Judge: Bush Admin’s Case On Spying Tantamount To ‘The King Can Do No Wrong’
Judge: Bush Admin’s Case On Spying Tantamount To ‘The King Can Do No Wrong’
Yesterday, a federal appeals court “appeared skeptical of and sometimes hostile” towards the Bush administration’s argument that legal challenges to the NSA’s surveillance programs should be dismissed on “state secrets” and national security grounds, with one judge saying the government’s argument was tantamount to “the king can do no wrong.”
“The bottom line” of the administration’s argument “is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it. No cases,” said Judge Judge Harry Pregerson. “The king can do no wrong.”
The two cases argued yesterday — the first to reach the court out of fifty lawsuits consolidated before the 9th Circuit court — concern two separate, but related secret programs:
1) A program where AT&T allegedly provides “the NSA its customers’ phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation,” in a program that “the government has not acknowledged,” but plaintiff’s lawyers call a “content dragnet.”
2) A program disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005, which the administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” where the NSA bypasses “court warrants in monitoring international communications involving people in the United States.”
Federal lawyers argued that “almost nothing about the substance of the government’s conduct could be talked about in court,” but that the judges must give executive branch claims of state secrets the “utmost deference.”
The three judges on the court were unsatisfied with the argument, offering various stinging comments and rebuttals:
- “Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?” asked Pregerson.
- “This seems to put us in the ‘trust us’ category. ‘We don’t do it. Trust us. And don’t ask us about it,’” said Judge M. Margaret McKeown.
- “Every ampersand, every comma is top-secret?” queried Judge Michael Daly Hawkins about a withheld document.
- “”Are you saying the courts are to rubber-stamp the determination of the executive of what’s a state secret? What’s our job?” asked Pregerson.
- “I feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland,” observed McKeown.
When Deputy Solicitor General Greg Garre argued that “other avenues” than the court system were the proper forum for complaints about government surveillance, Pregerson shot back: “What is that? Impeachment?”
Wired liveblogged the hearing here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Judge Pregerson - 1
August 16th, 2007 at 11:47 amGovt. Atty - 0
with the supreme court stacked, it won’t matter what the lower court judges say. Bush will again get what he wants. I guess Hillary will be happy with the extra power.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:48 amWell damn… no medals for those 3!
August 16th, 2007 at 11:50 amThis should only be of great concern to the Dems in Congress, who actually have something to lose (their influence) by being “spied” on.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:52 amI do fear that the SC will not follow the law/Constitution, but we have to hope that they will put Country before party……
If it does go to the SC, and they dismiss the case I for one will encourage an overthrow of the government as the Constitution says to do when the current one is not working…..
August 16th, 2007 at 11:53 amTP - your headline made me think that the judge was in aggreement…
perhaps you should change it to: tantamount to “the king can do no wrong.â€
my blood pressure is back to normal now… well, considering…
August 16th, 2007 at 11:53 am…
KILROY!
August 16th, 2007 at 11:54 amThis should only be of great concern to the Dems in Congress, who actually have something to lose (their influence) by being “spied†on.
Comment by wake-n-bake — August 16, 2007 @ 11:52 am
WTF??? This doesn’t make any sense.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:54 am“Your World with Neo-con Cavuto”
Are activist judges hurting America by questioning the presidents ability to spy on foreign terrorists!
August 16th, 2007 at 11:55 amI like that Katy — thanks. We’ll make the change
August 16th, 2007 at 11:56 amIf only it was ‘The King Can Do No Bong’, Tony Snow & Norm Coleman could be defending the Gov’t position.
Either way, they’re blowing smoke up the Judge’s behinds.
This is scary stuff, folks. It’s like watching America being taken hostage in slow motion. 6+ years…
August 16th, 2007 at 11:57 amwith the supreme court stacked, it won’t matter what the lower court judges say. Bush will again get what he wants. I guess Hillary will be happy with the extra power.
Comment by Krazny — August 16, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Yeah, but by the time this gets to the Supremes, Bush will be out and a Dem will be in. Look for furious backpedaling on the part of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas as they decide they’ve gone far enough in expanding presidential powers.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:58 am“other avenues†than the court system were the proper forum for complaints about government surveillance, Pregerson shot back: “What is that? Impeachment?â€
I’m all for that route. When can we start the drive down that avenue?
August 16th, 2007 at 11:59 amCaption Contest:
Chimpy: “Live long and ….. god dang it, that’s hard! Heh, heh”
August 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pmCaption Contest:
Chimpy: “The needs of the one, that’s me, outweigh the needs of the many, that’s you, heh heh”
August 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pmCaption Contest:
I know Spoke was able to do that, why can’t I???
August 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pmCaption Contest:
“Live long and prosper.” (Bush doesn’t quite grasp the Vulcan customs either.)
August 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pmYep. Impeachment. You bet. Rock-n-Roll.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pmAlice in Wonderland? More like Kafka.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pmCaption Contest:
I know Spock was able to do that, why can’t I???
Comment by RemoveBush — August 16, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Didn’t Mork from Ork have a hand sign like that, too?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pmWhy does everybody insist on using the term “government” to refer to what is only one branch of the federal government? Accepting that gives away too much to a rogue executive branch.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pmCaption Contest:
I know Spock was able to do that, why can’t I???
Comment by RemoveBush — August 16, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Didn’t Mork from Ork have a hand sign like that, too?
Comment by Vet — August 16, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
I thought he was just doing a bad “shocker” Sorry in advance for being crude
August 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm“Didn’t Mork from Ork have a hand sign like that, too?
Comment by Vet — August 16, 2007 @ 12:09 pm”
Yes….
His was with his hand in the handshaking position though….
August 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pmI just have a feeling that this is going to be a limit tester, where the courts, all the way up and down draw the line on executive power.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pmLike the prior comment, this would pass on to the next President, and I don’t think the courts are gonna be OK with Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Gravel or whoever having this sweeping authority.
Hey Wayne ~ I peeked in last night, and read that you’re going to the dog pound on Saturday. Knock em out!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:15 pmi think he waves like a little girl… that little fluttering thing…
August 16th, 2007 at 12:20 pmwierdest looking man-wave i’ve ever seen…
…
His hand gesture is rather telling, I’ve seen it in all of his over the head hand-waves… notice also that these are all “goodbye” moments, never an arrival, or a greeting.
To me, the wide spread fingers indicate a need to appear “big” and/or “intimidating”, combined with the “warding off” of a percieved threat to his self-appointed importance.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pmAll I’ve ever seen are the still shots, katy, I’ll see if I can find a video clip… if he’s doing a fluttering wave, well, I don’t even want to go there….;)
August 16th, 2007 at 12:25 pmBush is going down the tubes,
August 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pmand Cheney will laugh all the way to Dubai.
the bush admin makes me sick
August 16th, 2007 at 12:35 pmBush believes is the Emperor of the United States and like Napoleon he thinks he can conquer the world too. Dubya will meet his Waterloo soon.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pmI notice the wingtards aren’t commenting to much on this, perhaps Bush has finally gone just a bit overboard even for them?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pmDidn’t Mork from Ork have a hand sign like that, too?
Comment by Vet — August 16, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Didn’t he say “Nanno Nanno” while shaking hands with the vuclan “Live long and prosper” sign!?
August 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pmBush believes he is the Emperor …
August 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pmLooks like Karl Rove left because Bush has gone over the top now. Even Karl did not want to be a part of it anymore.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pmyikes - yep:
http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/s/swes/mork/handsh.htm
weird…
August 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pmCaption: “I’m this many years old and I want my spying NOW!”
August 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pmI doubt that Rove disapproves of Bush’s over-the-top moves. He’s probably leaving the ship, with his booty, before it sinks. No concern one way or the other about anyone else, just self-survival.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pmI like Karl’s booty…
August 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pmI would like to see the govt. make their case for a repreive, rather than carrying on suspicions with the “top-secret” excuse. The court is the right forum….and can’t top-secrets be kept confidential by the court?
NachoRAMA!
August 16th, 2007 at 12:51 pmBush is what happens when a idiot is flattered constantly. He is now an arrogant bully, but strip away his guards and Dubya is revealed a coward.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pmNotice the contrast in this exchange with the previous assertion of “we can neither confirm nor deny”:
The answer implies that they did go to the FISA court, raising the quesetion: Who has been leaking from the FISA Court information pubilcly disclosed outlining what the FISA Court “gaps” were? The “secrecy of teh court” appears to have been abused: either the inforation was illegally leaked; or the information was fabricated to justify passing the illegal bill.
Illegal, non-official activity cannot be shielded by privilege
Once information isdiclosed, it’s either true or false: But if the inforation is false or untrue, then it is not connected with any lawful, official business. Howeer, if the opposite is true — tht the information is correct — then the court has a role in reviewing who in the WH-EOP is disclosing information. Government computers have been used for illegal purposes; and for activity not related to official, alwful business. Once the court hears a responsequoted above, the reasonable conclusion: “Yes, the FISA Court was notified; and the court may review that classified transcript to get the questions answered.” The only reason the President would press for changes to the FISA Act was to immunize those who have been caught doing illegal things. However, when justice demands it — as is the case here — Congress cannot require the Court to enforce a change in statute when that Act affects ongoing litigation.
There is no basis for the Congressional Act of 2007 to have any bearing on illegal NSA Conduct 2001-2007.
Justice demands the law — as it existed before these FISA Act changes — be applied to the conduct NSA Contrators well knew applied: Warrants must be obtained; without warrants, the interception of US citizen communication is not lawful.
War Crimes Issues Related to Illegal Surveillance
Whether that information is orisn’t used, or is or isn’t consolidated into other information products is a separate but important legal issue: To whatextent didthe WH rely on these work products — gleaned from illegally captured information — to develop media messages; and forward that information for use during illegal prisoner abuse sessions. The FISA litigation issues are not isoalted to violatoins of the Constitution, but the laws of war. Counsel will have to explain why it was an expert on WH Data retention, but apparently could not ensure the WH protectedthat information.
Court May Deny Privildge When Abused
There is no merit to any assertion that the WH EOP were copmlying with the Hatch Act when they did the opposite: Created a backup ssystem outside hatch; then destroyed the very data they said they “always believed” would be shielded. One does not destroy data they reasonably believe would enjoy executive privilge.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pmThe wayne at #21 is not me
August 16th, 2007 at 12:57 pmNot that I don’t agree with whoever posted under my name
“Alice in Wonderland”?
No more like “Jungle Book”…
Ka the snake explains the bushies stance…
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 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pmShut your eyes and trust in me
When the Government does not respond, adverse inferences can be made:
“That gets into matters that were protected by state secrets,” Garre replies.
“State secret” in this case is the reality that, contrary to requirements, the required warrants were not obtained.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pmGovernment Argument Leaves Open Option Data Illegally Transferred After Illegally Captured
Notice here, the shift in argument, from whether the FISA warrants were not obtained, to whether information was transferred “without a warrant.” That is not the same.
The correct argument is that the FISA warrants related to collection; it is illegal to transferthisinformation. Warrants do not apply to the transfer of information; they relate to the collection. The government’s assertion in the above quote is deliberately confusing to assert something that is irrelvant; hwoever, that disclosure should be examined closely.
Again, the issue is the collection without a warrant “forwarded to the government without warrants” means, that we have to look at the flip side of the argument: What data was transferred without a warrant: Which inforation after it was illegally collected, was then transferred to non-goernment entities like contractors; and how was this illegally capture information used, adjusted, modified, and reformatted and subsequently used by the WH in other illegal means. FISA does not regulate just the collection of data, but also the subsequent use of that originally captured data. It appears the government has, in fact, transferred — without lawful authority — illegally captured information for use by other government and non-government entities.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:17 pmHow many times do I have to remind you people?????? If the president does it, it’s not illegal. Jeeeze…
August 16th, 2007 at 1:21 pmJail to the Chief.
-GSD
August 16th, 2007 at 1:23 pmITMFA!!
August 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pmtake a deep breath, feel like your choking. Everything is broken.
Bob Dylan
August 16th, 2007 at 1:27 pmAdding to the problem is this inconsitent statement, not support by the disclsoures of “gaps” asthe basis for the fISA Act update.
Garre argues “wecan’t talk about it” because it might reveal “gaps”; yet the “gaps” were the basis for the FISA Act to be updated; and these “gaps” were openy disclosed. Either
August 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pm“other avenues” = We do what we want.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThis shows there is a relationship between AT&T and the goernment:
Whether that relationship is real, imagined, lawful, or illegal is the judicial decision.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:31 pmI’m just waiting for the day Bush declares himself Ceaser and that he is now Emperor of America.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pmWe have an administration that recognizes NO law but itself.
TIME TO STORM THE BASTILLE!!!
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!
August 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pmThis question misses the point:
If there was “no problem” then what was the President “blocking” when he said DoJ OPR could “not review” the issues? Whether there is a victim on a FISA Violation is only releant for civillitigation; the broader issue: Who in DoJ is getting rewarded for not bringing criminal charges for these FISA violations? That the case may or may not be resolved on the civil issues has no bearing on whether the President’s admission of warrantless surveillance can or cannot be proseduted.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pmWe have an administration that recognizes NO law but itself.
TIME TO STORM THE BASTILLE!!!
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!
Comment by Uncle Ho — August 16, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
I’m with ya, Uncle Ho.
Enough is enough.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pmAnon, using your logic it’s ok to transport pot as long as I didn’t harvest it. Your forgetting the pot (the data collection) is illegal.
Any part of the supply and demand chain is illegal.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pmComment by RUCerious
Since it is a club I work out at, I will be there expecting to work out.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pmI doubt the Dog will show, if he does, he has to sign a no liability waiver before they let him get into the ring /smirk
Caption Contest: “Judge Pregerson can talk to the hand”
August 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pmKnowing the BFEE, I hope none of these judges have any unfortunate accidents… Just sayin’!
August 16th, 2007 at 2:20 pmI notice people taling about how much freedom they are losing here. what is anyone afraid of? The democratic party are the one who push the political correctness thing and lawsuits if you speak freely. When I see the dem party I see the party that trys to stop free speech ie: violence at colleges if a conservative speaks, where is the openness to new ideas. Why are you guys afraid of using tax dollars to let parents choose where to send their kids to school? where is the freedom of choice there? How about the fear froms Dems about debating on foxnews? if they are afraid of Fox news, how can I trust them against the terrorists who want to kill us?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pmFollow up to 46:
Saying that there is or is not proof of something — that is unrelated to the legal requirement — isn’t a defense. it’s a smokescreen. Specifically, there is a difference between collecting, processing, transferring, and presenting data. Once data is illegally captured, whether there is or is not a warrant for subsequent use is irrelevant. Note that _forwarding_ information is not the same as _collecting_ information. Reconsider the government assertion — “no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.†— and note it does not focus on the FISA requirement: Not whether the information was _forwarded without a warrant_ but whether data was _first collected_ without a warrant; subsequent transfer, processing, and use of that illegally captured information is a subsequent offense. The government’s problem is when that illegally captured information — without a warrant — is subsequently used to support rendition, prisoner abuse, and war crimes.
The government’s assertion in no way focuses on the real issue: Whether there was or was not a warrant for the _ data capture_. The President has asserted that these warrants, contrary to law, were not obtained; nor were coordinated, as required, with the Judicial branch. The government in the italicized quote is not commenting on whether there is or is not evidence related to communication forwarded from the government to the contractor; or that there were or were not warrants related to overseas collection of US citizen data.
I’m not saying that it is OK to transfer illegally captured information. Rather, examine the Government’s assertion in italics and carefully asking you to consider what they’re asking us to focus on: Not the larger data transfer and processing issues after initial data capture. Whether the government has a warrant to process information is meaningless.
Warrants Apply To First Capture
The government assertion that there is “no proof” that warrants were or were not obtained to _transferring_ data is a smokescreen. Indeed, whether the us government did the original collection, or it was done overseas, or by a contractor is also not — in the above statement — is not being denied.
Demanding that there is “proof” that data was transferred is irrelevant: The FISA requires a warrant for collection. Once that data is illegally captured, the subsequent transfer of that data is a subsequent offense. whether the transfer was from contractors to the US government; from overseas to contractors; or from overseas to the US government then to contractors is secondary, but important. It will shed light on how the data, after illegally captured was subsequently used.
Possible Routing Mode: AT&T Relationship With Subsidiaries For Data Mining And Processing, Then Transfer From Overseas To US Government Contractors
This brings up the issue of the AT&T subsidiary contracts that allowed for data mining and development of media messages. Saying “no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.†in no way resolves whether someone does or does not have a warrant to _process_ information — after illegally collected. That warrant requirement doesn’t exist: The warrant applies to collection; and subsequent warrants are not required: Once illegally captured without a warrant, the subsequent transfer of that illegally captured information is also an offense. Again, the word parsing sheds some light on the possible data routing methods: Overseas, using contractors, involved with intermediaries, and transferred back and forth between the government and these non-government entities.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:22 pmcaption contest:
Talk to my iinvisible sock puppet.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAnon; you are the most longwinded blowhard on these threads. You should be banned for a) taking all night to get to your point, and b) you bore us to tears.
Try making it short and to the point or go away.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pmAll Moonbats, right?
They’re only US Federal District Judges, but since they are now saying the SAME things we’ve been saying all along, we now know they’re just moonbats.
In fact, since 70 percent of the country is saying the same things, that means we have somewhere around 280 MILLION moonbats in the US.
Thats a lot of moonbats.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:35 pmHow many times do I have to remind you people?????? If the president does it, it’s not illegal. Jeeeze…
Comment by david
That argument worked for Nixon, Not…..
How many times do I have to tell you idiot trolls that no one,even the President is above the Law?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pmComment by Uncle Ho — August 16, 2007
OK. Ask your questions.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:43 pmComment by Uncle Ho — August 16, 2007
Ask your question.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:44 pmSpying in the Ninth Curcuit? Ah, the bastion of liberalism. But where else? Certainly not a Red state.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:45 pm“Try making it short and to the point or go away.
Comment by Uncle Ho — August 16, 2007
Did make it short, but it generated more confusion: People concluding the direct opposite.
hellinabucket — August 16, 2007: Concluding _my comment_ was the problem; while the error was with the _government_ assertion. Seem as though someone missed the point: The quote isn’t asserting anything; it’s what the _government_ is avoiding. Again, me asserting that point is meaningless unless I explain it. How do you propose explaning what appears to be a government smokescreen without explaining how that smokscreen appearse to be working.
The Point when shortly stated appears to have confused some. You have a suggesting how to explain something using fewer words than originally used? “Trust me” doesn’t work: Need to explain, debate. Throwing snarky comments doesn’t communicate. You’re free to have another view.
Also saying that someone is talkative when the short comments aren’t working isn’t helpful. If you would like to share some “shorter ways to say things”, great. Say it yourself. Maybe your summary might help. I still have no idea whether people are confused.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI’m confused, but then again I don’t have time to read every book you write anon.
Did you ever have an english professor to tell you to “Say it with less”?
August 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pmDISTURBIA — August 16, 2007
Read between the lines. I hear you.
Short version: US government lawyers are not addressing the legal issue. That tells us what might be going on: Other stuff.
Short enough?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:00 pmI think the problem anon is your argument is obscured by your endless and often contradictive or innacurate rhetoric.
Lets take this sentence I managed to extract from your one of your bookposts.
Note that _forwarding_ information is not the same as _collecting_ information
That sentence is completely inaccurate and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the technology or procedure involved.
The “forwarding” of information when it comes to redirecting Internet traffic, IS THE EXACT SAME THING as collecting data. Its just a METHOD of COLLECTING data.
It means they used a technology similar to SPAN (Port Mirroring) to copy traffic and send it to another location for “Data Warehousing” (collecting).
Personally, it sounds to me like either you just like hearing yourself talk, or you’re a troll, trying to bury any real discussion and obscure the real issues with a lot of redundant and inaccurate rhetoric.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:03 pmBut if I am wrong, then try saying what you’re saying with less.
WHAT legal argument are they missing? What is it you are trying to say?
Forgive me if you are really a prog trying to put out a good point, but honestly, it appears no one here understands what it is you’re trying to say, and posting inaccurate statements like “Note that _forwarding_ information is not the same as _collecting_ information” doesn’t help one bit.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pmWhat happened here is simple with regards to AT&T. AT&T had a switching room that only those with secret clearances and “tickets” on those clearances were permitted to enter.
In that room, all internet traffic coming into the facilitiy was duplicated using common switching technology normally used for network monitoring and troublshooting, and forwarded to an offsite location where it was cataloged and stored on large storage area networks for later data mining by federal agents.
Its not rocket science. Its simply basic switching technology that was misused to spy on any American on the internet.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAnon; What I am saying is… We have neither the time nor the inclination to read every 20-volume dissertation that you post.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:18 pmEspecially when they’re full of incorrect information.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pmDISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
You fail to address the government comment about other issues: Forwarding data without a warrant, totally unrelated to this litigation.
That’s the point: The government is raising defenses about other issues related to overseas data capture and contractor access to that captured data. The government’s assertion invites more questions, and does not in any way resolve the issue. “If true” what they’re saying, then we hae to ask about the contracts used to forward data fromoverseas — outside warrants, outside the routers. The government assertion opens the door to these quesions about the other contracts.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pmOk. I just read all your posts anon. I THINK I see what point you’re trying to make.
From what I can tell. you are saying that the government tricked AT&T into collecting the data for them, and then forwarded it to them so that should not constitute a crime, because they didn’t actually CAPTURE the data, they just “accepted” the data ONCE it was ALREADY captured.
Is that pretty much what you were saying?
If so, allow me to shoot that argument down.
RECIEVING stolen goods, is just as much of a crime as stealing them.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:30 pmComment by DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007
“you are saying that the government tricked AT&T into collecting the data for them, and”
No, I’m saying AT&T well knew what they were doing under the false assumption the illegal activity would remain hidden. However, once the RNC e-mails were destroyed, and Quest refused, this raised questions: If they really believed it was lawful, why would they destroy evidence?
“then forwarded it to them so that should not constitute a crime, because they didn’t’t actually CAPTURE the data, they just “accepted†the data ONCE it was ALREADY captured.
This is the government’s argument: Once they _transfer_ that data, the _government_ argues that a warrant isn’t ‘required. Again, this isn’t my argument, but the government’s argument. Yes, it’s absurd.
Again, not saying that it was “not a crime”; but the opposite: The government is saying “We don’t need a warrant to forward data” which does exactly what you said: Ignores the real issue: That a warrant IS required for original data capture.
“Is that pretty much what you were saying?” No. I’m talking about the larger contractor-overseas effort of data mining that the government defense has not excluded. it occurs overseas; it involves intermediaries; the data is processed after having been illegally captured.
If so, allow me to shoot that argument down.
“RECIEVING stolen goods, is just as much of a crime as stealing them.
I agree. But the issue is: Where are the goods originally stolen; and does the government view the processing of those goods as requiring a warrant? The _government_ has implicitly argued that _they_ do not think they need a warrant to _froward_ stolen goods. That is irrelevant. The goods are stolen.
That’s my point: Just because someone received stolen goods,it doesn’t mean that they are free to transfer.
Key Point: Once you parse the government’s statement, you’ll get a sense of what they are not denying, or leaving open as an option This leads to more questions about the overseas contractor-managed data collection. The _government_ assertion is that this is an “overseas” effort and “does not” require a warrant. that is false. And it is also false to say that these contractors, after they capture that data, can overseas strip out identifying information about that illegally capture information and use it for data mining and developing media messages for domestic political consumption.
The point is simple The government’;s assertion/defense has left open these options; and warrants Congressional follow-up. Congress won’t. Members of Congress need to be prosecuted for continuing to fund what is illegal overseas data mining and transfer/use of illegally captured information without the required warrants. The Gang of 8 has the responsibility to do this. What have they done? Kept rubber stamping things that a reasonable person would say, “Wait a minute, What about this overseas data mining the government is saying it doesn’t need warrants for?” Gang of 8 hasn’t dug into this despite oversight since 2001.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThe RNC emails anon, are a completely different issue and have nothing to do with the warrantless wiretapping program. (I doubt they spoke openly of the program in email). The RNC emails are tied to the DOJ attorney firings, a completely seperate matter.
As for your contant reference to “overseas” data collection, you’re just not making sense there either. The collection is NOT occuring overseas. Its occuring right here, so I still don’t know what your point is.
Can’t you summarize it any better than that?
August 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pmDISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
False.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAnd why do you have to “write a book” everytime you respond?
Can’t you drill it down without all the redunant and confusing rhetoric?
Just say it man.
Just say it.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWhats false?
I made several points?
Why can’t you be specific?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:00 pmDISTURBIA; I can not help but to conclude has NO point. He just likes to pontificate and bloviate and hear himself talk.
It’s best to ignore his mindless rants.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:02 pmI think you’re right Uncle Ho, and I think I will follow your adivce.
He seems to have no point, (if you can’t summarize it then there is no point) and he is full of incorrect information that he is seeding the discussion with.
I will ignore him.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pmComment by DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
There is no basis for your assertions. Once the WH Counsel’s office says “we believed” the activity was lawful, they cannot explain why they had a backup e-mail system. Surely, if someone “believed” the information was privileged — and would never see the light of day — they cannot explain why they destroyed that very information that would never supposedly be revealed. Using the government’s convoluted argument, if they “believed” something was lawful, they would have no reason to destroy what was supposed to be hidden and privileged.
There is no basis to assume or assert this: “The RNC emails anon, are a completely different issue and have nothing to do with the warrantless wiretapping program. No, once evidence is destroyed, that missing evidence — the fact that it is missing — becomes evidence.
You have no basis for this statement: “(I doubt they spoke openly of the program in email). You don’t know this. But what we do know is that the supposed “experts” on the Hatch Act were involved with the rendition briefings; and the people who are commenting on the Hatch Act and WH IT requirements are involved with the litigation. Yet, they would have us believe nobody ever talked about it. Huh? There’s no basis to say this.
You cannot narrowly say that the RNC e-mails are “only” about a narrow issue: “The RNC emails are tied to the DOJ attorney firings, a completely separate matter. Nope, the RNC e-mails are connected with the White House. They cover many issues, not just the DOJ Atty firings.
You don’t believe this: “As for your contant [stet] reference to “overseas†data collection, you’re just not making sense there either.”
You have no basis for making this assertion: The collection is NOT occurring overseas. Where does the NSA have overseas ground stations? You don’t believe this. Of course there’s overseas collections: How do you explain the RNC e-mails connected with the overseas intermediaries that process the warrants? It’s been disclosed in the contractor e-mails. There’s a link.
You appear to be feigning confusion: “Its occurring right here, so I still don’t know what your point is.
Can’t help you: “Can’t you summarize it any better than that?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:07 pmI’m betting he’s a troll.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIn fact,. I’m sure of it. He’s making no sense, and talking about the RNC emails (sending ANY information regarding a classified program through a public email server would mean jail for all concerned, I DOUBT anyone did that) as if they were part of this “simply because they are missing”.
Whatever he is, he’s a numbskull, who can’t summariize anything without writing a book.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pmWhy asserting that people who violate Hatch Act would “only” use RNC e-mails for “lawful” reasons? That makes no sense.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:17 pmThe problem: The arguments you’re making to ignore the issue aren’t standing up. You’re arguing that illegal activity (FISA violations) would “not” be coordinated with illegal RNC e-mails.
Can’t credibly argue that they _would_ violate Hatch; but then _comply_ with the law. Just because something is classified,doesn’t mean that the activity is lawful. Rather, looks as though the illegal activity has classified (illegally) to hide evidence of the communication and coordination of this illegal planning.
Why would someone who violates Hatch and FISA care whether illegal activity was or wasn’t being discussed? Again, if the activity was lawful, then counsel would not have said we “believed” it was lawful, while they used illegal means to discuss it. Rather, it appears the opposite:Once it was realized that the illegal activity discussed on the RNC e-mails would be disclosed, then the WH ordered the destruction of the very things that were created under the _false_ assumption they would never see the light of day.
The problem you have is that there are _non-RNC e-mails_ which show there is a link between the FISA violations and the WH. The non-WH/non-RNC e-mails fill in the gaps. What the RNC would have us believe “never was discussed” was coordinated;The other e-mails show was has been destroyed.
Ooops. You lose.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThere are two problems on these other e-mails.
1. Official information disclosed, breaching privilege
2. Non-official information, illegal use of government computers for non-official purposes
The non-RNC/non-WH e-mails show us what was official, non-official. Either way, by disclosing the information about the FISA activity in the non-WH/non-RNC e-mails, the President and DoJ-EOP-OVP staff have opened themselves up to three problems: Linked to illegal activity; failure to rely on privilege; and use of official resources for non-official, illegal purposes.
It doesn’t matter what is in the e-mail: The fact that they existed, and have been destroyed is a subsequent offense.
Relates to evidence regarding discussion of evidence captured using illegal means; then using that information related to rendition and Geneva violations. The CIA has turned the evidence over to the EU. War crimes, no statute of limitations: Civilian legal counsel, civilian policy advisors?
August 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pmTP: please ban Anon- he is a complete babbling idiot who contributes NOTHING!
August 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pmWhy asserting that people who violate Hatch Act would “only†use RNC e-mails for “lawful†reasons? That makes no sense.
Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Because violation of the Hatch Act would most likely be dealt with with removal from office and a fine.
Sending information about a top-top secret program, that is SOOOOOOO secret that they can’t even disclose it to a federal judge, through a public email accounts would be unlikely.
However they may have. I never said they didn’t. I said it was unlikely, and for now, is unrelated to the case at hand.
You either are a right wing troll, trying to make us all sound like uneducated nuts, or you are an uneducated nut.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pmWhen you run out of excuses, accuse someone of being a troll, and ask for them to be banned.
Can’t help you. Tried short statements; attempted to respond to your questions. This isn’t an argument: “complete babbling idiot” — If you are confused about something, why aren’t you asking questions?
This isn’t related to anything, and you provided not examples: “who contributes NOTHING!” How can this be: Someone complained that the posts were too long. How can something that is “babbling” and “long winded” take the opposite quality as “nothing”. Something cannot be both lengthy and nothing.
Your arguments fail. You provided no credible questions or follow-up. It appears your argument has fallen apart, and you don’t want to take the time to digest the information, consider it, ask questions, or consider other views. That which does not agree with you is not necessarily wrong. If you have other views, or a basis to assert that something is wrong, feel free to discuss your arguments. You haven’t done that. We’re not having a conversation. You’re making disingenuous attempts to request information which you appear not to be serious about asking questions about for clarification. I would be happy to respond to your questions, but you aren’t providing anything to assist you. this appears to be your communication problem, and related to the limit of your writing and arguments. Perhaps you may wish to develop your arguments better, and we might be able to discuss this. Until then, enjoy your confusion.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pmTrying to get people off topic, and off the scope of the warrantless wirtapping program.
If it was discussed in the emails, great. Then that ends the story and Bush can be impeached once someone secures the emails.
But that at the moment, has nothing to do with the scope of the program and your continued insistence that the data is being collected overseas is a red herring and a diversion from the gravity of the fact that they are collecting the data from your local CO, and sending to to FT Meade Maryland, where NSA warehouses it for future data mining.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pmAnd when you stop acting like a troll, and writing book lenth posts full of incorrect information, red herrings and the length of a small book, (good for concealing the fact you have no point to make and obscuring your incorrect information) then maybe someone will get you.
Until then, it won’t be just Uncle Ho calling you a troll.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:09 pmAnon; Here IS a credible question. Why must you do a 20-volume dissertation (often repetitive), paragraph, after paragraph, after paragraph, after paragraph, after paragraph on EVERY thread, EVERY night? You often contradict yourself in addition to endless repetition. If you can not summarize briefly, get help. You have some issues.
If I were your school teacher and you wrote an essay like this, you would NEVER pass the course. You just ramble on, and on, and on, and on.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pmComment by DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Original:
This doesn’t make sense: “Because violation of the Hatch Act would most likely be dealt with with removal from office and a fine.
That is not an explanation for why people who have violated the Hatch Act have engaged in FISA violations. Those who have violated the Hatch act have ignored the legal consequences; whether they could be removed from office or fined was meaningless _to them_. The Hatch Act violations occurred. This is not in credible dispute. Your using circular logic to say that _your concern_ with consequences means that that _they_ would be concerned; no, they’ve already violated the law; there’s no basis to assume they’d be concerned about something they’re ignoring: The law.
This assertion asks that we believe people who did violate the Hatch Act would, in the same communication, follow the law. “Sending information about a top-top secret program, that is SOOOOOOO secret that they can’t even disclose it to a federal judge, through a public email accounts would be unlikely. It is absurd to assert what a judge would conclude. Again that something is “top secret” is meaningless. The issue with illegal activity is that if it is illegal, then the data related to that illegal activity would (in the mind of the criminal) not be expected to be detected. It makes no sense to assert that they would first violate the Hatch h Act, but then worry about classification standards.
Arguing that this is a “public” e-mail account is false: The White House accounts are public; the RNC accounts are private. You’re confusing public and private. Either way, once information is sent through the RNC e-mail accounts from within the WH by WH Staff, that information is either official; or it is not. If it is not official, then they’re using government computers for non-official reasons. It’s more likely that the reason they’ve “classified” it is not because it is genuinely a state secret, but because the opposite: The activity is illegal. It is also false to assert that it “cannot” be disclosed to a judge: It was, in part, disclosed: And the Court has not dismissed the case. You lose on that point. It’s absurd to suggest that people involved with illegal activity would “not likely” do something else. At this point, all bets are off, and this assertion is not supportable: “However they may have. I never said they didn’t. I said it was unlikely, and for now, is unrelated to the case at hand. Rather, it is absurd to suggest that RNC e-mail destruction is unrelated to FISA Act violations. You haven’t credibly argued that the evidence destruction is unrelated to other illegal activity including FISA violations or war crimes.
This makes no sense: “You either are a right wing troll, trying to make us all sound like uneducated nuts, or you are an uneducated nut. You’re not sure? Either you can discuss the issues; or you can ask questions; or you can make arguments. Accusation of a “troll” isn’t an argument. I’m willing to listen. You’re making sweeping generalizations that alleged criminals who appear to have violated the Hatch Act would “not” violate the other laws; or that they “would” be concerned with consequences. They’re not concerned; _you’re_ concerned with things that they are not. Don’t argue for them. They have no defense. The beset they can offer is non-sense.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:15 pmComment by DISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
You’re not making a credible argument. The point of the FISA Atty’s comment at the link was that there was more to it. You’re incorrectly assertion that a FISA atty comment is or isn’t related to other issues. You’re insisting in the absence of information that there’s nothing to it. You’re free to believe that.
This is not supported, and irrelevant:
The attorney’s comment well exposes the US government to questions: Why would the attorney defend something related to something that does not exclusively deny the possibility that there is overseas data mining.
Again, the FISA litigation is not whether it was mined int he US or not; but whether the activity violated the FISA. How that violation occurred at AT&T is secondary.
You assert something about the “scope” of the program. You have no basis — in light of the attorney’s statement — to say that it is “narrowly” something. The point of these comments is to shed light on the attorney comments which leaves open the possibility of the very thing you say cannot occur; or is not relevant. Again, if it’s “not relevant” ask the Attorney why they made the comment. This discussion calls attention to his comment.
You don’t know what “the program” is; and have said this is “not” related: : “But that at the moment, has nothing to do with the scope of the program You have no basis for excluding something the attorney has left open the door to.
The attorney left open the possibility that data mining was occurring overseas; and they did not get a warrant to transfer that contractor collected data to the US government: “and your continued insistence that the data is being collected overseas is a red herring and a diversion from the gravity of the fact that You have no basis to argue it is a red herring; rather, that’s the point of raising the issue with the Attorney Comment: He’s leaving open the possibility that what you say is a red herring is, in fact, occurring.
You don’t believe this is relevant: “they are collecting the data from your local CO, and sending to to FT Meade Maryland, where NSA warehouses it for future data mining. If that is happening, then they’re doing the same to you; and overseas contractors working for the NSA may be collecting your information as well. You’re not making an argument. You’ve offered nothing which addresses the issues raised in the attorneys statement.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pmDISTURBIA — August 16, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
You appear to insist that something is in error, wrong, or incomplete; but you fail to justify your position. I cannot help you. This is your argument. You’re not making one. The best the WH can hope for is a fleeting defense.
You cite nothing that shows why the concerns with the attorneys comment is irrelevant; You provide no discussion on the attorney comment
You have not asked questions about what you are concerned; you’re commenting on style not substance. If there were not so many logic errors on this issue we wouldn’t have to spend this time exploring them.
You have failed to point to specific inaccuracies with any credible fact, assertion, or argument. You failed to show that the comments were red herrings; rather, it appears the attorneys’ comments left open the possibility.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pm*
found this earlier, but TP deleted it… not before i copied and sent it to them as email advice… read it before it’s gone again:
found on tonysnow thread… VERY GOOD ADVICE:
Why TP needs registration (if this sounds familiar to you, there’s a valid reason):
I ran a discussion forum for about 4 years from 2000-2004 called “The Dumbya Chroniclesâ€. You can still search on the name on the net and read all the messages. I left it out there so people can see the things we discussed.
I had to censor people. First of all were the Republicans and Freepers who were intent on disrupting the site. Free Republic (Freepers) in particular has groups of people who get together and attempt to overwhelm left wing sites with right wing posts and will do just that if you allow them unfettered access. Imagine if all the right wingers Rob has already kicked out of here were still here doing there thing.
Then came the crazies. People like the person on the web that calls themselves Kathaksung. Kat showed up on my forum one day and started posting some of the wildest and darkest paranoid conspiracy theories you can imagine. You can see some of Kat’s stuff here
I wrote Kat a personal email urging he/she to get help and that although I was not a practitioner, I thought I clearly recognized the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia and that there were drugs that would help him/her and that I cared about him/her and wanted them to get help and be happy. I’m not sure what ever happened.
So, we have censorship of Republicans/Freepers and censorship of those I was reasonably sure were insane.
I then discovered that there were some people who were determined to fight with and insult people. They didnt attack arguments, they attacked people. Membership began to drop as these people were harassing and driving away people who didnt want to have to deal with that. I had to ban those who behaved this way.
That is just the beginning. You can say you should never censor anyone on an internet forum but if you ever try to run one, if you make it your policy not to censor or limit any discussion, you would watch it degenerate into chaos and anarchy very quickly where no sort of rational and decent discussion can occur. That isnt what I wanted for my forum.
by sleser001 (122 articles, 572 comments) on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 7:42:48 PM
http://www.opednews.com/ articles/ 2/ opedne_kyle_pom_070815_an_open_letter_to_ma.htm
Comment by Thought of the Day — August 16, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
August 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm.
… and now it’s back there… good on ya, TP…
August 16th, 2007 at 5:44 pmweird, but good…
Uncle Ho — August 16, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
You’ll need to be specific. Somehow tie it to the FISA litigation and the attorney conduct.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:52 pmAnon; I was very specific several times. You NEVER get to the point about ANYTHING.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:46 pmYOU’RE AN IDIOT!!!!
You cite nothing that shows why the concerns with the attorneys comment is irrelevant;
Comment by Anus — August 16, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Thats because I don’t need to, because thus far, the only person even associating the two, is you.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pmIsn’t he doing a “read-between-the-lines” gesture? There’s another recent pic of him and Poppy on a speedboat, and he’s again giving that same gesture. (It means “F#@k you.”)
August 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pmA federal judge brought up impeachment of the president with connection to Bush’s expansive spying powers. This gives a lot of credibility to those of us who think impeachment is both appropriate and necessary. We have 3 branches of government. Bush can no longer rule like a king. He is a president and this is a democracy. He is accountable. He is not the sole decider.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:47 pmNO ONE is talking about holding the Bushites…
…CRIMINALLY liable for the mess they’ve created…
…and especially the massmurder in IRAQ!
…unless they (bush, Cheney et al) are brought to justice…
…America will be cursed…
August 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pmThere is no basis for the Congressional Act of 2007 to have any bearing on illegal NSA Conduct 2001-2007.
Sure there is. The law can be made retroactive.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pmAnon.
I have tried repeatedly to offer my argument, but the TP censor is too scared to let it stand, so if you want to read my position, then you can read the comment that I posted about 17 times, and that ThinkPropaganda deleted 17 times.
You can read the comment here, that they are too afraid for you to hear.
http://www.lydiacornell.com/blog.html
Visit me here if you want to finish our debate, because in order for me to offer my position, it actually has to “appear” on the board.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm>Sure there is. The law can be made retroactive.
possibly… but at this point, it hasnt yet… if it had been, the court case would be moot..
August 17th, 2007 at 7:22 amSupreme Court justices can be impeached and should be if thhey do not uphold the Constitution and the rights of Americans to be free of illegal search and seizure.
We need to remember the names of brave judges who stood up to the cheney cabal.
Just read some old material on the resignation of the head of the FISA court a few months ago.
Why do I care? Lots of reasons. Enough to fill a book.
At least part of it is that I don’t want to be part of the generation that puts out the brightest candle of the Enlightenment.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/ blog/ therap/ 2007/ aug/ 13/ why_i_care#comment
August 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pmpossibly… but at this point, it hasnt yet… if it had been, the court case would be moot..
Comment by The Wide and Long Rectum of Jhesus — August 17, 2007 @ 7:22 am
Then it’s time to do so, rather than let Carter corpses on the bench dictate national security.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pmAnon,
Thanks for your posts I haven’t been here in a while and you have written some of the most thought out and intelligent arguments I have read here thus far and they’ve given me several things to think about.
As for Uncle Ho and DISTURBIA, like I said I haven’t been here in a while, but you come across as “trolls” yourselves. Someone is posting information that you can’t quite grasp for whatever reason and you want them banned because of that? This is a site for everyone. If you don’t like the “long” posts then skip them and continue your own mindless discussion. There are people who read these blogs to gain information and it gets filled by your type of mindless flaming far too often which makes it a chore to sift through to the meaningful type of discussions we should be having.
You have accussed Anon of being a troll because he is confusing the topic and not “contributing”, but you are attempting to stifle the information he is relaying. Call me paranoid, but if I worked for this Administration I would be afraid of this type of information too… that so clearly lays out their illegal acts and possible routes of prosecution. So it appears that either you are trolls working for the administration (an accusation thrown around far too often on this site, I know) or you are simply just as bad as they are at avoiding actual discussion.
It seems that this guy has some kind of background in law and it most plainly appears that you do not, so, to add to what I’m sure your Mothers once told you: If you don’t have anything nice (or constructive) to say, then STFU.
Oh, and sorry for the long-winded post.
J
August 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm