Ace, re: the power granted in that portion of 50 USC 1802, there is a restriction that should be addressed when analyzing this stuff.

I pray with all my heart that whoever interrogates known terrorists does whatever he needs to do with the understanding that he'll be pardoned if caught.

And while what Nixon did was wrong and stupid, he never jeopardized national security. The NYT has.

Would or would not be derelict?

Keith Olbermann. I dont like him. Wheres Dusty?

One thing I think is astounding, and bad, is that the modern US government seems to be allergic to charging anyone with treason. There have been several clearcut cases of it in the last four years (for instance, Taliban John).

Some of this recent leakage activity comes perilously close to treason in my opinion. I think it may be time to dust off the legal statutes regarding that crime and to start considering whether some of those involved in these leaks might well legally be considered traitors.

And that includes the reporters and newspaper editors.

Steven, given the big splash cases of the 1980s, you'd think they'd be diligent. In 1986 it took me six months to get a contractor's SECRET clearance. Something that used to be a credit check and a search for warrants/convictions taking a couple of weeks.

I wonder whose administration I blame for the weakened standards?

hang the jackass high

I wonder if cases for treason could survive the current news cycle, though. There was a time that governments could do that and, sure, it would be reported but it wouldn't be reported 24-7 with special graphics and Drudge Sirens and Keith Olberman wearing a spinning bow tie with blinky lights on it while shouting OH PLEASE GOD SOMEONE LOOK AT ME TAKE ME SERIOUSLY PLEASE KAY THANKS BYE

I have a bad feeling that everyone knows the first time we charge someone with treason in the cable news era it will either bring about the downfall of a presidental administration OR be done by a Democrat to a Republican.

Speaking of jackasses...

AOL's News Headline on their main page reads: Is He Acting Like a 'King'?

The money quote in the article is from the junior senator from my home state, "I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.

When a political price be paid by the senators who say things like this that are so far off kilter from reality?

It's not like the citizens of the Badger State are going to vote the Senator out of office when he comes up again for re-election in 2010.

Hell, looking at this from a half-empty glass perspective, this may get him elected to the Presidency in '08.

Hell, looking at this from a half-empty glass perspective, this may get him elected to the Presidency in '08.

badger Chris,

Rest assured Russ is going nowhere. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to nominate another Senator with a voting record that's somewhere left of Ted Kennedy.

SERIOUSLY GUYS WHEN MSNBC NEEDED TO FOLLOW UP THAT PORN AD THEY TURNED TO THE KEITHSTER. I'M JUST AS MUCH A VETERAN NEWS GUY AS THAT OTHER NEWS GUY.

PLEASE GOD SOMEONE VALIDATE MY EXISTENCE AND/OR PARKING STUB

Hubris?

If you follow the links of that restriction, you will see that it takes you to a previous section, that gives definitions to words and phrases that may exist in the document. for instance 1801b1B

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means— (1) any person other than a United States person, who— (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or

Coincides with the opinion that this measure excludes US Citizens. However if you continue, to
1801b2B, you will see this.

(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means— (2) any person who— (note the exclusion of "other than a United States person)(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

SORTELLI:the first time we charge someone with treason in the cable news era it will either bring about the downfall of a presidental administration OR be done by a Democrat to a Republican. Buddy if we started to make a list of politicians who have committed treason, there'd be few democrats left in the Senate or House and even a few Republicans would bite the dust. When the left says we can't question their patriotism, they have a point. You can't question what doesn't exist. As for a Democrat charging anyone with treason -----LOL.

Sorry for the length of the previous post. Just thought it was important since the first comment by Hubris implied that the authorization actually proved that Bush did commit a crime.

You know when this "leaking" shit will end? When we finally execute somebody for treason in a time of war. Ever since the 1960's, the Left has managed to subvert the very idea of treason until nothing is treasonous any more , not even giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Not spying. Not exposing classified information. Nothing.

This is probably fantasy -- I cannot imagine any treason conviction being upheld, much less followed through to the execution of the defendant.

As for a Democrat charging anyone with treason -----LOL.

I know, pretty outrageous, but what else is left for them to do now? It would be the only scenario I could imagine in which the media might not shit its pants in headlines every day for two years.

The left has managed, despite holding no majorities in any branch of government (if you don't include the media, which fancies itself as some sort of infallible policy organ), to put this country in a serious state of vulnerability. Restrict our military; check. Restrict our intelligence services; check. Restrict law enforcement here; check. I mean, what do these stupid motherfuckers expect us to do to prevent terrorist attacks? I hate to sound alarmist, but these trends add up to a most vigorous screwing if something isn't done to counter them.

I think that federal prosecutors made a massive mistake when they did a plea bargain with Taliban John. The theory was that he would cooperate with interrogators in exchange, but I really don't believe that he knew enough to justify that deal.

Looking at the situation now, I think there would be quite an improvement if there really had been a successful trial of someone for treason after 9/11, and there's absolutely no doubt at all that Taliban John was guilty and would have been convicted if they'd wanted to pursue such a charge against him.

The laws are unenforced to such a point that we'd have to make an example out of someone?

When was the last time anyone was charged with treason?

Two things:

(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence link

If the people who were being monitored weren't permanent residents of the US, they don't fall under the definition of "United States person."

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

The Attorney General must notify House and Senate Intelligence Commitee members of this surveillance. Kinda makes you wonder about all the howls of outrage, doesn't it.

I dunno, I think that under the president's war powers, Congress doesn't have the power to take away his power to do this sort of stuff anyway. There is a difference between using the exclusionary rule avenue of the fourth amendment to forbid wiretapping in criminal cases, but when it comes to actual war fighting (cold, hot or terror), it seems that the ability to regulate criminal investiagtions has no bearing on the powers of the commander in chief to use whatever resources he has to fight that war. Thus, Bush should read the law as loosely as he likes.

This would be an interesting constitutional issue if it were ever pressed.

I have already sent an email to the justice department (sic) and requested an investigation but doubt that they have the leadership to do one. I also requested that Michell Malkin lead a drive on the blogs to force a full investigation of the daily leaks of National Security information from the CIA and NSA. Every 'right' thinking blog should start a campaign to make the investigation happen. Time to get off of out butts and put some left wing anti-americans in jail for a long sentence. The traitors in congress should also be called on their actions of late. There is at least half the left wing (democrats, not) that have comitted treason in the last six months. Looks like the President is finally mad and has quit being a Southern Gentleman about all the crap. He's tried to stay above it but it's time for him to let loose and for us to put the pressure on, and support him..It may be your family that the idiots in congress get killed.

"warrants? we don't need no steenking warrants!"

acutually, according to us code 1801 & 1801 the prez doesn't.

as long as the AG and Congress agrees that his targets are foreign powers (which means - among ohter things - terrorists).

i also find it amusing that the left think it would be okay if a judge - elected by no one and accountable to no one - approved what the president did. as if that would amount to a check & balance.

i think this is fundamentally absurd because the president is the ONLY person elected in the entire government by all the people of the USA, and the one whose primary responsibility is the defense of the USA.

A judge in FISA could hardly be a check on the CinC. The FISA judge could, though, be a check on DOJ, DoD, and DNI.

the REAl reason the prez went outside the FIUSA court was because the intel was going to be used by the DoD and not the DoJ - for covert aaction and not jurisprudential action.

the Left and other "9/10" folks still believe that the GWOT should be fought in the courts. which is absurd.

also: the elft would do ANYTHINMG to hurt Bush - even if it hurt our national defense.

the Left mustn't EVER be trusted with our national security.

"president kerry" - God Forbid, please I pray! - or prez feingold (ditto God!) or the like (meaning virtually every Democrat except Lieberman) WOULD PROBABLY NOT HAVE DONE WHAT BUSH DID.

that ought to scare most people.

After keeping it secret for more than a year, the NY Times has revealed that the Bush Administration has been doing something illegally that they could equally well have done legally. They had a perfect right to wiretap the international calls of US citizens under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) if they then asked the secret FISA court for a warrant within 72 hours. They didn't ask; they didn't even try.

Of course, this aspect of FISA is public knowledge, so any potential terrorists knew quite well that they might be tapped. Revealing that the taps are being done illegally tells them nothing of interest to them. It does nothing to compromise our national security, restrict the capabilities of our intelligence service, or limit the actions of our law enforcement. It only serves to keep secret from the FISA Court the identities of the people under surveillance.

All that was revealed was that the Bush Administration is criminal, arrogant, and stupid. The terrorists knew that, too.

I hate Bush. Bush sucks. Impeach Bush. All hail the omniscient bastion of Truth and not-at-all-biased reporting, the New York Times! And one more thing... QUAGMIREHALLIBURTONJOEWILSON!

Bullshit, Munck. Look at the first sentence you wrote. The New York Times put this little stinker of a story away for a rainy day and whipped it out at a time when they couldn't come up with anything else to keep you slobbering idiots mollified.

If the NYFT knew Bush actually did something illegal a year ago, why did they sit on it?

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that they have to scrape this low to get something negative in the headlines as Iraq has another fantastically successful election does not mean doom and gloom for Republicans. Unless you know something the NYFT doesn't... like what law was broken?

And just a reminder for the folks at home: If your conspiracy theory requires the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES to HELP BUSH, you're a FUCKING MORON.

"If the NYFT knew Bush actually did something illegal a year ago, why did they sit on it?"

According to them and to Bush, because Bush asked them to. If they'd printed it when they first learned it, the election would most certainly have gone the other way. They certainly aren't going to save it for a Friday afternoon a week before Christmas in order the maximize its impact. It's part and parcel with their Judith Miller stories pushing the fairy tales of WMD.

I really don't know what tipping point caused them to print it now. Early January or just before the State of the Union address would have been much better.

Man, the trolls that come aboard.

"All that was revealed was that the Bush Administration is criminal, arrogant, and stupid. The terrorists knew that, too."

Right, so when they were in America in 2000, plotting 9-11, they were being preemptive in case W got elected. Same with 1993.

Again, Congress could probably no more limit the president's ability to collect war-time intelligence than it could write a law establishing a religion. Its pointless because this is within a president's war powers and also because noone gives a shit except for people who see every issue as a device to use in an upcoming election.

Yeah. Okay.

Bob.

You're sitting in front of a keyboard and telling me that the NYT had in its hands a story that could have swung the election to Kerry and they decided not to go with it.

Because Bush asked them to.

How is it that you have avoided choking to death on your own stupid drool right now? Seriously. Is your nurse there? Tell her to unplug your keyboard again so you can make the funny mashy sounds on it with your knuckles without embarassing yourself any further.

...I really don't know...

A quote for the ages, Bob, thanks for your candor.

Here's something for you to think about. This was timed to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, giving Dems in congress cover for their filibuster. Giving the press something to squeal about instead of wondering why Iraq just had another hugely successful election is a nice bonus, too.

It didn't come up during the election or any time sooner because it's going to come out very quickly that no laws were broken. Even by your own dumb, loud mouth you spoke that Bush could have done all this if he had gotten FISA warrants, so your argument isn't against the surveillance, it's against the procedure by which it was obtained.

All the blood may have rushed out of your brain and into that little pecker of yours at the thought of bad news for Bush, but this isn't going to stick. People are going to ask the obvious questions, like, uh, why the NYT sat on the story for a year if it was such a big deal and why the Democrats in Congress who were told about this didn't do anything either. Obvious answer: Because the story is bullshit.

Quick! Get back to chanting "Spying on Americans" over and over again and maybe you can milk a few more drops out of this hind tit.

First Bob Woodward goes all goey on W, now the New York Times? Wow, those Jews who own Bush really have got some pull.

Troll manages to type out this withering indictment "if they then asked the secret FISA court for a warrant within 72 hours. They didn't ask; they didn't even try."

My own bias: If Congress specifically forbade the president from doing what he did, the law has all the merit of a note passed between first graders in phonics class. Not that it matters because whoever wrote the "law" put in a couple of attempts to save constitutional muster, which was pointed out and quoted in the same thread in which Troll decided to shit.

"50 USC 1802:
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year[...]"

Foreign intel? Domestic Intel, is there a difference, well, if a sleeper cell pops up, oops, they will be treated as enemy combatants anyway.

Sortelli, I'm re-arranging some of your comment, just to demonstrate its incoherence:

"People are going to ask the obvious questions, like, uh, why the NYT sat on the story for a year if it was such a big deal and why the Democrats in Congress who were told about this didn't do anything either. Obvious answer: [snip, paste] This was timed to the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, giving Dems in congress cover for their filibuster. "

Yeah, I suppose that that's possible. I was puzzled by the GOP rejecting the chance to extend the Act for three months, given that it was pretty clear that they couldn't break a filibuster, so I've been assuming that those few actual conservatives left in the Right Wing had the same deep-seated doubts about PATRIOT that everybody but the screaming fanatics has. Rather than "giving the Dems cover for their filibuster," the filibuster gave the non-extremist part of the GOP cover for rejecting PATRIOT. Well, in any case, America has come out ahead on that one, for now.

You know what? Maybe we should roll with this. Let's make it a big thing. We'll tell the world that, yes, Virginia, the Bush Junta really does own the New York Times.

If you read Maureen Dowd, you're a servant of the Chimpler! Paul Krugman is fictitious! He was made out of shag carpet and plastic scraps! He's a puppet of Dark Lord Karl Rove!! If you read the New York Times, you're a pawn of Cock Cheney's Dick! ... Dick Cheney's.. oh never mind!

Yes, yes, the New York Times is a pawn of Bush's Republican machine, but luckliy those Republicans in congress voted against the PATRIOT act and... uh...

Personally I'm pretty ambivilent about the PATRIOT act itself so I'm not really worried about it going away, but either way, Bob? You've just demonstrated how the New York Times influenced congress by sitting on this story until now.

So, there ya go, you don't have to wonder why they didn't pop this bubble back in 2004 when it would have been torpedoed immediately during the campaign and actually hurt the Democrats by highlighting what clowns they are about national security at a time when they were trying so very, very hard to look aggressive about hunting down terrorists.

And I'm the incoherent one? Are you genetically immune to shame?

Bob Munck misunderstands

They had a perfect right to wiretap the international calls of US citizens under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) if they then asked the secret FISA court for a warrant within 72 hours. They didn't ask; they didn't even try.

There is a difference between being worried about being overheard, and having your enemies confirm it.

THAT is what is irresponsible, we have the ability to track virtually every electronic signal on the planet (maybe not with the ability to listen in, but even the minute EMR of a vibrator can likely be detected, depending on the location of the satelite)

Partisanship PROVED more valuable than a nation.

ROAR!! I totaly mixed my quotes.

Actually, review 1802, it says, I think, one year before review. You are referencing the National Security Act, that allows the CinC to act without congressional AUTHORIZATION in military matters for 90 days.

That means, that the CinC can wage any war, with any amount of armed forces activity, with AUTOMATIC FUNDING! for 90 days without confering with congress for either a continuation, or a declaration of war.

What is being argued here, is actualy a question of sovereign oversite, not military command.

Sorry for my own confusion, I'm sure everyone can pick out the quote from Bob that instigated my last post, if not, I will respond in an hour or two, with the specifics.

You know? Ace really should respond to his posters, especially as accurate and valued as mine was, EVEN if I was late on the uptake.

_I_ itemized Coldfury didn't.

Cold did a better job, but I Itemized in a response.

If Ace wants to match the GREAT GREAT GREAT atrios, he should find his ass in his own forums, and stop using this WEAK ass comment method. does atrios have a lagged out, overdone comment system?

YOU (ace) are the one who adores atrios's comments, not me.

I was deliberately insulting, though it didn't come out right, because your comment page sucks shit.

You are the best concervative blog, get a more realistic, and instant comment page.

Especially if you are gonna bitch every day, or every other day about the lazy fucknut libs.

Mind YOU!!! I have posted a LOT since I found a reason to post despite the fact that this CGI sucks shit that wouldn't be thrown by King Fucking KONG!

I don't know if Karol, or karen or whatever her name is suggested it, ask Frank J., no, he uses something almost as shitty, ask Baloon juice.

His comment section is much more . . . .efficient, though I've seen a lot of deletions.

Really, ditch this Bullshit Comment format.

Hell, forwarded E-Mails is better than this shit!

I love your Blog, and listen to you every tuesday, just think you should make an appearance is all.

blah

Blah

Ace? TAKE part?

You should take moderate your own forums, maybe that is WHY Atrios moved towards open threatds.

Wickedpinto,

Dude, take your meds and get to bed.

Sortelli, I'm re-arranging some of your comment, just to demonstrate its incoherence

Hey Bob, I'm going to rearrange your own words, too. It's a little game I like to call Fun With Text; I learend it from the Michael Moore Film School.

[t]he NY Times has revealed that the Bush Administration has been doing something...legally. I was puzzled...arrogant, and stupid. The terrorists knew that, too.

Hey Bart, really clever. I can go one better, rearranging the letters in your comment:

Bart isn't all that bright.

Still better, of course, would be to rearrange the pixels, but this blog doesn't support images.

Sortelli, you're right. The NYT definitely influenced Congress by keeping secret the fact that Bush is breaking the law. So what? That doesn't negate the fact that Bush is breaking the law. And violating his oath to uphold the Constitution. All for no good reason, since he could easily have done the same thing legally.

Of course, they only influenced part of the Congress, because according to Bush some of them already knew what he was doing. That darn New York Times, telling the truth to a bunch of people who already knew it. Btw, one story is that they published now because a book that reveals the crime is about to come out.

Duh... me am troll. Bush am bad! Bush break law! New York Times am right-wing media! Me take meds and go back to finger painting now. Hello... duh, I mean, goodbye!

Munck:
All for no good reason, since he could easily have done the same thing legally.

In other words, you are conceding that this is no big deal.

The spying is legal, but Bush still should have gotten warrants. You know, warrants for communications with known terrorists, that is, because terrorists in the Middle East have constitutional rights, too. And we'll keep bellyaching about this perfectly legal spying rather than the ambiguous warrants issue because we get more traction by dishonestly suggesting that the Bush administration is spying on John Q. Public without a warrant, even though that is not what's going on. They only forego warrants if and only if it's Achmed Q. Terrorist in Ashcanistan who is on the other end of the phone, but we won't emphasize that fact, because then people would tell us to shut the fuck up.

This is your argument. This is your "crime of the century." Okey-dokey. Good luck generating public outrage with this.

In other words, you are conceding that this is no big deal.

No, I'm saying that Bush broke the law. Nothing minor about that. No president is above the law.

suggesting that the Bush administration is spying on John Q. Public without a warrant, even though that is not what's going on. They only forego warrants if and only if it's Achmed Q. Terrorist in Ashcanistan who is on the other end of the phone

How do you know that?

Good luck generating public outrage with this.

Oh, I think that's going to happen all by itself.

THE NEW YORK TIMES IN CAHOOTS WITH GEORGE BUSH.........that insinuation made me spew soda through my nose, shit and piss my pants simultaneously......UNBELIEVABLE
Only a lefty troll could make that claim.

Oh, I think that's going to happen all by itself.

No, you hope it is, just like every other time you dipshit Donks have tried to "get" Bush.

Oh, Bob.

You're so fucking cute with your 'we're gonna get Bush' fantasies. You're like a guy dating a vicious cocktease - just when you think you're going to get some tail, she just won't give it up, but you stick with her in the hopes that someday, you'll be allowed entrance into the holy of holies.

You guys must have a vicious case of blueballs by now, so I can understand the growing frustration you're all showing.

No one wants to argue my main point, that Bush has and is performing illegal acts to accomplish something he could have done legally if he weren't so arrogant.

that Bush has and is performing illegal acts to accomplish something he could have done legally if he weren't so arrogant.

It's ontological, Bob. He didn't operate outside of his constitutional mandate, nor did he exercise power that was outside of a fairly strict reading of law.

As for backing up the ontology, start with his radio address yesterday, in which he relies on his constitutional authority to sign what he did. Anyone interested should look at Levin's pbp preliminary analysis here.

If you think he did, you need to cite where and how.

But you are also missing a big point - lives have been saved, definitively.

Used to work with a COBOL programmer who wrote subroutines with names like "UNNATURAL ACTS". Variables were named after women we worked with.

He could write a PERFORM statement that would make you blush.

No one wants to argue my main point

That's because arguing with a BDS sufferer is like arguing with a Flat Earther. How do you relate to someone who lives in an alternate universe?

Munck: No, I'm saying that Bush broke the law. Nothing minor about that. No president is above the law.

Unless he's a Democrat. Republicans can be impeached for driving 56 Mph in a 55 zone.

The Justice Department would be the entity that would prosecute any such violations of the law. Except that the Justice Department already signed off on these surveillance requests. So will the Justice Department authorize an investigation into a policy that they already signed off on? Not bloody likely. As far as I can tell, not even the Times is so tendentious as to claim the law has been broken. They have to be content with implying it.

Munck: How do you know that?

Because that's what I read in the New York Times:

"In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States."

The Times isn't being 100% clear here, but I take it to mean that the NSA was monitoring phone calls to numbers picked up in a foreign intelligence operation against Al Qaeda, and a small percentage of those Al Qaeda guys are operating in the US, just as one might expect. I don't see anywhere where the Times is saying that the the NSA was monitoring citizen to citizen calls without a warrant. You may believe that, but again, the burden of proof is on you. If you can show me where the NSA eavesdropped domestic US citizen to US citizen phone calls without a warrant without Justice Department and Congressional knowledge, well you might have a point. But until you can demonstrate to me that that is in fact what happened, I simply don't care. The NSA monitors phone calls from US residents or citizens to numbers on the Al Qaeda rolodex? In other words, the NSA is doing what the NSA was designed to do.

And again, I insist "All for no good reason, since he could easily have done the same thing legally" means "no big deal." If Bush could have achieved the same result legally and with great ease, then I can only assume the end for which they purportedly screwed up the means is in its essence no big deal. Otherwise the law would not allow Bush to do it "easily." Let's try your phrase with, I don't know, let's say murder: "All for no good reason, since he could easily have done the same thing legally." It doesn't work, you see?

LOL! The NYT kept a lid on something damaging to Bush until AFTER the election! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

He obviously forgot about the NYT and the infamous TANG documents, the Wilson/Plame affair, or the hyping of Kitty Kelley's usual tripe.

This guy should be writing for Zapato Productions or Conspiracy Planet. He is hilarious!

Variables were named after women we worked with

No small irony either I bet that COBOL line terminators are...periods!

No, its impossible for the president to break this law because if one were to read the law to preclude the president from surveiling American citizens involved in plots against America (in the military sense) with foreign governments, that would render the law unconstitutional.
Doing some light research on the subject, Hewitt solves my efforts by pointing out that there are no Supreme Court decisions on point on the subject. Either way, it seems who ever wrote the law left a way for either side in this "debate" to avoid a constitutional question by letting president to do whatever he wants for up to a year.
So, whoever this guy is, he is busy ignoring the law and constitution while writing things like "bush is breaking the law." One, such a law would be unconstitutional, and the pres. wouldn't be bound by it. Two, (in spite of point one) there is no real guidance because its still an open question as to whether such a law would be legal, and three, the law was writen to allow the president to do what he did. And four, even if the law were pefectly legal and constitutional, the president should have broken that law to protect us and let congress do something about it (he could pardon anyone who broke the law and congress would have to impeach him or let it go).

And let's not forget, the NYT sat on the story for a year instead of rushing it out during the election. Forget that it is the New York Times. NO American media outlet is going to sit on a bombshell like that if it is legitimate. Fox News would have reported on it if they found Bush had done something illegal in his first term.

The reason it didn't happen is that they, even they, know it wasn't illegal... and that it wouldn't even hold up to scrutiny for long if they implied. That is the only reasonable explanation for why they saved it for something like this. It's the bottom of the barrel for anti-Bush news.

They're running out of bullshit.

They're running out of bullshit.

Sadly, I suspect they have an inexhaustible supply.

Sortelli,

There is a book coming out by one of the reporters shortly. That's why they released the story now. Sad but true.

That's right, I forgot about that.

It always comes down to the fucking book deal, doesn't it?

the man punted Baxter!

I am in a glass cage of emotion!

That's just how I roll

caspera: As far as I can tell, not even the Times is so tendentious as to claim the law has been broken.

Yeah, they did. Explicitly, in their Sunday editorial ("This Call May Be Monitored ...", last paragraph). So did Bob Barr, Joe Biden, many others.

If you can show me where the NSA eavesdropped domestic US citizen to US citizen phone calls without a warrant without Justice Department and Congressional knowledge, well you might have a point.

Are you claiming that you have to violate two citizen's rights for it to be a crime? That doesn't make sense, and it isn't what the FISA says; it violates the citizen's Constitutional rights no matter who he's talking to. Note, btw, that your "without Justice Department and Congressional knowledge" is meaningless; the law makes no exceptions like that. It's only "without a warrant" that matters.

And, of course, we don't know who the NSA was spying on. That's the whole point of their not getting warrants; they were concealing that from the FISA court. The only vaguely logical explanation for their action is that the surveillance operations were so outrageous, so unrelated to the GWoT that even that court would not have agreed. For example, on domestic anti-war groups or on people associated with the Palme investigation. If you have some other explanation, Id like to hear it.

If Bush could have achieved the same result legally and with great ease, then I can only assume the end for which they purportedly screwed up the means is in its essence no big deal.

Or it could have been a very, very big deal, like surveillance on their political enemies. That's why we have oversight like the FISA court. Again, the government is perfectly within its rights and acting legally when it does surveillance like this; all they have to do is get a warrant from a secret court that pretty much always grants them, within 72 hours after starting the operation. They weren't doing anything to protect America by not getting that warrant.

Bob, you are aware that there has been oversight, right?

I mean, you CAN read, right?

Although, when you post

Are you claiming that you have to violate two citizen's rights for it to be a crime? ... it violates the citizen's Constitutional rights no matter who he's talking to.

I suspect that it may be the case that you are, in fact, functionally illiterate and that the entire discussion up to this point has been some sort of statistical anomaly as you bash on your computer trying to figure out how to open solitare or click the button that gives you a food pellet or something.

Because if the citizen is talking to a hostile foreign power, such as Al Qaeda, we can (and SHOULD) be listening in, whereas a conversation completely between two citizens is a different matter altogether.

Now, remembering that there has been ongoing legal oversight regarding the persons under surveillance and briefings to members of both parties in Congress, what is it that still leads you to suspect that Bush has been getting away with spying on domestic political opponents?

If only America could be free of the Karl Rove/ George W./ New York Times Axis Of Evil. Then we could be free.

Bob, when are you going to learn that even appearing to take the side of Al Qaeda is poison for your party.

You and your ilk will never be trusted again if you continue on this track. So keep it up.

Who gives a shit if the NSA is listening to shady phone calls? I'm not worried. Are you?

Sortelli, you rock!

I suspect that it may be the case that you are, in fact, functionally illiterate and that the entire discussion up to this point has been some sort of statistical anomaly as you bash on your computer trying to figure out how to open solitare

I've wanted to write the same thing, only couldn't figure out how.

anyway, the guy is sanctimonious as his "even as the rights on one man is violated, our republic is doomed" schtick spruiously ignores the law and the common sense of the situation.

Sortelli:
Because if the citizen is talking to a hostile foreign power, such as Al Qaeda, we can (and SHOULD) be listening in

Now, remembering that there has been ongoing legal oversight regarding the persons under surveillance and briefings to members of both parties in Congress, what is it that still leads you to suspect that Bush has been getting away with spying on domestic political opponents?

"Oversight" does not and has never meant simply knowing that something exists; it means knowing explicitly and in detail what it is doing. FISA defines exactly what the court has to be told to provide oversight (and defines the court as the only entity authorized to provide oversight). Bush didn't do that (any idea why?) and thus broke the law.

Sortelli, thanks for coming up with an actual cogent argument. I'll assume that the "functionally illiterate" bit is just a knee-jerk reaction to the way that right-wingers normally "argue." Insulting your opponent is just part of the ethos.

fugazi: Who gives a shit if the NSA is listening to shady phone calls? I'm not worried. Are you?

Not in the least, as long as some neutral party has oversight authority and is determining that the calls are in fact "shady."

Well, then, it's a good thing the Department of Justice has been reviewing the NSA's work every 45 days.

Also, 50 USC 1802 (a)
(1): Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year.

Foreign intelligence, in this case, listening in to Al Qaeda contacts with US Citizens. According to US v Bin Laden, Al Qaeda counts as a foreign power even absent a specific country to call home.

Do you understand now that it's a critical requirement for the surveillance to include someone besides a citizen? And that this has been reviewed every 45 days? Do I need to remind you again? Bush's political opponents have been briefed on this and the one of the most tired liberal rags in the country has known about it for a year?

That your entire argument that the government skipped the procedure you think is critical just to tap into your Farm Animal Phone Sex calls is collapsing around your sweaty, fever-addled brow?

Please, Bob, understand that I do not mistake insult for argument. But there is no way, once I have your dull, beady eyes trained on my words, that I can fail to inform you of how deeply you disgust me, you dimwitted sack of deranged partisan shit.

Sincerely, fuck you. Fuck you for helping to drag us all through this nonsense when there's so many more important things going on. Fuck you for draining America's credibility and political capital just because you can't stand smirking Texans. I don't want you to agree with me on everything, I don't fucking care what you think about tax cuts or welfare reform and I do NOT want the entire Republican platform to be implimented across the country forever but goddamn it if I am not going to keep going to the polls to punish your stupid fucking party until it disbands and something less reprehensable takes its place.

Because you and yours are too fucking childish to accept that Bush was elected twice you have to drop your pants and shit on every surface you can fit your flabby asscheeks over in this constant battle of political attrition, from bitching that the gloves we handle Korans with in Gitmo aren't thick enough to the nonsense of Valerie Plame and her lying asshole of a husband and the bullshit of this actual illegal leak of our intellegence programs--this one that's actually stopped further attacks on our shores--and you're objectively aiding the continued safety of tyrants and dictators and the continued bloodshed of innocent people.

Fuck you, Bob Munck. You are scum. And as scum goes, you're not even very smart or good at this.

That was beautiful, Sortelli. I hope Bob replies and gets you wound up again.

I got nothing left to give! I left it all out on the stage!

What's Bob going to say, anyway? Is he going to pull the imaginary law that was broken out of his ass or prove that, yes, the NEW YORK TIMES is in on the Bush Conspiracy? This is nonsense. It's like arguing with a child, only children are charming and have an excuse for making up progressively crazier statements.

But that's okay, it must be BUSH who is the tyrant and murderer because... well... it's too painful to consider the idea that he might be acting in good faith! AGAGGAGAGAGAGA

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT

I got nothing left to give! I left it all out on the stage!

You were the only important one on this stage, tonight. Nice job! I love whack-a-troll! lol.

Note to self: stay on Sortelli's good side.

Breaking News: Asshat senator from Massachusetts still an asshat.

Sortelli: Well, then, it's a good thing the Department of Justice has been reviewing the NSA's work every 45 days.

Also, 50 USC 1802 (a) (1): Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year.

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;

[emphasis added] and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Note, too, the several usages of "as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3);" that language specifically excludes terrorist organizations, which are defined in 1801 (a)(4).

Other than being complete wrong on all the substantive points, it was a nice rant. You demonstrate an excellent grasp of obscenity, albeit with a fair amount of repetition.

Yikes. Those blueballs have got to be achin' by now, huh Bob?

So, Bob, what do you think will come of all this alleged chicanery?

What will come of this obvious law-breaking by the president is IMPEACHMENT, JAIL, BREAKING ROCKS AT LEAVENWORTH!

ONLY THEN WILL OUR HATRED BE SATISFIED!!!!!

Bush bad! Bush go away! Me long for law-abiding President like Clinton. Oh, how me wish me was Monica...

Aw, it sounds like someone didn't get the pony he wanted for Fitzmas, so now he's asking Fitzy Claus for a Ferrari.

Sorry little boy, the Grinch stole Fitzmas this year. Hope you like coal.

Bob Munchkin says Note section (B); it specifically excludes U.S. citizens.

It is my opinion that the administration interpreted

1801b2B (b) “Agent of a foreign power” means— (2) any person who—(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

to usurp the United States person clause. I have no problem with that in these 30 cases which undoubtly saved lives and allowed us to continue to do so without jeopardizing the intelligence gathering. Butt Munch do you have a problem with saving citizens or more concerned that citizens acting as foreign agents have their communications protected?

So how does "no substantial likelihood" morph into "specifically includes?"

Excuse me, "excludes"

roc ingersol: I have no problem with that in these 30 cases which undoubtly saved lives and allowed us to continue to do so without jeopardizing the intelligence gathering.

Note that the question is not how they interpreted part of the law; it's that they ignored (and violated) a different part of it. You have to obey the entire law.

(When you typed "undoubtedly saved lives," you were hearing Jack Nicholson in your head, weren't you?)

Other than roc, I see we have the intelligentsia commenting this morning.

According to the Times, the NSA still seeks warrants for entirely domestic communications. So at least one end of any tapped communication was outside the US and undeniably fair game if tapped at the external end. The gripe seems to be that we tapped the local phone instead:

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

So this is basically intercepting communications between German-American Bunds and the Nazis in Europe. According to the article, we latched onto the phone numbers and addresses from AQ captured overseas and picked up some other domestic contacts based on what we saw. Cool with me. Since this is for anti/counter-terrorism and intelligence rather than a "stuck on stupid" criminal prosecution, the lack of a warrant doesn't really offend my sense of the 4th Amendment. And FISA warrants are pretty much done with a rubber stamp, so any supposed procedural defect would be substantively inconsequential.

The article says Bush kept congressional leaders of both parties briefed. So we aren't looking at a secret executive cabal; we have legislative oversight.

OK. So we are down to whether we have an inconsequential procedural deficiency in the way Bush & Co. have been rolling up AQ and foiling murderous terrorist attacks at home and abroad. A question of, "Was the cop wearing his hat when he arrested the killers?" Fine. Let's go with that. But you can't possibly expect reasonable people to get too worked up about it.

The legal briefs supporting this are purportedly classified which implies the legal authority isn't a simple statutory citation. Joeindc44 is probably right to see an element of inherent executive authority in play, but I don't expect we are going to reverse engineer the briefs. What I do see in the article is that FISA judges were aware of it any only voiced a concern that information gathered in this was might be used to obtain FISA warrants on other people.

The fruits of a warrantless wiretap generally can't be presented as evidence in a criminal prosecution. I don't see a report that this rule is being violated. Can they be used to to fight the War on Terror against foreign powers? According to the article, the Justice Department and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review recognize that there is in fact inherent executive authority for warrentless foreign intelligence wiretaps and this authority cannot be checked by Congress. To the degree Congress attempts to limit the inherent authority of a sister branch concerning such information gathering, it is Congress, not the White House, that is outside the law and conflicts within the FISA as to "United States persons" and "agents of a foreign power" would be read in the White House's favor if the FISA is to survive constitutional scrutiny.

The main question for this insubstantial inquiry boils down to whether foreign intelligence can include contact between outsiders and people legally within our borders. The definition present in 50 USC 1801(e) would be inclusive of such information, so we apparently already have agreement between the legislative and executive branches that this is the case. And the NYT Sunday editorial saying, "illegal government spying on Americans is a violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or not," blatantly - and probably intentionally - misses the point.

So we can all breathe a sigh of relief, Rod, secure in the knowledge that our cops almost certainly were wearing their hats while they took the killers off our streets. Cuz that's the really important part.

This guy's whole point is so sanctimonious and wrong.

Congress doesn't have the power to write the law he would like it to be read. Its an infringement upon the president's war powers. Its also impractical because the president, if he decided to make this a matter of policy could pardon anyone who he directs to act and Congress would have to resort to impeachment, which is unlikely.

There's also the point that POTUS also had his lawyers look over all the laws and whatnot to come to the conclusion that he had the power to do this.

One aspect of this law is another bailout section:

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Its pointless to argue the point as its still an open question the constitutionality of these laws, but the Fourth amendment is concerned with using evidence in criminal prosecutions, not with respect to military or quasi-military operations. This guy is merely expressing his desire for something, anything, to live up to the promise of Fitzmas or any other myth that will be the thing that gets Bush.

sorry, not gonna work.

Are you claiming that getting a retroactive warrant from the secret FISA court would jeopardize the intelligence gathering? How, exactly?

Are you saying that the FISA would have rubber stamped all of these? If so, I can only assume you are more concerned about procedures rather than violations of anyone's rights. If not, then I assume you believe that it was possible that the FISA could have denied the request for the retroactive warrants which would have undoubtly ( I like Nicholson) effect future intelligence gathering.

None of this should take any focus off the fact that crimes have been committed, though. We are seeing a series of leaks about classified operations in a time of war and the leakers need to be exposed, convicted and punished. Does anyone have confirmation on the NSA's criminal referral on this?

that was me at 12:59 and again I typed undoubtedly wrong.

Remember some famous code-breaking cases of WWII, what if the intel that came from breaking Enigma, or whatever it was that let us shoot down Yamato's plane, came in part from a conversation with an American citizen (or even between american citizens). FDR woulda hung those citizens after tapping their phones and doing whatever else he could have thought of (remember, he hung those Germans who came to shore before the Supreme Court had finished their review of their cases). The constitution does not give our enemy a safe harbor by using American citizens in their communications.

VRWC Agent mentions that maybe the persons gathering intelligence were wearing the wrong hat, maybe. It doesn't matter because the information is being used for a purpose consistent with the power of the president to further his duties as commander in chief.

After 9-11, he was given Congressional approval to open up those powers (a constitutional nicety):

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

This arguably overrides the FISA provisions. Bush also wrote some executive orders consistent with the idea that he would use any force he could to take on AQ.

And remember the fouth amendment would protect the "victims" of this surveillance if we were to use the information in a criminal indictment. That is why there are two tracks in the war on terror. The criminal track, ostensibly using clean intel, and the dirty track, where the prisoners are held as combatants and the intel collected are used to prevent attacks (even sacraficing prosecutions in order to avoid discovery of the intel procedures). Gitmo is not a criminal facility, but a military facility to keep enemy combatants from the fight. They are not being "punished."

The case law seems to assume that the president has this power, thanks to Hewitt:

Nor is there any question or doubt as to the necessity of obtaining a warrant in the surveillance of crimes unrelated to the national security interest. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967). Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. The Attorney General's affidavit in this case states that the surveillances were [407 U.S. 297, 309] "deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of Government" (emphasis supplied). There is no evidence of any involvement, directly or indirectly, of a foreign power

It seems that those questions are essentially decided in favor of the pres.

So VRWC, any bible citations that back up that comment of yours? Just kidding :) That was a beautifully rendered fisking of our lefty friend. Thanks.

BF,

Thanks, but I'm just going slowly and using small words. Joeindc44 is all over this one like ugly on an ape.

I think its more like Ace's new post, Bush doesn't mind being tossed into National Sec. debates.

What gets me with these Bush Scandals of the Week are the sanctimonious posts that pop up, probably written by the same guy. After 2 years of Plame Myth "thou shalt protect the classified information" we get leaks on leaks of real covert CIA acts. But this is ok because the leaks hurt Bush. Now after years of "not connecting the dots criticism," we get "Bush used too much intel," and also that its illegal, and "gasp, the president should never challenge a statute he find unconstitutional."

If the Dems want to go to war with Bush over Domestic eavesdropping, then that's their sword to fall on.

Very interesting thread -- clearly lots of of effort and thought beyond the usual troll-bashing, and some exceptionally fine trolling, I must say.

Thanks to all.

And to honor Sortelli, the most important man on that stage, I'm going to push this thread over 100.

Michael, your previous comment @ 3:14 would have been much funnier if you used "AoSHQ Quality Control."

Much funnier.

Remmber that for the next time.

Bart:

That actually occurred to me about six seconds after I hit the post button, resulting in a self-inflicted kick in the ass.

VRWC:
The gripe seems to be that we tapped the local phone instead:

OK. So we are down to whether we have an inconsequential procedural deficiency in the way Bush & Co. have been rolling up AQ and foiling murderous terrorist attacks at home and abroad. A question of, "Was the cop wearing his hat when he arrested the killers?"

Who decides if it was inconsequential, you? I don't think so. Me? Nope. Harriet Meyers and Bush's DoJ lawyers? Shade, nein. The courts decide, and when it concerns actions of the Executive Branch, Congress decides. (I'm not expecting the latter).

In fact, this wasn't at the level of the cop wearing his hat (or badge, since that really is required) or mispronouncing part of Miranda. Wiretapping a US citizen is more at the level of breaking into his house without a warrant. In fact, the Supreme Court has said exactly that.

roc ingersol:
Are you saying that the FISA would have rubber stamped all of these?

joeindc44:
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Let me ask again, do you really want the next Democratic president to be able to use the NSA and their technology to do domestic surveillance with no judicial oversight? Remember, the computer technology on which all this is based will be an order of magnitude better then, so he'll be able to cast a wider net. Maybe go after people cheating on their taxes, or their spouses.

Let me ask again, do you really want the next Democratic president to be able to use the NSA and their technology to do domestic surveillance with no judicial oversight?

They already did, asshole.

Now go find another "scandal" to play up. Maybe, someday, you'll actually find something that works and those pesky blueballs will be relieved.

No, sorry, I've worked on ECHELON. Not at the guts level, but close enough to see the effort they go to to obey the law about domestic surveillance. If ECHELON and its successor systems were used to spy on Americans, you'd see a whole new level of Big Brother.

And we're just supposed to take your word for it, even though you've shown yourself to be disingenuous (at best)?

You do realize that you've just opened yourself up to a whole lot of questions about ECHELON, right?

You don't think the authorization for the president to use all force necessary counts as a dec of war? Very talismanistic, we can invade countries and track down person involved with or who help AQ, but not this one thing.

Oh right, Clinton's use of the IRS as a punitive weapon or the hoarding of FBI files don't count.

The point isn't what Congress wrote, its if they had the power to write it. They could no more establish a state religion than restrict the POTUS power in this regard. SS 1802 and 1811 are constitutional exhaust vents that helps keep the POTUS from ever really challenging these statutes.

Why are any of you guys trying to seriously argue with someone who thinks the New York Times is a shill for Dubya?

Sortelli had the right idea. Don't validate the troll's existence. He thinks he's a covert government agent who worked on ECHELON, piloted black helicopters, pulled the alien bodies from the wreckage in Roswell, and mixed the ingredients for chemtrails in the Midwest. He's a few slices shy of a loaf here, people. You don't argue with weapons-grade crazy; you back away from it slowly and once you get a safe distance away you run like hell.

we could try giving him a sammich.

everybody likes sammiches.

I'm going to stick-up for Bob. I don't agree with anything he writes, but he's not really a big jerk who loads his comments with links to Lefty bloggers and considers them "sources" (read: Toobeano).

While I think it is reprehensible for anyone to try to smear a sitting president at the time of war, we could have a lot worse than General Munck of the Tin-Foil Hat Brigade.

Gen. Bob is a useful troll who helps us hone our arguments. At this point, however, where most trolls lose their appeal, is where they go around in circles and start repeating the same thing.

(Hey, at least he's not gay.)

Bob also worked with Proud Liberal Vet in "Anartica".

Spying on penguins with ECHELON.

Lee Atwater: You do realize that you've just opened yourself up to a whole lot of questions about ECHELON, right?

joeindc44, I tried to answer your note of 4:59, but I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.

Sue, no black helicopters, no Roswell aliens; I don't know what "chemtrails" are. My resume is shockingly easy to find on the net.

Bart, you don't know that.

Are you gay, Bob?

Come to think of it, Bob, you still haven't answered my previously posed query: What do you expect to come of all this alleged illegality by the Prez?

Huh, Bob, what?

As long as a US citizen is involved, a warrant is required.

Already disproven.

you're admitting that Bush broke the law, but claiming that it was inconsequential.

False. I'm saying even if the law had been broken, the complaint is procedural rather than substantive. And then I go on to explain why the law is unlikely to have been broken even at this less than significant level.

Who decides if it was inconsequential, you?

Funny how an election changes the whole, "Everybody does it," line of reasoning, isn't it? But your presumption that the law was broken remains wrong and each of us is free to decide whether a claimed infraction is significant.

The courts decide, and when it concerns actions of the Executive Branch, Congress decides.

That's a whole lot of ignorance to be packing into one breath. Did it stain your teeth on the way out?

this wasn't at the level of the cop wearing his hat (or badge, since that really is required)

I seem to remember hearing about the hat requirement for PA troopers a long while back. And the inconsequential nature of the accusation is right just as expressed.

Wiretapping a US citizen is more at the level of breaking into his house without a warrant.

And what is the remedy for a bad warrantless search (as opposed to the many ones that are already OK)? Hmmmmmmm?

Please go back and read what Joeindc44 and I have said more carefully before trying to respond again. This isn't a seminar for remedial reading.

do you really want the next Democratic president to be able to use the NSA and their technology to do domestic surveillance with no judicial oversight?

Depends on what's being surveilled and what they do with the info. And I think we have already had a number of Dem presidents, including FDR, who did exactly that. The republic has survived the exercise of inherent executive authority in a time of war, even when Dems were in the White House. It's planes slamming into buildings that we tend to have problems with.

Bart: nope, married these many years to a cute Pembroker who took my programming class in 1968.

As to what I expect, I expect that Bush will get his hand slapped hard, though probably in private, by members of his own party and will quietly go back to obeying the law (at least in this).

VRWC: as I said, you don't get to decide if a warrant is really needed or if Bush is breaking the law; people like Arlen Specter do. We'll see how that comes out.

you don't get to decide if a warrant is really needed or if Bush is breaking the law; people like Arlen Specter do. We'll see how that comes out.

Scotty Specter says, "Not proven." I asked him.

Sheesh!

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has called the eavesdropping "inappropriate," and has promised hearings into the issue next year.

Shade, nein

See, Bob, if you're going to talk German, get it right. It's actually "schade," meaning "shame" or "pity."

My advice is that you not try out your German on us Rethuglican Nazis.

Gen. Bob is a useful troll who helps us hone our arguments.

Oh well, as long as you're getting use out of good old Double-O-Nutjob there.

Bob, give Elvis and Bigfoot my warmest regards.

Bart: nope, married these many years to a cute Pembroker who took my programming class in 1968.

Good thing it was 1968. These days, that sort of thing is sexual harrassment.

Just ask Michael.

Hey, Bob, for what it's worth, I like you. You've got more stamina than the typical troll around here (other than the memory of the sainted Cedarford, of course).

See? Dude's flirting already.

Fuckin' shameless.

Bob, if the legislature is the only one that can decide whether there is anything illegal in the CinC exercising his inherent authority in wartime, I have to question the intended usefulness of 95% of what you have posted. (And obviously the legislature does not decide the limits of inherent exec authority since that would grossly infringe on the separation of powers.)

"Scotty" refers to a distinguished senator who once invoked the ancient laws of Scotland to avoid giving a "guilty" or "not guilty" verdict. If you're counting on the guy to help with some impeachment plans, he'll break your heart every time.

FYI, Bob, Cedarford was not a liberal. He was a Joo-hating Nazi that is one of, like, two people that Ace has actually banned. But he was frickin' hilarious, and you totally could not insult him off a thread. The guy was amazing. I still miss him.

BRING BACK CEDARFORD!!!!

Hey, Bob, for what it's worth

Michael's adoration and $2.00 will get you the Mocha Latte at the Kwik Trip.

Brew:

Look, I'll buy you the Mocha Latte if it will warm your mouth up.

I'll buy you the Mocha Latte if it will warm your mouth up

I think this is why there's still a little affection for you left in Mrs. Michael...you're just so darn considerate of her. But don't bother, she says the cold tickles and she likes that!

BF, did you just help Michael kill another thread? Nice one, buddy!

It was euthanasia!

What's all this fuss about youth in Asia?

Sorry that my 4:59 post is hard to understand.

1. Your reading of the war requirement for a declaration of war into the FISA Act is correct, but if you believe that there is only one way to declare war, then you are attaching a lot of value to the word "war" as opposed to being authoritzed to "use all necessary and appropriate force against" the bad guys. The point being that the president was allowed to use military force against people associated with AQ, which would also include the use of intelligence to enable the military to conduct force against AQ. So, how can this not be read as enabling POTUS to do what he did?

Second, you bray on about how POTUS shouldn't have this power because of the awful state of affairs we will be, there will be much gnashing of teeth is this were so. So, I pointed out the IRS and FBI files. These things were done for political purposes without using POTUS military powers, just some admin tools, without violating FISA. I don't necessarily care about this argument because all powers taken to their extreme lead to some sort of potential abuse. So, POTUS could use a satellite to take an IR photo of you, Chirac or OBL taking a dump, and then sell them on ebay. That's life. An American may have the chance to sue for invasion of privacy, but I am sure the courts would create an exception for terrorists in this tort.

Finally, I point out that FISA would most likely be unconstitutional if it were to be understood as you wish it to be. One way to prevent a true showdown between the POTUS and whoever would challenge POTUS's acts are the several "defenses" which make it less likely that there would be a constitutional showdown. These are legislative safety valves.

Finally, note that the criminal aspects of the act are only related to the people conducting the gathering, which may be because these people could be pardoned by the president if he desired them to do these things, in a pinch, ya know.

But who knows, I am not yet a supreme court justice. I am arguing from an interpretation that makes sense to me, which is sometimes the last thing the Supreme Court (I'm looking at you, O'connor) does. The President has war powers which include collecting intel. Congress does not have power to regulate these acts under the constitution, therefore they can't. But looking through the case I cited earlier, its possible a future case would cite themagical 30th amendment to the constitution that creates a right of privacy so strong that American citizens can conduct treasonous ops without fear of detection. The magical right to privacy, the one for which noone ever voted, may be read to curtail all sorts of normal war time powers.

Its an open point, though it seems futile to me.

But wish away. You'll get your Fitzmas someday.

And one last thought on the whole, "we need this oversight to protect us from evil presidents of all stripes" line of argument, is: what exactly is this court granting warrants protecting us from?

What burden of proof is required to get a warrant? Do we have to present a probably cause that foreign espionage or AQ relations are occurring? What if the evidence is less than probable cause? Should we give up?

What if a little snooping would conclusively prove, whereas waiting even a day for a warrant would prove to be too long, irrevocably erasing the trail. What if there is merely a sniff, a hunch, based on extremely covert, top secret information? But, it deals with nuclear weapons? Does this court get to shut down such a line of inquiry because the government is unwilling to present its evidence, or that the evidence is cursorary at best?

The point is is that war and foreign espionage is not the same as a criminal matter. We may not have time or the level of "proof" required for a criminal warrant. The time may be of the essence or the source of information so secret that its not worth revealing in any scenario.

So, what is the point of vetting the evidence before a judge?

What if a little snooping would conclusively prove, whereas waiting even a day for a warrant would prove to be too long, irrevocably erasing the trail.

More to the point, what if we can't say with specificity what we are looking for among wiretapped communications? You may be able to get a FISA warrant even retroactively, but you can't get any kind of warrant for a fishing trip.

Which is what intelligence gathering IS: a big, dangerous, complicated high-stakes fishing trip. Requiring warrants for this kind of work is just more of the "stuck on stupid" criminal prosecution approach to fighting a war.