pmDeclining the warrant is not the issue.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Neither is Bill Clinton. But that didn’t stop you from bringing him up.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pmI am all for stimulation for interesting conversation
You should try it sometime.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pmOh yeah, Bush was president then. You’re a comedian.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Well lets see, I said that Bush was doing WHAT ALL REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS DO.
Spying on HIS enemies, NOT ours.
You said that statement had no merit.
Well last time I checked clem, Nixon was a republican.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:44 pmVICTORY!!!
August 17th, 2006 at 3:44 pmNeither is Bill Clinton. But that didn’t stop you from bringing him up.
I brought him up because he actually authorized a warrentless search. It was totally relevent.
There is no evidence that Bush is using the NSA terrorist survelience program to monitor Democrats. You made that up out of whole cloth, as most liberals do.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:44 pmAnd since you’ve been blabbering about Clinton all day, I don’t see the problem with me mentioning one of your glorious past leaders.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmIN THE STORY THEY TALKED OPENLY ABOUT HOW IF SOMEONE SAID THE WORDS “BOMB†and “AIRPLANE†or “PRESIDENT†in the same sentence, SUPER COMPUTERS at NSA “START†recording the call for later analysis.
That’s not what the NSA program is doing. You’ve provided no evidence, other than your paranoia, that it is.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pmMr. Big spare us your Rush Limbaugh zipperhead fantasy definitions of what “liberals do”.
Your defense of George Bush is that he is TOO INCOMPETENT to follow the laws.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#355, I don’t care if you mention Nixon. Just don’t try to use him as evidence that Bush is using the NSA program to monitor Democrats, because there’s no merit to it.
The Clinton administration conducted audits on the political enemies of Bill Clinton.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmwell, thankfully, I did not have to worry about this – because my phone service, Qwest, REFUSED in the first place.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmWhew, that one still stinks from you pulling it out of your ass. Mind washing that off before you start waving it around in public?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmYour defense of George Bush is that he is TOO INCOMPETENT to follow the laws.
Bush does not fill out FISA applications. Trial lawyers do, and the process can take days, sometimes weeks to complete. It is a very cumbersome process.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmmr. bigot should be first in line when they demand we get computer chips implanted in our bodies.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pmaccording to this REPUBLICAN – mr. bigot is the treasonous one…
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -Teddy Roosevelt
August 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pmwell, thankfully, I did not have to worry about this – because my phone service, Qwest, REFUSED in the first place
Despite claims by troll liberals that ALL Americans are being monitored. They have a wild imagination.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pmMR. BIGOT – THE FACT MY PHONE COMPANY FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION – IT DOESN’T MAKE ME LESS OUTRAGED.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pmBush does not fill out FISA applications. Trial lawyers do, and the process can take days, sometimes weeks to complete. It is a very cumbersome process.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm=================
So George is still incompetent because he can’t hire employees that can do the job they were hired to do. Or is that someone elses job also?
MR. BIGOT – THE FACT MY PHONE COMPANY FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION – IT DOESN’T MAKE ME LESS OUTRAGED.
Your own post points out that troll liberals who said ALL Americans were being monitored were lying.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pmSo George is still incompetent because he can’t hire employees that can do the job they were hired to do. Or is that someone elses job also?
It’s not that they are incompetent. In many cases these are career lawyers left over from the Clinton administration. It’s that the FISA application process is too cumbersome.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pm. You’ve provided no evidence.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
You’re right, I didn’t provide the evidence. Bush and CNN did back in 2003.
Can we help it if you’re too stupid to comprehend it?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:57 pmAnd actually it was Bill Clinton that opened the door to this program Mr Piggy.
Bush just took off with it.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pmYou’re right, I didn’t provide the evidence. Bush and CNN did back in 2003.
Bush was talking about getting warrants under the Patriot Act for roving wiretaps, not on internatinoal calls of al qaeda types.
You’re too dishonest, or stupid, to admit it.
August 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pmHAHA So George is incompetent because he continues to us Clinton’s lawyers. The thousands of previous FISA warrants buries your “Too cumbersome” argument Mr. Big.
We find ourselves back to the FACT that your argument hinges on George Bush’s INCOMPETENCE as your ONLY defense of Dubya.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAnd actually it was Bill Clinton that opened the door to this program Mr Piggy.
Bush just took off with it.
Actuially, Walrus, Gen. Hayden went to Bush and said there’s more that can be done to go after the terrorists.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:02 pm$372, are you a bot? You’re just repeating the same thing over and over. You seem to be a liberal troll.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:03 pmEveryone think back to 2003, when CNN ran that story for about 3 months.
Remember?
It was on about 20 times over a period of 3 months.
They took us INSIDE of NSA, and showed us the massive “Listening” stations.
They also talked openly about how if someone says certain keywords, like Bomb, or Airplane, in the same sentence, that super computers would “START” recording the call.
In fact, right about the time the program first began to take off, a movie came out called “Enemy of the State” where Gene Hackman talked about this very concept.
Then, 3 years later and right before the Iraq war, CNN did their story on it, and they even showed a clip from the movie in their story.
So I have to hand it to Bush. In a way he’s brilliant. He put the story out there years ago, banking on the notion that the American people were just too stupid to understand the implications of what he was showing us.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pm#376, Walrus, Bush was talking about roving wiretaps under the Patriot Act, when he said he got a warrant every time. He wasn’t talking about the terrorist survelence program.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pmThere is no evidence that Bush is using the NSA terrorist survelience program to monitor Democrats. You made that up out of whole cloth, as most liberals do.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
Well, I didn’t say anything about that. Don’t know where you got that idea.
But since you bring it up, how do you know that he hasn’t? Because Bush says so?
Ever hear of Operation Northwoods, in which your precious government conspired to attack its own people and then blame it on Cuba, so that we could justify an attack against Cuba? Think I’m making that up out of whole cloth? Guess what: it’s real.
I’m so glad you trust your government.
Seeing as how Bush refuses to allow any investigation into the warrantless wiretapping operation, going so far as to personally block an investigation by the Justice Department (which should be an impeachable offense, IMO), I guess we’ll never know, will we?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pmBecause you keep repeating the same defense of George.
You keep repeating George shouldn’t have to get FISA warrants because its TOO HARD.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pmActuially, Walrus, Gen. Hayden went to Bush and said there’s more that can be done to go after the terrorists.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Thats because Echelon was already in place, and together Bush and Hayden turned it on.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:08 pmEver hear of Operation Northwoods, in which your precious government conspired to attack its own people and then blame it on Cuba, so that we could justify an attack against Cuba?
Yes I did. Johnson or Kennedy, right? I believe that was mentioned in the movie Loose Change. Still just because presidents in the past did immoral things, that isn’t proof that Bush is using this NSA program to monitor Democrats. The person origianly in charge of the program, Gen Hayden, was a holdover from the Clinton administration.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:09 pmAugust 17th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
oh wait you mentioned #372, which is one of your posts. Hmm, might want to check your Perl. Its got a bug in it.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:10 pmAugust 17th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Thats because Echelon was already in place, and together Bush and Hayden turned it on.
I saw that on 60 minutes. It’s actually routed through British intel and looked at, if I recall correctly.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:11 pmExecutive Summary of Echelon
August 17th, 2006 at 4:11 pmPatrick Poole
2000
Gen Hayden, was a holdover from the Clinton administration.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:11 pm========
Clinton was impeached. Why do think something Clinton did is a defense of George’s actions.
It’s not that they are incompetent. In many cases these are career lawyers left over from the Clinton administration. It’s that the FISA application process is too cumbersome.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
It is not too cumbersome. Otherwise Bush and Cheney and Gonzoles and Specter and Roberts would be bitching that the entire process is too slow and domestic surveillance is being harmed.
But…they are not. See my posts at #307 & #331.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pmcapture all satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic communications traffic, and then process this information through the massive computer capabilities of the NSA, including advanced voice recognition and optical character recognition (OCR) programs, and look for code words or phrases
Yea.
I don’t know what I’m talking about.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pm#390, that program is monitoring system traffic.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pmOtherwise Bush and Cheney and Gonzoles and Specter and Roberts would be bitching that the entire process is too slow and domestic surveillance is being harmed.
Haven’t they been saying that with respect to foreign intellegence?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:17 pmScript bug fer shure. Netflix just delivered Syriana. Im out of here.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pmSee, my problem is I work in telecommunications. So when Bush told us all what he was doing back in 2003, and then again last year when the spying scandal story heated up, I KNEW what he was talking about.
When he talked about the “CENTRAL SWITCHING CENTERS” I understood he meant that “digitized voice” was easier to pull off not at the Central Office, but at the NAP points around the country, where the Local and Intra Lata calls “hop off” to the Long Haul Core.
I understood the technology he was talking about (though it was clear he didnt’) and I understood the ramifications.
This is truth.
You cannot pick up a phone in the United States without having your every word recorded.
Period.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pmYou cannot pick up a phone in the United States without having your every word recorded.
Isn’t it just looking at spikes in traffic?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmNetflix just delivered Syriana. Im out of here.
It’s 4:30 in the afternoon. Shouldn’t you be at work?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pmIsn’t it just looking at spikes in traffic?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
No baby it ain’t.
See, its IMPOSSIBLE to manually monitor every call in the US, or even in Brooklyn for that matter. We don’t have the manpower.
So instead, they CAPTURE all calls, data warehouse them, then later, they can be analyzed by super computers using keyword searches and OCR searches.
Thats what the ECHELON DICTONARY is all about.
If what you say on the phone, is in the ECHELON DICTONARY, then your phone call will be flagged, and reviewed by a computer program, and possibly a living breathing human being if its interesting to them.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pmNetflix just delivered Syriana. Im out of here.
It’s 4:30 in the afternoon. Shouldn’t you be at work?
=========
Its actually 1:30 where I am, and I’ve already completed my 40 hours for the week.
Im touched by your concern.
NOT!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWhen Americans begin to figure this out, and “grasp” the magnitude of what is really going on in the name of “keeping Americans safe”, then people are going to go nuts.
Once Americans, I mean “real” Americans (yes there are real Americans on the right too) start to figure out what Bush has been really doing over there, and that ALL American phone calls have been recorded since 7 months prior to 911, then the partys going to be over.
The Nazi party that is.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pmYes I did. Johnson or Kennedy, right? I believe that was mentioned in the movie Loose Change. Still just because presidents in the past did immoral things, that isn’t proof that Bush is using this NSA program to monitor Democrats. The person origianly in charge of the program, Gen Hayden, was a holdover from the Clinton administration.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
It’s all about trust, and what our government is capable of doing. You think the government has magically gotten more trustworthy since the ’60s and ’70s?
If so, you are kidding yourself.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pm#397, ok that’s Eschalon. There is also the carnivore program. But that’s not the same program as the NSA terrorist survelence program.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:29 pmHaven’t they been saying that with respect to foreign intellegence?
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
And just where the hell is the complaint from the individuals mentioned that the process is too slow for domestic part of it?
You lose, buddy.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI’ve already completed my 40 hours for the week.
Where do you work?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pmIt’s all about trust, and what our government is capable of doing.
What it is capable of doing, and what it is actually doing are two different things.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:33 pmAnd just where the hell is the complaint from the individuals mentioned that the process is too slow for domestic part of it?
I complained above. I’m for changing the law.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:34 pmwell, thankfully, I did not have to worry about this – because my phone service, Qwest, REFUSED in the first place.
Comment by madashell — August 17, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
Hate to break this to you but you do. While Qwest was good about protecting its private fiber optic coast to coast network, that doesn’t stop them from pulling your calls off the Central Switching centers, where your call crosses administrative boundarys. Ownership of phone circuits can be a grey area, and whenever your calls pass outside of the Local LATA, they can be pulled off.
Sorry Madashell.
Guess you shouldn’tve been bashing Bush to your sister in law, :D.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#397, ok that’s Eschalon. There is also the carnivore program. But that’s not the same program as the NSA terrorist survelence program.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
Dude. Don’t try and sound technical. It makes you look silly.
Carnivore is the code name for an SMTP and POP3 messaging program developed by Wildpackets (makers of EtherPeek, a network protocol analyzer) and some other parties which utilized a standard protocol analyzer, a Promiscuous NIC, and a script that pulls off SMTP and POP3 (email) messages into a buffer for later keyword searches.
Carnivore could certianly be a “component” of Echelon, but its not the same.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pmCarnivore could certianly be a “component†of Echelon, but its not the same.
That was my point. There is Echelon. There is Carnivore. And there is the NSA terrorist survelance program. They are all different, and they are all needed in my opinion.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pm[...] The NSA eavesdropping program has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. She further declared that the program “violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.” [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pmOk, I see what you were saying.
And you’re right and you’re wrong.
They are differnent like a spark plug is different from an engine.
But Echelon and Carnivore (actually Carnivore is most likely been replaced by “Magic Lantern”, but thats a whole nuther thread) are components of the NSA Terrorist spying program. They are components. Mechanisims. Which bring about the “master plan”.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pmBut Echelon and Carnivore (actually Carnivore is most likely been replaced by “Magic Lanternâ€, but thats a whole nuther thread) are components of the NSA Terrorist spying program. They are components. Mechanisims. Which bring about the “master planâ€.
I agree with that. Good analysis.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pmCool. :|
Am I in trouble now?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:51 pm[...] Read More: National Security, Domestic Spying, NSA Surveillance Program, Bush Administration –Matt 1:58 pm | ‘); | ‘); | | [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 4:53 pm[...] Think Progress: Fox News reports a federal district court in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s NSA warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. [...]
August 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pmSpying takes us into murky waters.
Right to privacy, need to know, etc.
But when it comes down to it, the government, is just made up of American citizens. American citizens don’t have the right to spy on each other. And the government is only as trustworthy as its weakest link. So it makes it impossible to police the police.
The public (thats the rest of us with jobs) have to just “accept” that the government, our fellow citizens, are above reproach.
:|
August 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pmAnd just where the hell is the complaint from the individuals mentioned that the process is too slow for domestic part of it?
I complained above. I’m for changing the law.
Comment by Mr. Big — August 17, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Funny…I don’t see your name in the list of government folks I provided.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pmAnd I’m having a little trouble swallowing that lately.
Know what I mean?
August 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pmMaybe if we made it legal for everybody to spy on everybody, then I’d be for it.
At least I would’nt be so against it.
I mean, if everyone could spy on everyone then there’d be no secrets.
Course, no one would likely ever get any real work done either.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:00 pmMaybe if someone could show me one thing Bush can do competently I’d have more faith in him.
Just one thing. Like, I don’t know, say fly an airplane for example.
He was a student pilot at one time, right?
But then, he just sort of, let it go. Like a kid no longer interested in a puppy. He just sort of “dropped it”.
I don’t know about you, but that would drive most men I know, like myself for instance, crazy. I mean to be that close to something, flying JETS? And then just walk away and never look back? Doesn’t it seem like most men would at least get a civilian pilots license or something and keep flying somehow, even if he crapped out of the big boys?
I trust in technical men. Technical minds.
I’ve known more than 100 men with actual skillsets, and capbilities who I know could do a better job than Bush. Men who think, and “read” and learn, are what this country needs.
We’ve got plenty of the other kind.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:06 pmAfter seeing the Al Gonzales press conference this afternoon, in which the AG still proclaims that the program is constitutional and legal, I have to realizae that this ruling does nothing. The Bush administration will ignore the ruling, trash the judge, and then sign off on the Specter “compromise”, which in reality retains the status quo for the BA.
http://www.harmoniousdissent.blogspot.com
Bogus terror plots: The list keeps growing
Head to SSA’s BRAND NEW blog Harmonious Dissent
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Plus, check out Political Buzz from SSA for the latest political news and analysis
August 17th, 2006 at 5:14 pmhttp://www.polibuzz.blogspot.com
People, people, do you get it yet. There is absolutely no reason to engage Mr. Big. He selectively tunes out anyone who proves he is full of shit and then goes on to his next Coulter-like fabrication. He gets his info from National Review and doesn’t seem to realize that their stories are debunked on a weekly basis. He uses Powerline and Free Republic as information sources. He has no real interest in an engaging argument. He’s just another feral pig rooting around on these boards. Don’t feed the feral pig and he’ll move on to another part of the forest.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pmGive the EFF credit for their January lawsuit against AT&T and domestic spying. Judge Walker’s ruling was important in today’r ruling, as were affidavits brought on by EFF’s lawsuit.
Bloggers forgot to credit the EFF back when Walker ruled against state secrets. The EFF is a small donor-supported non-profit. They’re fighting organizations 1000 times their size, and winning.
Don’t forget the EFF’s work this time around. Walker’s ruling and today’r ruling resulted from smart hard work by a great group. I know them and support the EFF, that’s why I want to highlight them.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI hear you Bluedog. I just can’t help engaging the opposition from time to time. Must be the conservative in me.
But think about it. Right now, thanks to the Patriot Act, and some deals done behind closed doors, Americans are the victims of a massive spying campaign. Library records, credit card purchases, banking activity, call records, ISP logs, and massive data captures of both analog and digital communications have brought George Orwell back from the dead. We are living in a “big brother” society where even in this online blog, one of our counterparts, on the right or the left, is likely a DHS or NSA or DOJ spy.
Used to be, back in the “good old days” you could go to church, and KNOW the guy sitting next to you isn’t getting a transcript of your confession from the Preist.
Used to be, back in the good old days, you could check out a book from the Library and know that only you and the Library had a record of you reading that book.
Used to be, back in the good old days you could go into an online public chat room and not worry that the government had a spy embedded into the group, logging every word you ever say.
Used to be.
Back in the good old days.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:52 pmNow we live in the “good ole days”.
Sounds the same but they’re poles apart.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:53 pmIn fact, could Mr Big be code for “big brother”?
That would explain the technical ineptitude.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmWell this means that Cheney and Scalia will scedule another fishing trip in Mississippi and W will have to do a lot more closed fund raisers. Rove will probly give lessons on hacking into Diebold voting machines and Condi will vacation in Iraq till this blows over.
August 17th, 2006 at 5:57 pmMaybe.
But keep your eyes open for another “terrorist threat”.
Or attack.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:00 pmCheney can’t be at every polling place in the country with a shotgun.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:02 pmWorfeus, John Dean’s new book, Conservatives without Conscience, makes an interesting and important point. He draws on the work of a German philosopher who studied the population of Germany in the post WWII period looking for clues as to why they did what they did and coined the term ‘authoritarian personality.” Basically, the current repubican base is dominated by people who worship authority and must follow authority. Follow the leader BECAUSE he’s the leader, period. Individual thought is subdued in a fog of leader worship.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:08 pm#381
Still just because presidents in the past did immoral things, that isn’t proof that Bush is using this NSA program to monitor Democrats.
If I were to list all of the reasons that Bush, Cheney, and Rove are exactly the kinds of people who wouldn’t hesitate to use this NSA program to monitor Democrats, would it really make a difference to you? Is there actually some number of illegal or deceitful or simply unethical acts that would reach the threshhold of Bush’s bad behavior, making you start to think he can’t be trusted? If not, then engaging in these discussions with you is just a waste of time.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pmThats priceless Bluedog. And I know the book. I haven’t read it but I’ve seen Dean promoting it on the talk shows and news shows.
And hes got it right. I know because I grew up republican, and thats exactly what they do.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pmChimpeach is an quasi-anagram for impeach the chimp?
Cool.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:16 pmAnd whats really scary Bluedog is that because they believe in ultimate authoritarian rule, they elevate the President to Kinglike status, pronouncing his word supreme and all opposition to be sedition.
Real Americans believe like George Washington did, and Thomas Jefferson, that the real power of our Republic should like in the people, properly represented in a balanced senate.
But it seems every 50 years or so our far right conservative friends have to show us what a monarchy looks like, in case we forgot.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pmGeorge Washington didn’t want to be called President, because he thought it sounded to kingly. To royal.
George Bush on the other hand thinks a “dicatorship would be easier“.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pmauthoritarian personality = sort of a cross between dependent personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder
August 17th, 2006 at 6:24 pm“Hey, Antonin, it’s me, Clarence. Which way you gonna vote on this one? Me, too.”
August 17th, 2006 at 6:28 pmI wonder how the republicans will respond when a lone terrorist legally buys an assault rifle and starts shooting up malls at random.
I fly around the world a lot. I’m far more worried about my plane going down from bad weather or mechanical failure than from a terrorist attack.
Millions upon millions of americans will die from heart disease, cancer, auto accidents, or diabetis over the next 10 years…put the terrorism threat into perspective already. A well placed nuke could kill many, but North Korea is far more likely to deliver that sort of weapon. Irrespective of that, our spy agencies have been effectively fighting this type of threat for decades with warrents and without data mining and recording every cellular conversation.
The warrantless wiretapping would eventually be used for the wrong purpose, if it hasn’t been done already. Wiretapping is still legal if there is just a little oversight, which is there only to prevent abuse. A government that has unchecked power to watch our every move will eventually use it to undermine democracy by empowering the ruling elite. When our founding fathers were writing the constitution, they wanted to prevent the formation of an oligarchy (similar to what Saddam Hussien had in Iraq), which is why we have elections and 3 branches of government with separate powers and, most importantly, processes in place to make sure it stays that way. Warrants keep the executive branch from encroaching on the job of the judiciary branch.
When deciding if a certain change in perspective regarding privacy is implemented in our government, imagine it being done by a leader you don’t trust. This will give you the perspective you need to decide if the change is good for our country in the long term.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:46 pmI wonder how the republicans will respond when a lone terrorist legally buys an assault rifle and starts shooting up malls at random.
Comment by dark tranny — August 17, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Thats already happened. We had a sniper here in DC a few years back, that was shooting us in the head when we went to the store of for gas.
And our geniuses in charge had us looking for 2 white guys in a white Truck.
Turned out to be 2 black guys in a back sedan.
:|
Go figure.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:51 pmHey I’ve got it.
Maybe next time when they tell us what to look for, we can look for the exact opposite.
Then we’re sure to get it right.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pmWhat’s the Decider say?
August 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pmSeems the ladies have been stepping it up lately against the Bush Admin, like that judge in the Zacharias Moussoui case, she didnt put up with the shit either. Maybe its time for more women to take over, (not Condi, or Ann, or Hughes).
August 17th, 2006 at 7:18 pmOf course they are going to “disagree.” It’s basically a non-guilty plea. The PREZ has broken the law. He can and should be impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate, removed from office. PERIOD. Oh yes, and all those around him as well. Afer that, war crimes time.
Oh well, I can dream. Chances are none of this will happen without substantial force.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:25 pmAccording to the Constitution the President can be impeached for misdemeanor offenses, and even associating with a criminal element.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:27 pmBut I will say this for Mr Bush. As far as news cycles go, hes the luckiest guy I’ve ever seen.
I mean think about it.
The day this ruling comes out AGAINST his wiretapping program, and magically, the guy who “supposedly” killed John Bonet Ramsey CONFESSES!!!
I mean wow. What a lucky break for the Prez. This clean cut republican looking worm comes forward and confesses to a 10 year old murder. And now every news cycle, instead of discussing todays ruling, is engulfed in a Jon Bonet Ramsey news marathon.
Bush is the luckiest guy in the world.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:09 pmJust days ago Ned Lamont beats Lieberman after the President endorsed him, and walla.
Terrorist plot in London foiled.
And not just any terrorist plot right?
No this one was a “911-like” terrorist plot.
Too bad the guys didn’t even have passports, bombs or even designated a specific target yet.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:12 pmOk, after skimming the 400+ comments, I think I have it figured out.
Complying with FISA, even getting warrants after the fact is too hard. The federal government lacks the manpower to monitor and protect us against terrorists and still abide by existing law. Therefore the federal government is justified in ignoring existing law and violating our Constitutional Rights. To make the federal government abide by the Constitution helps the terrorists.
Oh, and it’s Clinton’s fault.
August 17th, 2006 at 11:16 pmDid I miss anything?
August 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pmI visted some my favorite Crazy Republican blogs, and NONE of them even mentioned this ruling. It’s so ridiculous that they go into selective-reality mode ESPECIALLY when the truth comes out and they get caught. It’s so frustrating dealing with this wackos. And watching the Admistration try to challenge this is so ridiculous too, they got caught, but they will still lie to break the law. Bastards!
August 17th, 2006 at 11:45 pmHillary didn’t bake homemade cookies! :P
August 18th, 2006 at 12:19 amI will also say that we couldn’t agree more. Except when I say “we” I mean “we, the people” and when snowjob says it he is using the “royal ‘we’”.
So not all judges are yet corrupt.
August 18th, 2006 at 12:21 amI’m just curious. Let’s assume for the moment that in ‘08 a Democrat takes office in the White House. How many years after that will the left blame everything that happens in the US on the Bush Administration? I’m only asking, because if that does happen, I want to know when it will be that whatever Democrat was in office in that many years, they start accepting blame for whatever ills befall the country. So what will it be, 10, 15, 20 years? Anyone care to throw out a number?
August 18th, 2006 at 1:00 amWell. since we’re all pretty sure that as soon as a dem takes office you guys are going to blow something else up and blame it on terrorists and weak democratic security measures, I’d say probably within the first 12 months.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:27 amyou actually think if a dem takes the white house, anyone will be able to hear the left blaming anyone over the din of right-wing hysteria that will ensue? if so, i have one question for you: what country have you been living in the last 13 years?
and god forbid it’s hillary. that would extend the shelf-life on “blame clinton” for at least another quarter century.
August 18th, 2006 at 1:33 amWell if Hillary won we wouldn’t have a Dem in the White House.
We;d have a Repubnocrat.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:29 am#452, Probably within the first twelve HOURS.
August 18th, 2006 at 2:42 amThanks to Mike Malloy having set up a link to thank Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for having the courage to stand up for the Constitution of the US. I was able to thank this Courageous woman. The link is on Mike Malloy’s home page at http://www.mikemalloy.com She deserves support from us all. here’s my brief thank you I sent to her…
Thank you for standing up for the constitutition of the United States. You, by your ruling on the illegal wiretapping, have given me a new breath of hope for the future of this country I love so much. I just wanted you to know you are not alone.
August 18th, 2006 at 5:11 amrickd; the Bushies turned the USA FUBAR. It will take generations to undo all the havoc they wrecked upon us and the world.
August 18th, 2006 at 7:18 amDid I miss anything?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — August 17, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
Nope. You’ve pretty much summed it up.
My feelings are still hurt because I could not get Mr. Big to admit the slight credibility problem with the fact that Bush is so concerned about speed when it comes to international calls, but isn’t the least bit concerned about it regarding purely domestic calls. Oh, he tried to take Bush’s side, but failed miserably.
I got a good laugh this morning when I saw a clip of Gonzales on CNN saying there was oversight of the program. What a fool. Oversight by members of your own administration doesn’t count. And informing a small (what…8 members?) group of Congresspersons of your intentions, and then swearing them to secrecy, is not oversight, either.
Finally, after much thought, I’ve decided to tell the Bush administration and the trolls here that I will support warrantless wiretapping on two conditions:
1- The admin allows a bipartisan group of Congresspersons to look at the lists of people/groups they’ve monitored thus far. Hey, the program is legal, right? What’s Bush got to hide?
2- 99% of the targets on that list are al Qaeda operatives, or people that are affiliated with al Qaeda. Remember what Bush said: “The electronic monitoring was limited to people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.â€
August 18th, 2006 at 8:54 amIf the Left Wing had its way the failed attempt to blow several airliners out of the sky last week would have succeeded. How can this country survive with leftist democrats in power?
August 18th, 2006 at 9:36 am#458 WC,
Be careful what you wish for. If, in an attempt to satisfy people who impose those conditions, they do release the lists you ask for, what guarantee will there be that the lists will be accurate and complete? How do you know that the list will contain ONLY those people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates”, and not all the other people they did this to? “What’s Bush got to hide?” You mean besides his open disdain for telling the truth? You mean besides the fact that he doesn’t want it publicly documented that he’s a liar? You mean evidence that he broke the law and violated his oath of office?
I understand your point, I really do. But given that this president has demonstrated time and again to those who will open their eyes and their ears that he can’t be trusted to reveal the truth, I would be hesitant to give him ANY way to continue doing these claerly illegal, unconstitutional things. But one thing that would be good about your request: listening to them explain why they can’t (won’t) do it.
August 18th, 2006 at 9:40 amComment by Wayne A. Schneider — August 18, 2006 @ 9:40 am
I agree with the concerns you list, but I’m willing to lay it on the line. I’m telling the Bush administration and its supporters that it’s “put up or shut up” time. You want warrantless wiretapping? Fine. Prove that it’s legal. Prove that you aren’t monitoring anyone other than known or alleged terrorists. And no, you don’t have to reveal state secrets. Just show us who you’ve been monitoring.
Besides, I can always borrow a Republican trick and at the end of the day, say “Sorry. I’ve decided not to support the program.”
August 18th, 2006 at 11:51 am#461 WC, Gotcha! ;)
August 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pmTwo Strange Deaths in European Wiretapping Scandal
By Paolo Pontoniere and Jeffrey Klein, New America Media. Posted August 19, 2006.
European investigators are tracking the mysterious deaths of two security experts who had
uncovered extensive spyware in their telecommunications firms.
—-
August 20th, 2006 at 10:52 amhttp://www.alternet.org/story/40485/
Mother Jones claims to do investigative journalism — why hasn’t Jeffrey Klein called on MoJo to look into it from the American side? The magazine already covered the CIA’s involvement in the abduction, but more from a waste-of-taxpayer money standpoint (”Why isn’t the CIA more frugal?”) than an illegal-violation-of-U.S.-and-Italian-law-and-human-rights standpoint.
If the transmissions from Greece were being sent to a phone in Maryland, someone must know — or at least be able to ask — whose phone that was, and where it was located. If the Greeks asked, what was the answer? And there must be phone records of calls made to and from that phone.
There must be some state law being violated in receiving illegally tapped phone calls in Maryland — wasn’t some variation of that what got Linda Tripp into trouble during Monicagate? Wouldn’t that be something that state and local law enforcement, and the phone company, would want to know about and look into?
Investigating the story might not reveal all or even some of the answers, but it might force the feds to have to block the investigation by claiming that it was a national security issue, which would confirm they were the ones who tapped the Greek phone system.Otherwise, they’d have to make at least a token effort themselves to find out who was doing it, or else it would be pretty obvious they didn’t actually want to know the answer, which again would confirm that they were in on it
http://www.alternet.org/story/40485/
August 20th, 2006 at 10:53 amAre you all stupid im 16 years old and it is obvious that the brother did it, Jealousy! no doubt him and john benet were muckin around sexually and he sufficated her by accident the parents came home…she wasnt in her room and they called the police this is the story aparantly and then they called the police and the friends and the father then decided to check the huge house….would you do that first?? then the father and his friend went downstairs and the father said “oh my god” before the light was turned on…..futher down the track, not straight away the mate of the father said that he couldnt see anything before the father turned the light on and yet “oh my god” was said in the dark..
My theory was the brother killed his sister by accident and the mother and father came home and the brother was worried, they made it look like a murder by tying her up, made a ransom note and then called the police…why wouldnt you search the house first!!
IT wasnt john mark at all his story did not work out at all because he states that he was with john benet when she died and that it was an accident and yet it is proved that john benet died in her brothers bed…
August 21st, 2006 at 5:48 amIf you agree with me or have anything to say or ask me about or you know evidence please email me, me and my parents are looking deep into this case my email adress is italian.princess.jess at hotmail.com
The wire tapping program by Bush or predessors:
1) Was not used for terorism
2) Did not protect federal court and attorney rights
3) Did not protect victims of domestic or international civilians caught
up in terroristic acts (esp before 911)
4) Sabotaged the work of corporations
5) Countered the protection of victims attempting to come forward to trial
5) Covered up the acts and wrong doings of perpetrators who may have come from the military (child and domestic abuse)
6) For the this reason, A new DEMOCRATCY shall prevail in the US.m LR
7) Surveillance has not been used for anything under the SUN not war.
Feel Sorry for US and other who cannot find Peace.
January 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pmSorry about typos; I’ve suddenly become disabled by a very dysfunctional govt. and erroding culture of corruption. PJ
January 24th, 2007 at 3:15 pm