Whether these label applies to you I don’t know. Probably not. Personally I think your bizarre infatuation with Al-Queda doesnt necessarily come from the same twisted logic that Kristol Meth + co espouse. I think though, even if what RHF said wasn’t completely accurate, its wrong to call someone paranoid simply because they believe someone other than arabs engage in conspiracies. After all, what is Al-Queda but the ultimate stateless conspiracy, right? I am correct in saying you would label Al-Queda as a group of conspirators, right?

Exley, do you consider yourself racist for asserting that people who beleive non-arabs engage in conspiracies are paranoid?

Why do you think jewish people are unable or unwilling to engage in conspiracies just as much as arabs do?

RHF’s paranoid spiral into anti-Semitism have nothing to do with political philosophy, the University of Chicago, or Straussianism…It is simply about RHF’s disturbing proclivity to resort to paranoid anti-Semitic rantings when faced with someone with whom he disgrees politically….

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/15/terror.study/index.html

Wow…RHF’s meltdown into paranoiac, anti-Semitic rantings is truly frightening (and pitiful) to behold…His twisted, prejudiced ranting should be reported as ‘abuse,’ but I think it is more important that his fellow “progressives” see the hatread he spews.

They have forever had 48 hours to proceed with taps before going to the FISA court. Congress in about 2002 extended that period to 72 hours. What McConnell must be saying is that they squandered the 72 hours and had to pull the plug until the court approved the tap. That is not the fault of the law, it is a sign of gross incompetence — or business as usual with this gang of incompentents.

ImpeachBush.org

You have no argument Exley but yet you stammer on. The bungling is entirely a Bush admin, internal clusterfu@k. Your fear will not rule the day.

You want to give up freedoms for safety but what you fear is baseless. This country stands strongest when we follow the constitution. Not this administration.

You must have missed this:

“The intelligence court ruled earlier this year that warrants were required for foreign communications that passed through telephone or Internet exchanges inside the United States, even if both parties were overseas, according to administration officials. That led to the requests for FISA orders in the Iraqi case, officials said.”

Except it didn’t. This is a lie.

50 USC § 1801(f)(2):

“the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;”

Thankfully, that absurd ruling has been overruled by statute with the FISA revisions

Care to cite the actual ruling?

Nonetheless, if the dorks in the maladministration DoJ thought that FISA applied, there was no problem either:

“McConnell told the committee today that restrictions derived by the FISA Court this year on wiretapping foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through the U.S. prevented the NSA from surveilling Iraqi insurgents who had kidnapped U.S. soldiers for 12 hours. But the source, who is privvy to the timeline of the incident, says “internal bureaucratic wrangling,” and not court-based restrictions, were responsible for the lag time. “To get an emergency warrant, you just have to believe the facts support the application that someone is an agent of a foreign power,” the source says. “That takes approximately five seconds to establish if you’re going after an Iraqi insurgent.”

“Why did so much time elapse before the surveillance? Top Justice Department officials needed to approve the emergency order. But according to the source, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was out of town; Deputy AG Paul McNulty had resigned already; Solicitor General Paul Clement “had left the building”; and the other responsible official, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein was not yet authorized to approve the emergency order. Wainstein testified today, but demurred from answering questions about the incident in open session.”

Glad to clear that up.

Cheers,

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1805 Issuance of order
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

Comment by Exley — October 15, 2007 @ 5:18 pm

But I have not.

What part of, “they have 72 hours after setting such taps in place to ask for the warrant, in case of emergency”, do you not understand?

That makes their point and yours moot.

You must have missed this:

“The intelligence court ruled earlier this year that warrants were required for foreign communications that passed through telephone or Internet exchanges inside the United States, even if both parties were overseas, according to administration officials. That led to the requests for FISA orders in the Iraqi case, officials said.”

Thankfully, that absurd ruling has been overruled by statute with the FISA revisions (Revision which you undoubtedly opposed)….Now, however, we see the Democratic leadership wanting to once again impose those restrictions….It is fortunate that they don’t have the votes to do so.

What is inexcusable is not using the clause where they can set up the tap imediately and they have 72 hours to ask for the warrant, since it was an emergency. That is why the clause exists in FISA.

Their excuse is BS, because they can’t even seem to follow the law as it is currently listed.

Geez, Exley, read the law and get back with us again after reading it.

No offense but you are getting a little lost in the weeds….What both The Washington and New York Post stories show is yet more evidence that this war has been “over-lawyered.” The fact that there was a 9.5 debate-delay regarding the legality of this communications intercept — especially when the lives on U.S. soldiers were at stake — is inexcusable.

Typo there. You misspelled “mis-lawyered”. Godd thing that SNAFU’s gone, eh?

Cheers,

What’s your beef here Exley? Are you mad at the Bush adminstration for delaying so long, or mad at the Bush administration for bungling it once they started the request.

Any way you look at this it’s a failure by the Bush administration.

Everything changed after 9/11…right. The articles over the weekend about Qwest Communications and pre-9/11 US citizen eavesdropping prove otherwise.