Left-wing bureacrats are investigating the crimes of other left-wing bureacrats? I don't think so.

Left-wing bureacrats are investigating the crimes of other left-wing bureacrats? I don't think so.

Who better to provide cover for the usual suspects?

Finally indeed. Interesting that the Administration knew about this a year ago, but didn't do anything about it then, other than block the story. Might it not have been easier to investigate then (hey, maybe they did! Who'd know?)?

Of course, I would never suggest that it is happening now for purely political reasons. That would be so unlike George, or Karl.

You can bet if the Evil Rovian Machine believed they had a damn thing to be afraid of they would have tried to let this just slip away. As it appears most of the Donk congresskanks are willing to do.

You guys got him pissed, man. Game over.

Of course, I would never suggest that it is happening now for purely political reasons. That would be so unlike George, or Karl.

Listening to you lefties whine about doing things for purely political reasons is funny. I guess you gave the Clinton's a pass on sifting through FBI files on political appointments, using the IRS to go after conservative organizations, etc., etc.. But God forbid there is an investigation on something really unimportant, like ya know leaking national security issues. What a joke.

Little Update: NY Times is not alone as one being investigated. Washington Post is under investigation too, over CIA prison leak.

JackStraw, you are appropriately named. I don't give anybody a "pass".

"Something really unimportant, like ya know"...breaking the law, violating the Constitution? Gee, I thought you wingnuts HATED government interfering with your lives. Yeah yeah, they're only going after the bad guys. Your blind faith is touching, if absurdly baseless.

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_alicublog_archive.html#113578183314115316

Back to your KoolAid, guys.

Rob G, I'm disappointed. Violating the Constitution? Remember, it's a living, breathing document. So what if it doesn't specifically authorize wire taps -- the Constitution means whatever anyone wants it to mean, so obviously it means the President can use wire taps.

Quit getting so hung up on your originalism, dude.

Used to be when someone blew the whistle, they went after the offenders, now you better keep your mouth shut if you know whats good for you, right?
Who needs a free and investigative press, the government NEVER lies, now does it??

Flip, the problem is that government agents are committing crimes, and these crimes are being excused or ignored when they hurt a sitting President and harm national security efforts.

Incidentally, I don't think even these belated investigations ever would have happened but for the whole Plame fiasco -- but if it's okay to prosecute Scooter Libby, then it only makes sense to prosecute everyone who has done what he's accused of having done. A leak is a leak.

Sobek;

Damn! That's right! The 4th Amendment doesn't say anything about wiretaps or email intercepts or Echelon-whatsit. Silly me. Never mind.

P.S. Leaving, wheezing document more like.

We might as well have another leak investigation. It's not like they ever lead to any charges. Besides it will appease the morons on the right.

I dunno if this is a good idea, the reporters on WTOP found some law professor from Southwestern U. to explain that this could having a chilling effect on journalistic stuff. Also, something about governments operating in secrecy is bad.

I am sure if we get a prosecutor's prosecutor like Fitz in there, things will be fair and way prolonged.

Wow. Can't swing a dead cat without hitting a troll today. Sweet!

It's not like they ever lead to any charges.

Better call Scooter and tell him it was all a big mistake.

He wasn't charged with leaking Brewfan.

RobG. - I'll pass on the gratuitous slams for now.

Its comforting to know that we no longer need due process as we have constitutional scholars such as yourself to be judge and jury. Had you been following this story, along with similar occurances during both the Carter administration and Clinton (you have heard of Aldridge Ames haven't you?) you would know that the jury is most decidedly out on this topic. It has never been been decided that this is remotely illegal for a president to do in time of war (which back to the Aldridge Ames case, we were not).

Your concern for wingnuts sensibilities is indeed touching and as airy as your understanding of the law. I'm all for big brother spying on any person or persons who are suspected of collaborating with the enemy during a time of war. How about you chuckles? Or is your hatred of Bush so great that you would rather tie the gov't hands and prevent communications between the enemy?

Stop saying "breaking the law" as if your word meant shit. It doesn't. I fully expect this to be played out before the courts and the War Powers Act, The Constitution and all other relevant statutes will be examined. If a law has been broken I expect that either the parties will be punished and/or the law will be changed to encompass the necessary tools to investigate and foil international terrorism. That will probably include warrantless taps on communication between a domestic individual and a suspected international terrorist.

If you loons on the left think your going to get a lot of traction hammering on Bush for spying on terrorists then by all means continue. You must enjoy loosing elections.

Noone was charged with any leaking because the alleged crime underlying the Fitzmasmokeycircus did not violate any laws.

The idea about the plame myth has been discussed for months and years. The difference between dropping the name of a CIA analyst who openly worked at HQ and an undergoing classified operation should be apparent to most objective observers. Maybe it even fits the definition of some law.

Rob G: I'm glad the story was leaked--but this information was far more sensitive than the fact that Valarie Plame was CIA. Even if the program was a bad program, I doubt if the law gives people who sign confidential non-disclosure agreements whistle-blower rights in top secret programs--even if a judge will later declare pieces of them to have been non-Constitutional.

JackStraw: I disagree with you if you think there are no problems at all with the NSA program--it may turn out to have involved data sifting of calls not known to be suspicious in order to locate suspicious US-foreign communication in the first place--and I am not comfortable with non-FISA wiretapping of suspects identified by computer algorithms.

He wasn't charged with leaking Brewfan.

Ironic, isn't it.

(BTW, FYI, when you don't use a comma, the sentence reads like: [Scooter Libby] wasn't charged with leaking Brewfan.

I know for a fact that Brewfan cannot be leaked out of Scooter no matter how hard you squeeze him.

Unapologetic Libtard says:

It's not like they ever lead to any charges.

I say:

Better call Scooter and tell him it was all a big mistake.

Unapologetic Libtard says:

He wasn't charged with leaking Brewfan.

Do you see the problem here UL? You didn't say anything about leaking, so I didn't either. Please remove your head from your ass, take a deep breath, and try and keep up.

Bart,

[Scooter Libby] wasn't charged with leaking Brewfan.

That would be at least a third degree felony, and quite painful to boot.

Paul-

One of the most widely sited statistics by opponents of warrantless wire taps is that of the thousands of requests made to the FISA court only 5 have been rejected. I understand the point that this is trying to illuminate, that the FISA court is a rubber stamp so why go around it? If you believe this then you must also believe that the requests submitted must have been overwhelmingly with merit if only 5 out of thousands were rejected.

If you do believe that the FISA court is nothing more than a rubber stamp then explain this from an article in Newsweek, May 2002, written by Michael Hirsh and Michael Isikoff (no friends of the Bush administration) :

In Washington, Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the special federal court [the FISA Court] that reviews national-security wiretaps, erupted in anger when he found that an FBI official was misrepresenting petitions for taps on terror suspects. Lamberth prodded Ashcroft to launch an investigation, which reverberated throughout the bureau.

From the summer of 2000 on into the following year, sources said, the FBI was forced to shut down wiretaps of Qaeda-related suspects connected to the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation.

“It was a major problem,” said one source familiar with the case, who estimated that 10 to 20 Qaeda wiretaps had to be shut down, as well as wiretaps into a separate New York investigation of Hamas.

The effect was to stymie terror surveillance at exactly the moment it was needed most…

Speed is an issue in saving lives against the enemy we are now fighting. To ignore that fact or to ignore that we are truly at war and try to make this a partisan issue is childish. If Bush used this program for anything other than spying on terrorists we will know soon and he should be punished. If not, the persons who leaked this and potentially harmed national security should be strung up by their balls.

Thanks for proving what a dumfuck you are Brewfan.

It will be interesting to see how public those investigations become. There is, in my mind, a real potential for more information becoming public as the result of an investigation.

JackStraw, a coupla things.

"Gratuitous slams"? "chuckles"? "loons on the left"? Oh, let's just call it a draw. BTW, I much prefer "unhinged moonbat". It sounds kinda poetic.

Did I write that the law was broken? I didn't think so. Thank you.

More strawman BS - "hatred of Bush". I don't hate him, but why people like you continue to trust him, I have no idea. Really, what justifies having any trust in these guys? Name one substantive thing (i.e. "I feel safer" won't do).

Finally - I am not a Democrat, so haven't lost any elections. Sadly, one thing missing in the USA is a viable opposition.

More assumptions to come?

As long as the take from the wiretaps / interceptions whatever is not being used in a court proceeding, then the 4th Amendment really doesn't apply. There is a difference between law enforcement (with the need for warrants, etc) and intelligence gathering (where the freedom to collect is much broader, but the "take" may not be admissible in court). The NSA is an intelligence gathering organ - unlike the schizophrenic FBI, which tries to do law enforcement and counter-intelligence. If the FBI were doing this, I might be a bit more concerned, but as long as it is an NSA function, then it is a legitimate part of the President's consitutional powers, which powers cannot be restricted by any other law (FISA or whatever). Even former Clinton officials agree with this. The Pres cannot strip Congress of its powers, and vice versa.

If a suspected terrorist is on trial, it is incumbent upon his atorney to ensure that any wiretap evidence the state tries to use against him was obtained under the authority of a warrant - if it was not such evidence should and will be excluded.

Thanks for proving what a dumfuck you are Brewfan.

I love getting called 'dum' by somebody who can't spell. lol!

Rob G.-

Did I write that the law was broken? I didn't think so. Thank you

"Something really unimportant, like ya know"...breaking the law, violating the Constitution

Is English a second language to you? You unhinged moonbat.

Happy to oblige.

Rob G, you miss my point. If the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document, complete with penumbras, emanations and such, then who cares what the Fourth Amendment (or any other clause) says? If the thing means whatever people say it means (you know, regardless of the actual words and stuff) , then a) no state has the right to outlaw abortion, b) George W. Bush doesn't need a warrant for wiretaps, and c) I am Constitutionally entitled to a batmobile (from the new Batman Begins movie, not the Tim Burton version).

My point is that when liberals are willing to jettison the text and original intent of the Constitution in every other arena, they lose any basis for relying on test or original intent in cases such as this.

One thing people here should get their minds around: The NSA is no hotbed of liberalism, and the NYT claims dozens of current and former NSA employees talked about this program.

I think any investigation will be very interesting.

put a wiretap on that little shit too.

Done.

Actually, JackStraw, English is a second language to me, but comprehension of English is an art that has thus far eluded you.

I wrote that breaking the law is serious (and, as you admit, that may have happened). OK. Now, where did I write that a law was broken?

You do seem to read through a red-tinged filter which shows (at least some) questioners of the administration as Clinton-loving, Bush-hating Democrat loonies. Maybe just a soupcon of prejudice there?

Cheers,

U. Moonbat

Actually, JackStraw, English is a second language to me,

oo Jack, good call.

I wrote that breaking the law is serious

Here's a funny way you can make a dishonest argument in English Rob. Make a statement that carries a clear implication, and deny the implication.

Breaking the law is serious.

Are you calling him a lawbreaker?

I didn't say that!!!!

I don't know if it works in other languages, and I really don't give a shit.

holdfast: I see your point, but I don't know, law- or policy-wise, that it is so certain that we can or want to make the separation between law enforcement and intelligence if computer-generated data mining is involved--the original FISA wiretap legislation, supplemented by a Clinton-sponsored amendment to cover Ames-type physical searches, was intended to cover these sensitive, national-security threats.

JackStraw--having read your history of the FBI shutdown/stallout, I, myself, still don't think FISA courts should be circumvented because they are not rubber stamps (checks and balances, etc.) but I also don't understand why the FBI needs to give up in frustration and close-down its investigations because one agent was unprepared for Lamberth's follow-up. I trust the national security judgement of judges as human beings as much as I trust the judgement of executive officers. Improvement of court procedures, finances, turn-around time, tweaking of the law, etc. can be pursued.

Still, we *already* know that with the NSA program, the warrantless taps *were* used for *more* than spying on known terrorists. The NYTimes stated in its stories (and these are the stories that are being investigated) that part of the intercepts were not contacts between people in the United States and known bad guys. The process according to the stories (for taps not generated by hard leads):

a) mass sifting of data feeds directly from US telcos
b) identification of suspicious patterns of calls (maybe some preliminary content data-dipping) and initiation of selective monitoring of individual US nodes engaged in those suspicious patterns
c) maybe following up with a FISA warrant.

a) and b) do not appear to be time sensitive, and a) begins without any identifiable suspects at all--you just run the computers. b) may also not be taps of calls to known terrorists but taps of calls to foreign numbers that are indicated as being likely to be terrorist-related.

Nah. In fact, I understand English well enough that I can pick up allusion and claims of false neutrality in a poorly written sentence, Rob. You were obviously implying Bush had broken the law. Try not to be a coward and say what you mean. People might have some respect for you at the very least. Try not to be a pompous fuck. It merely displays your ignorance and amuses those of us who truly do have a clue.

I have no problem admitting I believe Clinton to be a true poser and one much more interested in kicking the can down the road than solving the problem. Why? Just cause its so. I don't love Bush, certainly not in the Brokeback sense, but I do admire his no bullshit, lack of pretense or caring about his 'legacy" crap. I believe he is honestly interested in solving a problem that not one politician in the world, save some of the Israelis have in the last 30 years, radical Islam.

He ain't perfect. But at the very least he has made more real progress in 4 years than an politician you can name has in 30.

*slaps forehead* Why didn't I figure it out sooner? Unapologetic Liberal = Proud Liberal Vet without the crazy time in the artic!

JackStraw and Dave.

"Obviously implying"? Jesus, talk about pompous fucks. Telling people what they really mean seems to be one of the current rightwing pathologies.

This ain't a policy review, guys, it's a comment thread. I know what I meant. You choose to read it otherwise. Fine.

Before this thread descends into cheap name-calling (ahem), I wish all you rabid wingnuts a Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you to you simpering wussie moonbat. And I really mean that.

Unapologetic Liberal = Proud Liberal Vet without the crazy time in the artic!

And with marginally better insults.

The NSA is no hotbed of liberalism

How do you know? Have you polled the employees there? Common sense says that a civilian government agency full of civil servants would be no Bush fan club.

And with marginally better insults.

Yes, but only marginally. Read anything he posts and imagine his old name on it and you won't be surprised by the quality.

The change from Unvet to Unapologetic is like the difference between a coked up trannie Thai hooker with three teeth instead of one with two. And that extra tooth is kinda rotten.