Don't know about a drill bit, but the guy was boring.

Repetition of Administration lawyers' slender rationalizations is scarcely ground-breaking, and a guy who justifies bad government behavior on the grounds of "national security" is known these days as a "Republican".

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

A major fallacy is the belief that in the absence of government surveillance you have privacy. All of your financial transactions are monitored and recorded. Based on your how well you conduct your finances you are given a credit score. Any time you want to make a loan or buy an expensive item like a car or a house your credit history is perused. In fact, when you buy a house you must provide all of your current financial information (your income, your current loans, your bank accounts, etc.) to the bank for their review. The amount you paid for the house is available on your local governments and private databases for anyone to see. When you make a non-standard purchase with a credit card, the credit card company analyzes the information and if it suspects the possibility of fraud they will call you and ask if you made that purchase. When you buy books from Amazon they will subsequently send you emails recommending additional books based on their record of your previous purchases. When you go into a store or use an ATM machine, cameras are recording you. Even your local supermarket keeps a record of your food purchase if you use their discount card. Each time you go to the doctor the reason for your visit must be given to your health insurance company if you want them to pay for the procedure. When you fly your name is checked through a database to see if you are on the no fly list. Anyone who frequents blogs such as this one has his comments recorded in a database. Try googling your name and see all of the information that turns up. I could go on but I don’t think it is really necessary. It should be obvious by now that unless you live in the mountains of Idaho and do not use the Internet, banks or credit cards, that you do not have any privacy. Yes, we don’t want big brother monitoring our every move. However, for bettor or worse, it is already being done by private industry. And the truth of the matter is that you have much less safeguards with industry than you do with government.

I seem to remember from my various readings over the past 40 years that the NSA has been conducting surveilance of electronic transmissions since the agencys founding. Thats their job.

So what the f--- is earth shattering about the latest wowsa from the MSM?

This crap isn't news, boys and girls...its simply another manifestation of BDS in the media. The left continues to eat this sh-- up...to their own detriment.

Well, his point is rational and calm, MUCH too calm, for a number of reasons. To become a citizen of the US, if you are an immigrant that is, you must swear to never take arms against the US, you must also accept that you might be asked to take up arms on behalf of the US.

More so, I can't remember ALL of the references of "those who surrender freedom for security, deserve neither" which is in itself a misquote I believe, is a common reference. Yet when Thomas Paine, pane, pain, blah, mentioned the desire of men to be free, he was talking about the sacrifice of freedom for the purpose of broad freedom.

...[Y]es, it would bother me.

It greatly bothers me that my communication

Okay, she says that she has NO PROBLEM! with being the recipient of information that can protect the public trust, but she thinks it should be up to HER as to whether or not the public trest is upheld?

There is another quote, which I can't recall, but it works out like this "absent the consent of the people, the nation will not stand, and absent the rule of government the people will not be free" I paraphrased it in a way that I like, but I know that is a rough, and true, and historic quote, anyways. . . . .

the point is that while it is the governments duty to defer to the rights of the people (constitution) it is the duty of the people to adhere, adherre, adherr to the rule of the government to maintain the freedoms of the people. There is a give and a take, in the proper mix, you end up with the beautiful symmetry that is embodied by the eastern yin and yang, or by the urubous, or by many other symbols that depict the dynamic nature of balance. Hell, Ironicaly the Swaztika is in fact a symbol of constant change (it is a crude and squared up spiral, not an image of hatred) and balance, and truth.

Summary. I don't want the government to listen into my conversations, not just because I would like to talk about how most liberals should be ass raped by large hollywood gorilla's, but also because, I would rather they were listening to conversations about how to build bombs designed to destroy my fellow lovers of freedom.

I will have a complaint about the NSA situation, I will have problem about foreign espionage, that occasionaly requires domestic activity when, and ONLY when I hear about how "Wickedpinto" wants Keith Olberman to be analy violated by any sort of objects (of which I am guilty, many of them belong to the animal kingdom) and see that as a rational to propose an amendment to the constitution to prevent Conservatives from forcing liberal F's from facing anal exploration, based on the NSA intercepts of my phone.

Quick aside, don't monitor my phone calls, they basicaly consist of EXACTLY that sort of conversation. That and how to get a good deal on wholesale leather flaggs, and contacts on how to design your own flail, as well as the best uses various household items in convincing Keith that wearing panties on your head isn't torture.

DocAmazing wrote:
"a guy who justifies bad government behavior on the grounds of "national security" is known these days as a "Republican"."

Sorry to burst your bubble, Doc, but previous administrations, including Democrat administrations, have asserted precisely the same legal rights with regard to surveillance as has the Bush administration.

durand wrote:
"This crap isn't news, boys and girls...its simply another manifestation of BDS in the media. The left continues to eat this sh-- up...to their own detriment."

Absolutely right.

Saw an interview with Thomas Sowell today that would seem to tie in. Really simply, he said there are no benefits without costs. If the benefit you seek is to prevent another 9-11, what cost are you willing to pay? A Republican president's cost is different than the ACLU's. Not really surprising.

I would wager good money that most of the people that read this blog have at one point in their life commited a minor, and or major breach.

I myself have. Drugs (pot), DUI (never should have driven, never got caught), petty larceney (office pens).

After reading the chat session, I have to agree with Posner on a few points.

First there isn't a thing you can do about domestic spying, unless there are abuses.

Second, if only a computer sees that your banging your wifes best friend then who cares. No harm no foul.

Third if any of the above happen to you, then the only one you have to blame is yourself. There have always been watchers, and there will always be watchers.

Whether its a NSA computer, the local LEO, or your Nosey Parker neighbor.

If you go to the well often eventually it WILL run dry.

The abuses will self right the ship.
AST

Hey, Bullington--

I presume you have some evidence--or even a contemporaneous allegation--of bypassing FISA warrants by the Clinton administration?

Didn't think so.

No DOC, just the 1000+ FBI files that showed up in a unoccupied office.

PS Merry Christmas!

Oh, right, Filegate!

That one had about as much meat on it as Troopergate and Travelgate, right? A li'l bit less than Whitewater, as I recall...

DocAmazing,

The Clinton administration held the same view with regard to FISA warrants as does the Bush administration.

Both administrations held that FISA has no authority to limit powers granted to the executive under the Constitution.

The courts have consistently agreed with both administrations on this point.

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a great summary of the legal issues here: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php

Following is an excerpt from Hinderaker's post cited above: (The bolding is mine.)
_____

Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break down the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. The Patriot Act modified Truong’s “primary purpose” test by providing that surveillance under FISA was proper if intelligence gathering was one “significant” purpose of the intercept. In the course of discussing the constitutional underpinnings (or lack thereof) of the Truong test, the court wrote:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
That is the current state of the law. The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.
_____

Evidence of the Clinton administration "bypassing FISA warrants" is irrelevant.

Consider yourself corrected.

Not a very amazing response.

But of course history starts in Jan of 01!

The legal eagles over at The Volokh Conspiracy are debating the finer points of monitoring gamma radiation whether you shield your stash or not! :--)

Here

Speaking of fear mongering, or the lack thereof, or the propensity to do so thereof ...

OK, back on track. Anyway, my mom and stepdad, God bless 'em, are of the conspiratorial left. To illustrate: My stepdad has the latest Seymour Hersh book in his Barcalounger reading basket.

They are very polite about not engaging in political discussions with me, but there's a point around 6-8 hours into any visit at which they can't hold it any longer. Their ideological bladders just can't take it, and something slips.

This time, it was a casual conversation about a couple of (unrelated) cases of flu that I and my nephew have recently experienced. And my mom made some crack about at least it wasn't "that Bird Flu that Dubya's been scaring everyone with".

Now, I'm not in the Reynolds camp where I consider every change in the viral breeze to be the ill wind of death, but I also recognize that there is a potential for something bad to happen. Not just because of Reynolds, or because of general epidemeological concern, or even the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ISSUE WITH BIRD FLU STORY TWO FEET AWAY FROM US ON THEIR MANTLE, but just because of common sense.

I had literally never heard that Dubya was trying to scare people with the Bird Flu. Al Quaeda is, of course, the current concocted threat du Dubya. They're big fans of a certain BBC documentarian who spreads the fear of the spread of fear (I think his latest is called "The Power of Nightmares", and it got a rave in Entertainment Weekly, if you can believe).

But I'd never heard the one about bird flu being a neocon rethuglican plot. I was floored. I tried to tell her that my industry (personal computers) would be obliterated if Taiwan had to be quarantined due to Bird Flu - which I don't consider to be impossible in the least. This in addition to all the death. And my mom just kind of snorted and said "Oh, don't buy into that!"

And that was pretty much my cue that it was time to take off.

"...It greatly bothers me that my communication is searched without authority..."

Umm, what are there more of in this country, judges or Presidents? What job is harder to get: judge or President? Does it bother anybody else the arrogance the legal community shows sometimes? I mean if a fucking county judge authorizes a wire-tap it is fine and dandy, but no way can the President of the United States be trusted with this much power. I understand the concern with abuse of power, but does a judge have any more checks on his power than the President?

I presume you have some evidence--or even a contemporaneous allegation--of bypassing FISA warrants by the Clinton administration?

So what were Echelon and Carnivore about?

Judge Posner reminds me of Scott Turrow's description of one of his law professors in his book "One L" all about his experiences at Harvard Law School.

His mumbly tort law prof drones on and on about ridiculous hypotheticals like, "If a man carelessly fires a rifle into the air, and it lands on another man's head, is that assault? What if he hits a duck by accident and that duck falls on a man's head?"

Scott laments, "For three weeks we talked about that goddamed duck!"

but by the end of the semester, he comes to admire the man's mind, comparing him to a jeweller who meticulously hammers out new, evermore minute facets of law.

Frankly, my brain isn't wired that way. But like Scott, I can respect the talents of those people who are.

Clinton not only tapped the phone of Aldrich Ames, but conducted a search both without a warrant. And this wasn't done by the NSA, but the FBI of an American Citizen, who was later prosecuted on the evidence.

Also, the recent reports that Clinton trained our military spy sattelites on the country after Oklahoma City goes way beyond anything Bush has done, and is illegal, unlike the NSA, which has been doing this thing for decades.

Oh, yes, ECHELON and CARNIVORE. They've done a fine job preventing terrorism. As I recall, they were up and running (well, ECHELON, anyway) well before September of 2001.

If indeed the Clinton administration was ignoring FISA rules (and that is the charge against Li'l George, and it isn't a mere detail), then we can clearly see how well such domestic spying works to prevent terrorist attacks in the US--i.e., not very well.

BTW, Clinton was a spymaster's dream, with the Effective Death Pentalty Act stuff rammed through after OK City, and the jackbooted thug/ninja tobacco inspectors' dance outside Waco at Mount Carmel. Clinton was indeed bad--but he colored within the lines. Li'l George done gone broke the law. No semen-stained dress, but warm up Ken Starr for the defense.

DocAmazing wrote:
"Li'l George done gone broke the law. "

What law did the President break?

Clinton was indeed bad--but he colored within the lines.

Ahhhh. So perjured testimony is 'within the lines'. Didn't know that. Quite the little world view you've created for yourself, Doc.

Hey, BrewFan--

Perjury's what got him impeached, remember?

The grown-ups have been talking about wiretaps and the FISA court.

Try & stay on-topic, now...

Hey, Bullington--

What law? FISA, big guy. Same thing we've been talking about all along.

What law? FISA, big guy. Same thing we've been talking about all along.

DocAmazing,

Very well--FISA it is. No one has produced any evidence whatsoever that the Bush administration has ever violated any provision of FISA.

Do you have any such evidence?

Oh, only the president's own admission.

FISA requires warrants for wiretaps of "US persons". Li'l George has admitted that he directed the placement of wiretaps without getting warrants from the FISA courts.

BTW, with respect to the "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" argument--warrant requirements for *physical* searches were not required by FISA until late 1995 (with the enabling legislation passed with the help of the Clinton administration). The wiretap warrant requirement has been in place since the passage of FISA in 1978.

Oh, only the president's own admission

He admitted no such thing. In fact he asserted just the opposite that he was acting within his legal and constitutional authority. Tell you what Doc. I'll try and stay on topic if you stop prevaricating. Which means, of course, you won't be commenting any further.

DocAmazing: Oh, only the president's own admission.

Not even close, Doc. The President hasn't admitted any such thing.

DocAmazing: FISA requires warrants for wiretaps of "US persons". Li'l George has admitted that he directed the placement of wiretaps without getting warrants from the FISA courts.

You're oversimplifying quite a bit here.

A "U.S. person" as defined by FISA is a citizen or legal resident of the U.S. who is in the U.S. at the time of the surveillance.

You are correct that FISA applies only to U.S. persons.

But FISA applies to those U.S. persons only under certain circumstances. FISA defines "electronic surveillance" as:

(1) the acquisition ... of the contents of any wire or radio communication

(2)sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States,

(3)if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes..."

So, Sheik Yabooti, a suspicious guy in Yemen, places a call to some phone in the U.S. NSA listens to both sides of the ensuing conversation. They listen to 30 more similar calls over the following two weeks. No violation of any provision of FISA could possibly have occurred.

NSA then takes a look at the recipient of the call. Using publicly available information, they determine that the recipient, one DocAmazing, is also a rather suspicious character deserving of further scrutiny. They decide to monitor his phone calls. A FISA warrant is now required.

Again, the Bush administration would be on firm legal ground to repudiate FISA as an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.
They haven't asserted this legal right, but they certainly could. The administration instead has tried to work within the framework of existing statutory law while fulfilling its duty regarding national security.

I'll ask my earlier question again, Doc: Do you have any evidence--any credible indication whatsoever--that the Bush administration has ever violated any provision of FISA?

Repeating myself:

Li'l George has admitted to failing to obtain the warrants. He admits, rather, that no one attempted to get warrants. The calls in question were calls to and from legal US residents, and many were entirely within the US--you could, as they say, look it up; I get my stuff from the reg'lar newspapers. The calls that were monitored were exactly of the sort that required a FISA warrant--and no attempt was made in most of those cases to obtain said warrant. The President is quite proud of this fact, and said as much in a televised speech.

"I'm quite certain that this law doesn't apply to me" is a very interesting argument, BrewFan. Please let me know how it works next time a traffic cop pulls you over.

"If the President does it, it means that it is not illegal."--Richard Nixon , explaining...well, explaining something, I'm sure, to David Frost

It's Christmas.

Fighting about politics makes the Baby Jesus cry.

Yeah but fighting about politics on Christmas makes the Baby Mohammed explode.

Nothing for most people to worry about. If they listen in on their conversations they will immediately assume they are coming from a facility for the criminally insane. They wouldn't be far off on the left wing kooks.
They can listen all they want, if you aren't involved in some major crime or terrorist's attack (as the NYT's is) they haven't got the time for your BS.
If people don't want the NSA and the data mining organizations to operate, don't bitch about what they were chartered to do, close them down and then hunt you a hole to hide in, you will need it if you live in any large city.
The NYT will end up getting more people killed than were killed in all the wars and hopefully a few hundred thousand real Americans will march on them and hang each and every person that works for them to a light pole in the streets. I suggest the same for half the U.S. congress now, no reason to put it off.

DocAmazing,

Making up stuff doesn't constitute rational discussion. You're an idiot, and I'm done with you.

Victory is sweet.

Doc, got a few clues for you:

Sneering at your inferiors only works if you have inferiors. Chauvinism from a self-appointed "elite" with no visible superiority is merely amusing. Bigoted stereotyping isn't even that. And being patronizing isn't credible unless there's some dim chance of your actually having been a male parent.

Oh, and astroturfing only works if nobody ever cross-checks the phraseology.

We've heard it all before. In fact, since you lefties only have one line at any given time, and cut-and-paste it across whatever comment sections you choose to infest with only the cute insults ("Li'l George") changed to add verisimilitude, we've read those specific words before in multiple places. And we know damn well that when you finally give up you'll just be replaced by another lefty with another "imaginative" pseudonym who will start over from the top of the script.

It's repetitive. It's boring. We really ought to thank you, since every time you and your cohorts start one of these campaigns "Li'l George" goes up another five points in the polls. (At the current rate, by Easter he'll be the first President since Washington to hit 90%.) But your real equivalent is a hangover -- a valuable incentive toward future behavior that's damned annoying and occasionally painful in the meantime.

George Bush is not perfect. There are real, honest criticisms to be made of the man. When you learn what they are, and that quoting Zuniga (the patron of losers) is not among them, come back and talk to the adults.

Regards,
Ric

For goodness sake, I'm told by a friend retired from the State Department this domestic spying has been going on in one form or the other since or before WWII. Where was the outrage by the MSM when Carter and boy Clinton practiced the same methods of eavesdropping? I guess the hundred of FBI files that suddenly appeared in the White House during Clinton' Administration just got lonely and came in out of the cold. Give me a break Jake!!!
As I see this whole so called scandal is but one more attempt by the liberals in this country to bring down the Bush Presidency.

Oh, yes, ECHELON and CARNIVORE. They've done a fine job preventing terrorism.

How may attacks have succeeded on our soil since 9/11? But debating the utility of these tools is a bit OT. You asked about warrantless interceptions pre-Bush. Obviously they took place. I accept your implicit concession on this point.

ECHELON started post-9/11/01?
CARNIVORE started post-9/11/01?
Everything I ask about must have taken place? What if I ask what Santa left for you this year? That must make Santa real...