In light of this blog’s longstanding interest in the issue, I note that Michelle Malkin has the latest on the Senate’s slow-motion effort to preserve the Terrorist Surveillance Program and to protect those who assisted the government in its implementation in the wake of one of the biggest attacks on US soil. RTWT, but the short version is that the Senate has taken a series of votes rejecting — by overwhelming margins in most cases — the efforts of left-liberals to leave the nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Interestingly, a look at the roll call votes shows that Sen. Barack Obama was on the side of the nutroots extremists for all of these votes, while Sen. Hillary Clinton managed to absent herself from the opportunity to be marked as unserious by the American electorate.
Lawmakers hope to conclude voting on the FISA legislation later today.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth can be heard all the way from a cabana in Brazil.
Update: Clinton could not help but issue a statement opposing the overall bill, a win for the nutroots and Sen. John McCain, should she become the Democratic nominee.
Oh, yeah. Roasted ciabatta bread, honey smoked turkey, lettuce and tomato woth a chipotle mayo spread topped with shredded constitution.
Eat it, Gleens!
Trust and trust some more, to pervert Regan. So private citizen’s want to know if they’re being spyed on ILLEGALLY? East fix for that – go back in time, and fix the law so it wasn’t illegal (paradoxes be damned).
How is this not a tacit admission by all involved (and the dems are just as much to blame here) that something illegal occured? Why would an entity that followed the law need retro-active immunity?
The point is, no one knows what illegal activity went on, and now the vehicle for us to find out has been taken away. No coincidence that any law breaking by congress and the exec are also shielded now. Yeah – no coincidence at all…
Unfortunately, the media is going to report this as Barry O standing up for the Constitution rather than him being a woefully naive partisan hack not qualified to sit in a position of authority.
steve: Seriously if you soak the shredded constitution in olive oil, garlic and cilantro it makes a great topping on a variety of cuisines. Try it on rigatoni and pesto it’s just delish!
And Haliburton… and Building Seven.
Wrong, again, steve. Though I praise your consistency. Simply asserting is was illegal does not make it so. Going back and extending civil immunity to a group for aiding in the common defense of our country should be a no-brainer, but people like you want partisan witch hunts more than security. How is it not a tacit admission of illegality? Are you dumberer than a boulder? They are extending immunity because all of the BS lawsuits brought by “injured” people.
The point is, no one knows what illegal activity went on
Wrong. Fucking wrong on so many fucking levels it makes me pray that Fuckabee and Nor Laup become nominees. Your whole premise is based on the fucking assumption that illegal activities have taken place. You may chant that all you want, but it does not make it so.
So besides giving US corporations immunity for breaking the law (which at least one major company didn’t and was promptly investigated for), how does the bill currently working its way through the Senate protect Americans any more than the original FISA law or the currently in force PAA did? Seriously, do tell.
Seems to me, it just puts more power in the hands of a few in the Executive Branch (sorry, Unitary Executive) and not much else. I feel much safer now. You probably should too. In less than 12 months a new regime will have these powers. I’m sure you and yours will likewise applaud that Unitary Executive’s secrecy and use of these new found powers.
The simple fact is W had all the tools he needed, he just didn’t bother and no one, but some Clinton holderovers, cared all that much. Guess they thought some “ragheads” from the desert couldn’t do no damage to US. Guess they forgot daddy Bush and Reagan trained them Islamofascists good. And you have the audacity to claim you make this country safer. Traitor.
There are links to a couple of documents at the bottom of this page
that are relevant to the FISA discussion.
The Senate sub-committee’s findings are considerably at odds with the assertions of the wailers and gnashers of teeth.
Alright, JD, tell us what happened, since you’re so all knowing?
Gee, Jim in KC, thanks for the link. Too bad Kit Bond is not really someone you can trust on this issue. Try again.
BZZZZZZT!! I’m sorry, that is an incorrect assertation. You lose 25 points and are forbidden from commenting on politcs for 24 hours. Please read below from Jim in KC’s link:
You get 10 points back if you can describe the difference between illegal and civil liability.
Thanks for playing “Shredding the Constitution!”
You just knew that eventually the Dems, too, would be in on this conspiracy. Paring it all down to just two camps: those who hate our country (The President, Congress, the Courts who have dismissed cases brought by ACLU types), and the pure defenders of all that is good and right, like steve,and short term view, who just know in their bones that the NSA doing what the NSA does was illegal — even though we know Rockefeller only decided to make it an issue as part of a strategy to weaken the administration in the runup to the ’04 elections.
One day, I, too, will achieve such purity.
Not until I learn to fold the tinfoil into a sailor’s cap, though.
Yes, those super secret secrets like we collect it all. What a super secret that is, no? Your beautiful fix includes immunity from civil liability for breaking the law, ie the civil (and likely contractual) rights of US citizens. That it was done at the request of the US government is irrelevant. You do not look to the DOJ to tell you what the law is . . . especially when the DOJ is telling you to do something that FISA, a long recognized law that had been amended, tells you you can’t do. Each and every one of the companies involved had lawyers looking at it. The difference between illegality, as you are using it, and civil liability is that rather than corporate executives and employees going to jail, the companies they work for now will avoid civil liabilities (ie the paying of money) for violating the law. As I’m sure you are aware, many laws have both criminal and civil penalties. The laws involved here are no different. In this instance, it’s really no surprise that the DOJ won’t do its job and prosecute the companies. The DOJ is the entity that gave them the bad legal advice in the first place.
Enjoy the show. Enjoy it even more this time next year.
Oh yeah, and that good faith . . . FISA already has a good faith exception. So what’s the need for another? And you don’t need a tinfoil hat to attain “purity” of thought. You just need to use your brain and not blindly accept that which is you desperately want to believe. But why bother. Blind obedience in the face of fear is so much easier.
sahort term thinking retards:
Feel free to make the Civil Liability=illegality argument but both the courts and Congress disagree with you and they do have privy to the info. You and steve can assert a straight line logical progression that immunity=illegality all that you want but it merely reflects your opinion. What is so amusing is that you both assert the illegality as fact with, quite frankly, nothing to back it up other than your own collective paranoia of the Unitary Chimpymchitlerburton and Cheneybrimstonesatan.
Now my baked mac and cheese with gruyere, chedder and shredded constitution is ready to come out of the oven. MMMMMMmmmmmmmm, delightfully cheesy and fascist…
[…] an interesting update: Protein Wisdom informs us that Barack Obama voted with the nutroots, while Hillary Clinton managed to avoid the vote […]
Actually, no court has yet ruled on the legality / illegality argument, so I don’t see your point. The Unitary Ex has said it’s ok, but the UE asked everyone to violate the law. As for Congress, its been carrying the UE’s water for 6 of his 7 years. Hell, the current crop of “leaders” for the Democrats all appear intent to carry on as the GOP waterboys were and, what’s worse, all appear to have been in on what was going on but not raised a fuss.
So you see, contrary to what you apparently believe, I have disdain for all political sides on this issue. I’m not some knee-jerk ditto head who fawns over whatever someone tells me. The simple fact is this one looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but y’all keep want to view it as the American Eagle. It ain’t, and your opinions that all that was done was fine and legal (and has protected us for the past 7 years) are just that — opinions. To be proven wrong when the next leak happens or those pesky documents are declassified, rediscovered or unsealed.
And short term thinking does retard as well as kills. Too bad this country lives for the short term gain. But then you get what you pay for.
Not until I learn to fold the tinfoil into a sailor’s cap, though.
Try the ever-popular paper pirate’s hat first, then go to tin foil.
“And short term thinking does retard as well as kills.”
After reading you that’s pretty obvious.
Great commentary as always, Jeff. Simply attack those who want the law followed as being some sort of unrealistic sticklers and things like retroactive immunity for gathering information w/o warrants goes away – or at least becomes unimportant. Only “purists” like Steve care about things like that. Trust the gov’t and corporations acting in an un-investigatable cabal – I’m sure whatever they’re doing is for our own good (until a dem is in the white house, at which point a libertarian mindset will become required).
Very nice trick – i’m sure JD loved it.
That said – I will remind everyone that the dems are right in the middle of this – and they’re more than happy to cover their tracks via this law as anyone. it really shoudln’t be regarded as a party issue – but of course it is.
yup … I can feel short term thinking corrupting my grey matter every time I read one of its rants. I like the recent I have bi-partisan disdain mantra. Nice touch. Next up, it was a lifelong Republican until Bu$Hitler.
steve – I love bacon. And, rare steaks. And, Scotty Cameron putters. And, my family. And, my country. And, Kyoto. Specious arguments from you? Not so much.
And just a reminder – I think all of the terrorist surveillance should go on, but with warrants – especially utilizing retroactive warrants, which would allow whomever’s doing the spying to spy first and THEN justify to a judge why they did it, so hands aren’t tied. I just want someone other than the exec to see what’s going on – why is that so wrong again?
I like bacon too, JD
so, better to ask for forgiveness than permission? and this is different than what’s currently working it’s way through Congress how?
Next up, it was a lifelong Republican until Bu$Hitler.
heh.
If you know this, and you understand what it is that you know, you wouldn’t ask a question with a premise like this:
That aside, suppose someone did get multi-million dollar judgements against a telco or two. Who do you think is going to pay for those? Here’s a hint: Do you get a phone bill?
Ok! It looks like you wingnut bedwetters are going to get your omnipotent Unitary Exec. status for the Bush to spy on anyone he likes and be damned with the Constitution. Just remember what’s good for the goose is just dandy for the Gander when a democrat is president. I’m sure you won’t yell foul when that happens, right!
steve – Do we need a warrant to listen in on a call from or to phone number 01125729126? Why do you insist, absolutely fucking insist, on ignoring the difference between purely domestic and foreign/international calls?
nightjar – We will be happy if a Dem President actually gives a crap about national security. And, if I call my buddy in Khartoum, I expect the NSA to listen in, no matter who is in office.
Just remember what’s good for the goose is just dandy for the Gander when a democrat is president. I’m sure you won’t yell foul when that happens, right!
Ganders circa Dem Pres 1996
TSK9 – Don’t go getting all fact-y on them. Pointing out actual instances of illegal activity is an intolerable smear, and cannot be countenanced. Also, Carnivore. ;-0
steve has apparently never had to pay a lawyer to defend him in a lawsuit, even one he stood a better than even chance of winning.
You people are a lost cause. You don’t even know me but have assumed so much its laughable.
I’m happy you all appear to find it ok for the government to spy on you since you currently have nothing to hide. When the laws get changed, and your thoughts are deemed suspect (which they could be under a more left leaning administration), come back and tell me about how you have nothing to fear.
And since you want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt about having your individual or collective best interest at heart on this topic, why not extend that to all those other pesky things like taxes, education, earmarks, health care, etc. Thought not. So why give it to them here? Not me. But then I have thoughts of my own and principles to uphold. So I’ll worry about the law and right and wrong. You just keep making sure the water is carried where it needs to beand worrying about your phone bill.
because it’s about national security, which is one of the few things I think is the government’s job.
short term,
It’s not that we have nothing to hide, it’s that we’re not getting phone calls from Al Qaeda. And given your name, perhaps you aren’t aware that the USG has partnered with other countries to listen in on our phone calls for decades without turning into a police state.
There, that’s better.
Stupid puns aside, it does appear to me that steve and nightjar are essentially conceding that a Dem prez would use phone surveillance as a repercussive tool against his/her domestic enemies. Do I have that about right, fellas?
When the laws get changed, and your thoughts are deemed suspect (which they could be under a more left leaning administration), come back and tell me about how you have nothing to fear.
Global warming has made us forget how chilly the wind was in the 90’s
short term – We bow at your all knowing and most certainly not smelly feet. We praise you for enlightening us. We beseech thee to forgive us for our transgressions. O wise one, be merciful.
Why not? Because a Senate SCI member who has been briefed on the program is less reliable than Socky McSockpuppet, who is basically just pulling stuff out of his ass?
JD
“nightjar – We will be happy if a Dem President actually gives a crap about national security. And, if I call my buddy in Khartoum, I expect the NSA to listen in, no matter who is in office.”
You guys screeched to the high heavens whenever Clinton even suggested expanding his wiretap authority. And those requests were minor compared to what Bush is getting. Two things. If you think Bush hasn’t been doing broad wiretaps within America between only Americans then I will sell you a bridge somewhere. That’s what this is about and why the belligerence by Bushies to keep it hidden. And I would suggest, if you want the government to keep tabs on your calls to Khartoum, then maybe you should move there so there won’t be a problem. Some of us want to live free, others need plastic sheets to get thru the night.
kelly – It is a classic case of projection.
kelly & JD,
I’m not sure it is projection. There is also the possibility that they are simply equal-opportunity paranoid tinfoil hat folks.
Maggie:
“so, better to ask for forgiveness than permission? and this is different than what’s currently working it’s way through Congress how?”
It’s not. We have this now, I believe. My point is that I’m not for shutting down surveillance as many had intimated. We can find creative ways to stay within the law (such as retroactive warrants)- but this goes too far. Why do they need such drastic measures, especially when they not only cut off liability for telecoms but cove the tracks of those in gov’t that may have spied w/o warrants (or why do we need the imuunity?).
And it’s not forgiveness: if a judge sees spying on some group that they have no business keeping tabs on, people can be held accountable. That’s not looking for forgiveness – it’s a safeguard.
Is it a cover up? We’ll never know. But if it isn’t, why the immunity?
well, not sooooo equal-opportunity, because terrorist threat=unsubstantiated fear, while the government=real threat.
nightjar:
1. Link for that, please.
2. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you could find one, I suppose consistency would demand we maintain that position even after 9/11?
nightjar – Link please. I do not recall screeching, but I may have. I doubt it.
steve – so the telco’s should just be forced to take it in the sphincter for doing what was right at the time? Those millions they spend defending themselves is nothing, right?
“steve has apparently never had to pay a lawyer to defend him in a lawsuit, even one he stood a better than even chance of winning.”
This is my personally favoritist argument. The tort reform with sledgehammer complete-immunity solution for (potentially) frivolous lawsuits. I do agree that one way around those lawsuits is to give all that might become defendants in them immunity. That would work, yes.
Oh, I should add that nightjar is also implicitly blurring the distinction between domestic and international calls.
Then it should be part of the law. It’s absolutely ridiculous to expect some field agent to make that kind of judgment call. They shouldn’t have to wonder if they’ll be prosecuted for something that, “might be legal if this turns out well.”
Heh. It’s a case of doubting your sincerity, interchangeable STVs.
When Dick Cheney left Halliburton, he made an amicable arrangement with them to defer some of his pay — a purely financial arrangement with tax benefits for both of them. Then, when the war started, we heard from all around how ITSALLFORHALLIBURTONANDCHENEY’SBENEFIT!!!!!!!!!! That set the tone. Secret Cabals to Set Energy Policy. “No-Bid Contracts”. “Release those records!” What it boils down to is: if a Democrat meets with representatives of the Red Army to discuss terms for selling guided-missile parts, any public mention is UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY!!!!! If George Bush wants to take a crap with the door closed, it’s UNITARY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TRAMPLING THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!! After a while it all gets to be the same.
It may be that you guys are entirely sincere. I think you’re lying through your fucking teeth.
Regards,
Ric
steve, you are the one who asked why the telcos would want immunity if they have clean hands. I gave you the answer. Sorry you don’t like it, but your response proves the point. The telcos want immunity because at the very least, they don’t want to rack up legal bills. Saying they should have to do so does not change the range of their motivation.
Might be the only way nowadays. If juries weren’t so creduluous and easily manipulated, would anyone even know who John Edwards is?
“Then it should be part of the law.”
I think it is part of the law.I don’t have time to dig it up, but I remember reading that it was enacted at some point. If it isn’t it should be – along with a good faith clause of some sort.
“might be legal if this turns out well.â€Â
I didn’t get this. It’s not is the evidence yields anything or not – but whether there was some sort of probable casue. It’s not an end game. there’s a difference between listening in to the calls of someone who some probable casue exists against and listening in to some political figure or some such – but that’s why we have judicial branch.
Comment by nightjar on 2/12 @ 2:28 pm #
Actually, nutjob, as long as they’re spying on assholes talking to known jihadists, I don’t give a fuck if your dumbass is in the white house. The funny thing about this is that IF this, or any other, administration was being underhanded and devious and spying on political opponents, they could do all of this under the fucking radar. None of you loons would even be aware of this. That office is that damned powerful. As an aside that means absolutely nothing, I think steve is acting in good faith, here. The loons, stvk and nutjob, aren’t. Just may 2 cents.
“steve, you are the one who asked why the telcos would want immunity if they have clean hands. I gave you the answer. Sorry you don’t like it, but your response proves the point. The telcos want immunity because at the very least, they don’t want to rack up legal bills. Saying they should have to do so does not change the range of their motivation.”
Well every company on Earth WANTS retroactive immnunity! Why did they begin lobbying for it, and why are THEY getting it? Should every other company start lobbying for this? SHould they get it?
This was a strategic dialectic ploy masquerading as a response on your part.
Most of the folks still rotting in GitMo weren’t associated with AQ either. Didn’t stop us from taking them did it? Wake up. They don’t care if your talking to AQ or not. They are intercepting and looking through everything sent. Even Congress knows this:
http://public.cq.com/public/20060414_homeland.html
Yes, that references a sworn affidavit executed by someone with knowledge. For all of you out there affidavits are executed under oath under penalty of perjury. That’s the only testimony under oath that I’m aware of at the moment. So you keep throwing your opinions out there. I’ll stick to the facts, regardless of where that takes me.
So laugh it up. The thought crime bill currently making its way through Congress should smack that smirk off your face.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
But then it is readily apparent that those who frequent this site have no appreciation of what they are throwing out with the bathwater. The Constitution protects us all, not just those who agree with you, and was suppose to last longer than 43 presidents, no?
steve:
Because they are being sued and probably believe it is unfair for them to be sued for helping the govenment listent to terrorists after 9/11. They are getting it because: (a) they have clout; (b) their position has merit. At least, those are the infrences to be drawn from the lopsided vote in favor of immunity, including votes from some Dems who would not vote for more general forms of immunity as part of some tort reform package. Accusing me of being diversionary for pointing out the financial reason for seeking immunity when you asked for some reason other than guilt really is projection. I really was not being snide when I suggested you have likely had little contact with the legal system. People in litigation make all sorts of decisions — e.g., to settle cases — regardless of ultimate liability.
short term,
Your reliance on those links demonstrates that you are technologically illiterate. Echelon was designed to do the same thing, only less effectively. That is a difference of degree, not kind. The structure of voice and data communications technology today means packets go everywhere. The affidavit is significant only to establish that the tap was done at a hub in San Francisco — which may have legal significance, but not a tech significance.
As for the fine folks at Gitmo, shooting at US troops on a battlefield might get you captured. Who knew?
you’re right,I’m not always clear. I meant in terms of the judge agreeing there’s probable cause. if the judge decides there’s no probable cause after the fact, then what? I guess there’s already what a 72 hour grace period. but as short term shows, there’s also a matter of not being able to handle the volume of info.
um, that’s some guy saying what he says he swore to, which is kinda different than an actual affidavit. see also “Wilson, Joe”.
Most of the folks still rotting in GitMo weren’t associated with AQ either.
It’s true. A friend of my cousin’s sister’s boyfriend was a cook down there, and he asked them and they all said they didn’t even know who Al Kato was. It’s all part of the cover-up.
stvk has one enemy and that enemy has one name…Al Queda. Those other “gentlemen” trying to kill our troops? Well, isn’t it obvious? They’re freedom fighters!
You know this(NSA, FISA) is the single hardest issue to wrap my head around. I’m not even sure what the civil libertarians and reactionary left is upset about. Do they think that the administration is spying on American citizens for political gain? Is that it?
Yes he is but herein lies a bit of the problem. If I understand correctly, even international calls between, say, Pakistan and Germany may well be routed through the US nevertheless. This is because we were first to build out the routing/switching infrastructure for long distance calls. And further, if I understand correctly, the surveillance is more computerized programs designed to discern patterns of communicaton.
Anyway, I find these boneheads who are emotionally/sexually attached to the left’s caricature of Bush himself with headphones on listening to millions of calls in hundreds of languages a day to be sadly hilarious.
Yes, OI, they think that’s possible, since the FBI has already reported they use wiretapping authority to chase down insurance fraud and fraudulent pharmacies. See, the left trusts laws and not the nice people you and Karl are willing to cede power to.
We’ll see how you like this power when it’s wielded by Dems in less than a year…I can still hear the whining about the IRS audits from the ’90’s.
Freakin’ hypocrites
We’ll see how you like this power when it’s wielded by Dems in less than a year…I can still hear the whining about the IRS audits from the ’90’s.
Are you saying that the left is going to abuse the power that they have been helping the government secure? That seems a rather stark admission to me.
Honestly, I’d much rather look at it as your representatives have been playing you and, at least in some ways are interested in protecting the citizens of the US from all enemies foreign and domestic. Because that would be super.
Actually, I’m glad IJS stopped by to warn me that someone will be gunning for me. Gives me time to get my affairs in order, or run.
You’ll never catch me, you bastards!
STV, for probably the umpteenth time, not that you’ll pay attention:
THERE
ISN’T
ANY
OTHER
WAY
TO
DO IT!
Karl called you “technologically illiterate”. That’s being generous. For your information, there’s no such thing as a wire connecting caller and called, and hasn’t been for twenty years. EVERYTHING gets digitized, broken up into bits, and sent through whichever transistor is free from millisecond to millisecond or faster. There is no “circuit”. There is no “telephone call”. There are only packets, routing, and switches.
What NSA has is a computer programmed with keywords. It picks up the packets, assembles them partially, and looks for keywords. If it finds any, it forwards that up the line for further processing. Paranoia is a virtue in intelligence work, so the criteria for keywords are probably pretty damned all-inclusive — but in the end, NSA has a certain number of people and a certain number of computers, and there’s no way in Hell even one percent of the “hits” ever reach the point where a computer decides to record the call and look into the data base for the call/called number list, let alone forward it to a human for “wiretapping”.
And that is literally the ONLY way it can be done. There is NO way, in a modern telephone switch, to even determine whether it’s a computer transaction or a voice call, let alone where it came from or where it’s bound, without “listening in to the conversation”. It can’t be done.
So basically you have two choices, in order to meet your criteria:
1) Do away with any sort of call interception whatever;
2) Issue a subpoena for every call that passes through the switch.
Now, I consider no. 1 unacceptable for several reasons. If you choose #2, what is the difference between that and “executive authority”?
Regards,
Ric
kelly,
There certainly is that technical problem in the cuurent instance, as I myself noted in response to short term. I made that comment to nightjar because he/she/it is claiming hypocrisy regarding some of the wiretap debates of the 1990s — which did not involve international calls (the issues were things like roving wiretaps, etc.).
IJS:
Thanks, I needed a good laugh. Yes the Left never engages in litigation to subvert the laws. The Left never argues against the death penalty — a punishment flatly admitted by the Constitution — on the grounds that it is too expensive (due to the massive litigation against it by the Left). The Left never defends unconstitutional affirmative action policies. The Left never tries to ban speech it doesn’t like on college campuses and in political campaigns. As if the entire thrust of the Left is not to centralize power and authority in politicians at the expense of personal freedom in myriad ways.
Oh, that was a good one. The tears are just rolling now.
I just took a gander at Greenwald’s ruffled-feather collection (and all four updates!) and the comments sound like…well, does anyone remember where in A Christmas Story Ralphie’s mother calls Schwartz’ mom and tells her that Ralphie heard the F-word from Schwartz? Schwartz’ mom’s response had a lot in common with Greenwald’s commenters.
Except the second one:
Mother Sheehan for Congress! She’ll fix things!
I love how some folks here jump in all defensively — ‘you don’t know me, yet you make assumptions about where I stand blah blah blah…’ — and yet these same folks lump the regulars here in with those who are for ceding any power to the federal government that we think will keep the evil jihadis out of our kitchens.
The truth is, I wrote extensively on this subject, and you can find the FISA posts over under greatest hits, in their own category.
The idea that we should be suing telecoms who were acting in good faith at the behest of the White House after 911 — and after high ranking members of both parties were briefed on the nature of the program (which has still never been proven “illegal”) — is stupifying, and speaks to the litigious nature of those who’d just as soon stack the courts, then turn the whole country over to the authority of those courts.
Yum, oligarchy. It’s what’s for dinner!
Oops. Looks like Karl already beat me to the judicial punch.
Good for him — though mine was spiked with rum. So there.
Rum makes me ill. Pavlovian reaction.
Anyway, I find these boneheads who are emotionally/sexually attached to the left’s caricature of Bush himself with headphones on listening to millions of calls in hundreds of languages a day to be sadly hilarious.
McChimpyDummy can do dat?
The idea that we should be suing telecoms who were acting in good faith at the behest of the White House after 911  and after high ranking members of both parties were briefed on the nature of the program (which has still never been proven “illegalâ€Â)  is stupifying, and speaks to the litigious nature of those who’d just as soon stack the courts, then turn the whole country over to the authority of those courts.
Can I just add – at the behest of the Intelligence Community via the WH – is a conveniently missing component from the left’s unified narrative.
Karl
Here is link you requested. I’ve away from computer. The following is the operative quote from the linked cnn article.
CNN – Clinton to press for anti-terrorism tools – July 29, 1996
A rare grouping of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats succeeded in killing the wiretap provision on the grounds that it would encroach further on personal liberties.”
after reading some follow up comments that I was confusing international calls and domestic, I offer the following. It is utterly irrelevant where the calls go to or come from. The question is always whether they include American citizens or U.S. persons if on American soil. Clinton never wanted to go around FISA, but was still stopped by a group of conservatives for domestic roving wiretaps on individuals from multiple phones and other communication devices. The issue of strictly foreign calls going thru U.S. routers was a silly concern from the FISA court.
Most likely they’re not even “words” but mathematical hashes of words and phrases. Searching would be faster that way.
The days of operators plugging and unplugging lines to make connections are gone.
Call origins can be fungible, nightjar.
nightjar – that some opposed does not mean any of us opposed. nice try. that you do not see any difference between domestic and international calls is an indictment of your lack of curiosity.
Not when the U.S. is at war. In that instance the only question is whether the communication involves someone who might be identifiable as an enemy of the United States.
Period.
“The idea that we should be suing telecoms who were acting in good faith at the behest of the White House after 911  and after high ranking members of both parties were briefed on the nature of the program (which has still never been proven “illegalâ€Â)  is stupifying, and speaks to the litigious nature of those who’d just as soon stack the courts, then turn the whole country over to the authority of those courts.”
1. What about the law? There are specific statutes (enacted in reaction to the Church commission) that hold telecoms accountable for just this sort of scenario – i.e., “it’s against the law, but the gov’t told me to do it”. Why do we need to ignore those statutes, especially if no laws were broken?
2. IT’s not about damages – it’s about no one knowing what the exec is doing – not courts not anyone (except the telecoms). Considering testimony by Alberto Gonzales dodging questions about purely domestic spying programs and telecom whistleblowers tesifying that the gov’t is taking all of the traffic, It warrants at least some checking into. Oh, what’s that? The telecom amnesty has made it so that no one can check into it? I see – it’s all about the damages.
3. Things aren’t legal becasue one is “…acting in good faith at the behest of the White House after 911  and after high ranking members of both parties were briefed on the nature of the program ”
Legal isn’t defined as anything the gov’t asks for ipso facto that they’re the gov’t.
4. ” which has still never been proven “illegal†”
And how could that EVER be done? especially now. This is circular considering the other stances you’ve taken.
#
Comment by Jim in KC on 2/12 @ 4:54 pm #
Call origins can be fungible, nightjar.
LOL. Yup. but so can politicians and jelly donuts. Not American citizens. They are profoundly unfungible.
#73
And what event happened between 1996 and 2008?
nightjar,
Wrong. The FISA is concerned with “intentionally targeting” a US person.
This blog has covered this material dozens of times.
And the House and Senate leadership and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Part of the result of what Ric points out in his post (i.e. there’s no way to do this except to grab everything) is that for the searches to be even remotely feasible they have to be done in such a way that there’s no real method of ascertaining origin or parties until after there’s a hit. That’s what I was alluding to with the reference to the demise of the operator.
The question is always whether they include American citizens or U.S. persons if on American soil.
Wrong. The FISA is concerned with “intentionally targeting†a US pers.
Yes, that’s true, but part of the argument in the Senate is whether American citizens abroad should also have some privacy protection even though they are on foreign soil. i say common sense says yes.
You may say that, but you may not have thought through the implications of that, either practically or legally. For example, do other countries get to extend the reach of their laws into the U.S.?
Moreover, that issue doesn’t have anything to do with the legality of the program as it stands now. It’s more trying to change the subject every time you get shown to be wrong.
The deal is done.
Y’all have another victory quashing any hope of discovering the truth of the matter.
Add it to Iran/Contra and have a beer with your Blood Diamonds.
what’s good for the goose is just dandy for the Gander
Not to mention the gandy dancer.
more heartache…Blood Diamonds
Oh sorry – here’s the Seman’s Blood Diamonds
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-18-jefferson-botswana_N.htm
@ #28
My dog has fleas.
And in light of the fact I’ve yet to Man-Up, Nancy dander.
#
Comment by I’m Just Saying on 2/12 @ 3:47 pm #
Yes, OI, they think that’s possible, since the FBI has already reported they use wiretapping authority to chase down insurance fraud and fraudulent pharmacies. See, the left trusts laws and not the nice people you and Karl are willing to cede power to.
We’ll see how you like this power when it’s wielded by Dems in less than a year…I can still hear the whining about the IRS audits from the ’90’s.
Freakin’ hypocrites
That would require a court order(warrant) issued upon probable cause by a federal judge. Have you actually ever read the constitution? hypocite
Moreover, that issue doesn’t have anything to do with the legality of the program as it stands now. It’s more trying to change the subject every time you get shown to be wrong.
I said some privacy protection for a US citizen on foreign soil being spied on by the US government. In other words, should the NSA have cart blanch to spy on Americans overseas without one iota of judicial over sight. Think about that.
Cutting thru all the crap on this subject, i will say the following. I want to spy on those who mean us harm. I want the government to work with the FISA court to expedite such spying to the greatest extent possible but not without at least a molecule of probable cause. I want the court to review precisely what the NSA has been doing for the past 6 years as I believe there have been excesses far beyond what we’ve been told. I want caps on any jury awards that may befall the telecoms and if their cases are dismissed then the government should pay all legal fees accrued. It’s called rule of law and accountability. If the telecoms truly acted in good faith then the legal system will exonerate them.
@ #28
Or maybe it’s Nancy Pelosi.
yell foul
You owe me a spleen, K.
[…] Protein Wisdom One small step for the Senate, one big hissy fit for the Left. […]
I want the court to review precisely what the NSA has been doing for the past 6 years as I believe there have been excesses far beyond what we’ve been told.
You could have just said this at the outset and saved us all a lot of trouble. You want our security gathering operations exposed and handicapped because of unfounded, paranoid personal beliefs. Fine. We don’t. I think our side is winning.
B. Moe
“You could have just said this at the outset and saved us all a lot of trouble. You want our security gathering operations exposed and handicapped because of unfounded, paranoid personal beliefs. Fine. We don’t. I think our side is winning.”
I was clearly referring to the SECRET FISA court to examine what NSA has been doing. We’ve been having top secret court proceedings since the beginning of our country with protection of state secrets provided.
“Unfounded paranoid beliefs” You must not have been around for the 60’s and 70’s when the CIA and NSA were the personal eavesdroppers for both dem and repub presidents. There was a time when republicans used to be paranoid of government power. I guess 9-11 scared that right out of ya. Too Bad. And yes you are winning for now, if you want to call it winning. But I doubt you’ve won anything worth winning.
You must not have been around for the 60’s and 70’s when the CIA and NSA were the personal eavesdroppers for both dem and repub presidents.
The irony of this is just completely lost on you, isn’t it?
If the cases are dismissed, you want the government to pay the legal fees? Good Allah, this is remarkable in its stupidity even for you. How about the plaintiffs, or the plaintiff attorneys paying the costs for bringing meritless lawsuits. The idea that extending domestic protections to people overseas comes in a close second.
“The irony of this is just completely lost on you, isn’t it?”
Maybe you could enlighten. Otherwise, I don’t know wtf your talking about.
You must not have been around for the 60’s and 70’s
I guess I shouldn’t have drunk all that cough syrup.
And I don’t think I want to take you, or your bags to the airport, nj.
JD–“for bringing meritless lawsuits.”
Feds appeal
loss in NSA wiretap case | CNET News.com
operative quote from judge
“Because of the public disclosures by the government and AT&T, the court cannot conclude that merely maintaining this action creates a ‘reasonable danger’ of harming national security,” Walker wrote.”
From JD
“The idea that extending domestic protections to people overseas comes in a close second.”
Rights that travel: FISA should protect U.S. citizens overseas …
operative quote from article
“The judicial branch has not definitively settled the question of whether Americans overseas are covered by the protections of the Constitution”
Nice try but no sale. From we stoopid libruls.
We understand that you’re compelled to lie, but you shouldn’t do so transparently.
So the secret court meets and rules that all is copacetic. What’s your response? — never mind, we already know: “It’s George Bush. If they didn’t find misbehavior they either didn’t look or are lying about it. Do it again.” You have already made it clear that NO VERDICT OF “NO MISBEHAVIOR” WILL SATISFY YOU; you have declared that there is and was misbehavior, and if the hearing finds none we must have another hearing, and if that finds no culpable misbehavior another hearing is necessary…
f* you.
Regards,
Ric
(tosses keys)
Off Teh 104 Bridge.
Dear Ric
When wingnuts begin to mindlessly babble and sling verbal fecal matter like with your post, then I know my argument is hitting a nerve. Thank you for the affirmation.
Regards
Nightjar
Never been to the Movies, nj?
I know my argument is hitting a nerve.
68 to 29
Winner!
Heh…Think again, nightjar. And it’s ok to say shit. Say it. Shit. It’s liberating.
“as I believe there have been excesses far beyond what we’ve been told”
Why do you “believe” this? And on a not too unrelated matter, do you “believe” water boarding is torture?
Yum, oligarchy. It’s what’s for dinner!
And for dessert?
If I’d wanted to say shit Obstrep, I’d have have said it. Only further affirmation when wingnuts start fretting about my word choice. I call it the miss manners effect. What I believe or not about warrantless wiretapping by the Bushies is irrelevant. You don’t want to know what your government is doing in our name and I want to know, that’s the difference in you and me.
As for waterboarding, ask the families of Japanese officers who were hung for waterboarding POW’s in world war 2. Maybe they can tell you if it’s torture.
And now it’s time for Jericho.
Why is it that idiots think they are “hitting a nerve” when people point out that they are idiots?
nightjar
I’ve now read every single comment here. What I’d like to do is to measure your moral judgment. I’m going to give you a true story and ask you your reaction.
A child has been kidnapped. The kidnapper has been located, arrested, brought in for questioning. The lead detective knows this guy is the perp because the guy has admitted it. Indeed, the guy has said he has buried the child, alive, but will not tell the location. The detective can’t get the guy to tell and he knows if the child isn’t located soon, the child will suffocate to death. So he does something in the grey area of legality. He threatens the perp. He threatens to beat the bloody shit out of the perp. The perp believes him and gives up the location of the child.
What do YOU want to see happen to that detective?
As for waterboarding, ask the families of Japanese officers who were hung for waterboarding POW’s in world war 2. Maybe they can tell you if it’s torture.
Another one of the loonwaffle left talking points that simply does not stand up to even reasonable scrutiny. What they were accused of and convicted of in no way resembles what is referred to as waterboarding today. Except they both involved water. The similarities pretty much ended there. So, H2O was the same. The rest, pure fucking moonbat BS.
Darleen – Silly you. You know that they will not answer, because this is not the situation that Bu$Hitler ever encountered, and that torture is unreliable even though it has been used for centuries and that Cheney does it for fun, and … never mind. You know what is coming.
As for waterboarding, ask the families of Japanese officers who were hung for waterboarding POW’s in world war 2. Maybe they can tell you if it’s torture.
Or maybe we can ask the victims of Unit 731.
Punk.
Perspective, people.
Darlene
First, I think you’ve been watching too many episodes of Law and Order SVU. Second, the Army field manual Ok’s verbal threats of violence, I think. Waterboarding, not so much. I think the detective stayed just up to edge of the line, and I’d buy him a beer. What his Captain would do, I don’t know.
The similarities pretty much ended there. So, H2O was the same. The rest, pure fucking moonbat BS.
And you know this how? Here’s your presumptive nominee on the subject.
McCain: Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding – Politics News Story …
I raise you a Rape of Nanking.
Read your own fucking links, asshat.
Here is the moneyshot … “for techniques that included waterboarding”. Does this phrase mean anything to you, or did you just blow a nut when you typed McCain and waterboard into google, and found that link?
Why is it that the fucking loonwaffles feel compelled to flat out freaking lie about what is contained in a link? Did Gleenwald learn that from the nutroots, or did he just perfect it and send his footsoldiers out to do so? Do they just assume that we will not be reading their link so feel freed up to just make shit up about the content contained within?
JD, c’mon back in off Teh Ledge.
Point and laugh out loud.
#108 Heh. You lied. I called you a liar. Clearly you’ve been swiftboated, right? So you can declare victory and quit.
Silky-pelted rodents in slinky revealing clothes
Form a line and dance, dance, dance
Kiking high to a throbbing, pulsing beat
Conga-rats!
You say you want surveillance — then place conditions on it that make it impossible to achieve. When it is explained to you that the conditions you propose make it impossible — you extend the conditions so as to make it less feasible. You repeatedly note that you believe that vileness has been done; you absolutely reject even the concept that those engaged in oversight did their jobs; you repeatedly demand revelations, exposure, explanations, and the ones offered to you are never sufficient — in fact, at several points you make it clear that nothing less than complete details can even approach sufficiency, and your definition of “complete” is such that no result that does not end up with fines, jail sentences, etc. for Bu$hitler and the EEEEEEVIL telecoms is not “complete”.
You belong in the same category as Berserklians who “support the troops”: you’re either a deliberate liar or an ignoramus passing lies along. Bad boys get spam in their inbox for Fitzmas.
Regards,
Ric
“There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture, otherwise we wouldn’t have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans,” McCain said during a news conference.
JD, relax, I’d hate for you head to explode tonight. Maybe you could take some of whatever GuinsPen is taking. I wouldn’t mind some myself, to tell the truth.
Don’t get your panties in a bunch nutjar. Fecal matter just sounded so faux intelligent. The fact that you can’t answer a very simple question is telling. Miss Manners would suggest answering a question not evading it.
“You don’t want to know what your government is doing in our name and I want to know, that’s the difference in you and me.”
Don’t presume to speak for me. Sure I do. Your motivation is what is at issue here. As for the waterboarding, I was asking you. Don’t do cute. You can’t pull it off.
I mean, they’re throwing up beach-balls.
Ric – I like the feisty mood today.
guinsPen – You are prolly right. I do not know why I allow these little lying crapweasels to get to me.
Because every just war in the history of mankind was won in a courtroom before a jury of the enemy’s peers.
Maybe you could take some of whatever GuinsPen is taking
You ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water, nightjar?
nightjar – You are not nearly good enough to make my head explode. You are a vile little worthless drive by troll, soon to be gone. You are a delusional little ass, the king of your basement, the Lord of the CircleJerk. You are a sad insignificant little prick. And those are your redeeming qualities.
Vodka, that’s what they drink. Isn’t it?
“Comment by Ric Locke on 2/12 @ 9:07 pm #
#108 Heh. You lied. I called you a liar. Clearly you’ve been swiftboated, right? So you can declare victory and quit.”
“You belong in the same category as Berserklians who “support the troopsâ€Â: you’re either a deliberate liar or an ignoramus passing lies along. Bad boys get spam in their inbox for Fitzmas”
“Berserklians” Damn you blew my cover Ric. LOL. I don’t think I can bear your disapproval. More LOL!
Sen. John McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, reminded an audience Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hung for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.
Some Germans were tried and executed for crimes against humanity that included forced labor. Do you think community service sentences are torture?
“There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture, otherwise we wouldn’t have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans,†McCain said during a news conference.
Add this to the list of reasons why Sen. McCain is unfit to hold the office of the President. If he is going to hand out talking points to the loonwaffles, could he please make sure he knows what the fuck he is talking about?
Waterboarding was one thing, one of many that these particular sadistic bastards were executed for. That you are so intellectual uncurious to look for the underlying truth of this matter shows that your desire to score gotcha political points trumps your professed desire to see these programs conducted in the light of day.
Mendacity suits you well, fucker.
C’mon, nightjar, feed me these belts boy.
Quick! The Red-Coats are coming.
Oh, I don’t expect you to need my approval, nightjar. I’m a Southern Baptist, so I’m quite familiar with self-righteous asshats with deep convictions of their own absolute sanctity. The religious ones don’t excite my admiration much, and neither do you.
Y’know, I really don’t know all that much about the NSA, but I do know how a modern telephone switch works. Show me a Federal judge who can approve or disapprove a search warrant in the time it takes a switch to route a packet header, and I’ll start believing you’re serious (that’s fifty microseconds, BTW)). Until then you’re either a liar or a dupe.
Regards,
Ric
Maybe you could take some of whatever GuinsPen is taking
Sorry, nj, pure grain alcohol and rain water.
OPE
“You are a vile little worthless drive by troll, soon to be gone.”
Well that’s a sure way to bring me back. And Ostrep my motivation on this issue is a vain attempt to shake some sense into republicans who used to care about reining in government power. Maybe to hit some vestigial nerve from the past to maybe put a stop to the big brother mentality that is overtaking us all.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
And Ostrep my motivation on this issue is a vain attempt to shake some sense into republicans who used to care about reining in government power. Maybe to hit some vestigial nerve from the past to maybe put a stop to the big brother mentality that is overtaking us all.
Pure, unadulterated horse pucky. Since when is providing for the common defense big brother? Since when does calling Al-Mutanabi in Syria make for a domestic phone call? The fact is that despite your claims of purity of thought and mind, the path you have laid out would absolutely prevent anyone from ever providing for your defense. A lying crapweasel, of Gleenwaldian proportions.
Like I said JD. “vain attempt”. But at least I learned a lot of nasty names from you. It’s the language of losers.
Well being that I’m not, nor have I ever been, a republican, that’s an interesting goal. I’m all about reigning in the power of the federal government. Hence, my issues withthis administrations non-defense spending habits. It just seems to me that the republicans feel, and I agree with them, that we are at war, and the original party of big government, the dems, seem to feel that we aren’t at war. Nobody on your side has been able to convince me that this administration broke any laws, much less spied on “innocent” American citizens. If you feel that by circumventing FISA to perform warrantless wiretaps on jackasses corresponding with known jihadis, that just happen to be American citizens, then, I have some sympathy…to a degree. But, then again, instead of trusting an administration, you’re trusting judges, who can be just as corrupt and/or partisan as an Executive. I said upthread, that I think it’s folly to completely trust any administration, led by either party. Maybe, I’m just too conspiratorial, but if the President of the United States wants to get political opponents, he could go way under the radar for it. FISA and the NSA would be the least of hsi/her worries.
Yes, you do strike me as someone that could be described as quite vain. Arrogant. Gleenwaldian, if you will. Now, be gone. You declared yourself the winner some time ago. Let us lick our wounds in peace. Fucker.
So, for fun, I just went and read Gren Gleenwald’s post and updates on this topic. Oh, he is just atwitter over there. But, proud. He claims he was read into the Senate record again. Shirtlifter.
That makes no fucking sense no matter how many times you read it.
oh. there’s a link in there.
Nightjar!
In the name of Her Majesty and the Continental Congress!
Get over here!
oh. *Dodd*. The link ate that part.
nj
First, I think you’ve been watching too many episodes of Law and Order SVU
I don’t watch it. I’m more of a HGTV kinda gal (a fun shopping trip is to Home Depot).
But I wasn’t giving you a fictional or hypothetical case. I’m giving you a true story, one in which…Obama-like, you have ducked rather than answered.
One more chance, nj. What do you think should happen to the detective.
If we put special computer chips in all the telephones that an American citizens could possibly use while he/she was abroad, then we could program our snooping software to recognize the signal and ignore all packets coming from those sources. Actually, maybe it would work better if we put the chips inside the citizens themselves in case they use a phone we hadn’t counted on. In that way we could be sure to protect their civil liberties from the evil NSA while they are out of the country.
See, it’s really very simple.
I did not know that the ability to have an international telecommunication with a suspected terrorist was an essential liberty until today.
For that matter the folks using the Brooklyn Bridge who were not blown up crossing it probably feel more than a little temporary safety.
I think the important thing is that a warrant is obtained from the secret FISA court, and then so as to not appear suspicious, to disseminate that information to the public.
Bah.
Number One: as I said, I know how a telephone switch works. Based on that knowledge, while I don’t know specifically how the “eavesdropping” <spit> program works, I know how it has to work — and the objections, as stated, go so directly to the heart of the only workable methods that the only reasonable interpretation is that the objectors also know how it has to work and are deliberately attempting to sabotage it.
Number Two: I also know that the reason for the Constitutional prohibitions are to prevent use of the force of the State to hassle citizens. Unreasonable search and seizure isn’t unConstitutional because the cops might find something; it’s unConstitutional because the search itself is a form of intimidation which can be used to coerce the citizen. When I start hearing outrage against the (commonplace) legal doctrine that a traffic stop gives the cops an excuse to dismantle the car looking for contraband, I’ll believe we’re looking at genuine moral and ethical objections and not just political mudslinging.
Number Three: again, the function of the Constitution is to restrain the Government from hassling the people. When and if you show me somebody being prosecuted based on NSA intercepts I’ll join you on the barricades. But — I also remember enough about Intelligence work to know for sure that that ain’t gonna happen, from two directions: the prosecutor won’t get ten words out before the gavel comes down, bang, “Inadmissible!”; and doing so would require the spooks to reveal how they got the data, and they’ll no more do that than a hen would deliver her chicks to the fox with a little red bow on each one. At the very most, such data might be used to establish probable cause for a genuine warrant to collect admissible data — and it ought to be the function of the FISA court to look at the (secret) intercepted data and decide whether or not it justified the issuance of such a warrant. Anything used in a Court of Law to deprive anyone (citizen or otherwise) of life, liberty, or property has to be collected using that procedure, and I have not seen or heard even a hint that anyone, anywhere, has suggested otherwise, including George Bush. Existential angst over whether or not some nerd in the basement at Langley overheard you breathing heavy with your Significant Other doesn’t impress me.
That’ll do to go on with.
Regards,
Ric
But I wasn’t giving you a fictional or hypothetical case. I’m giving you a true story, one in which…Obama-like, you have ducked rather than answered.
One more chance, nj. What do you think should happen to the detective.
He should drink the beer I bought him. And Obama like is a compliment. Thank You.
People like nightjar and steve continue on like none of this stuff has been covered here before, at length. Hell, I got practically academic on the subject.
You can agree or disagree with my analysis, but it is just as plausible, legally speaking, as that offered by the Greenwaldians — who can’t even get some of the most liberal Congressfolk in their fold to go along with their reading on things.
steve wrote:
Uh, because it wasn’t against the law?
Your legislators are trying to speak to you, steve. It’s code, so you have to listen closely. But it’s there, in the subtext.
“I think the important thing is that a warrant is obtained from the secret FISA court, and then so as to not appear suspicious, to disseminate that information to the public.”
The NY Times would be happy to disseminate it for us as they do with other national security secrets. That should make nightjar happy, because of his need to know.
The jar is for nocturnal emmissions, right?
This is a point brought up over and over again, Ric, but is routinely ignored nevertheless (I suppose to keep the outrage going): the NSA intercepts are not admissible in court without a subsequent warrant. Which has to be granted. By the FISA court.
Now, I think the FISA courts’ authority is dubious – and I’ve written on (and linked to) the intentions of act as noted in the original proceedings. Military intelligence gathering was never supposed to be folded into FISA’s jurisdiction.
As Ric notes, these “civil liberties” concerns — coupled with the willful technological naivety necessary to continue on with these protests — lead one to conclude that such objections are entirely politically motivated.
Just as Rockefeller intended them to be when he wrote his memo detailing how the Dems might exploit the program (and its necessary secrecy) in the runup to elections.
All of which I’ve already covered. See the sidebar.
All of which leaves the conservatives with demonstrably strong talking points about the democrats not being serious about fighting a war on terror.
Just as Rockefeller intended them to be when he wrote his memo detailing how the Dems might exploit the program (and its necessary secrecy) in the runup to elections.
But that is all just fine and dandy, because they are Dems, and they are serving a higher good, or a gooder high, or something like that.
#
Comment by daleyrocks on 2/12 @ 11:04 pm #
All of which leaves the conservatives with demonstrably strong talking points about the democrats not being serious about fighting a war on terror.”
Finally, an honest statement why conservatives keep pushing WARRANTLESS wiretapping. And Jeff says democrats are politically motivated. Right. And btw Rockefeller is an idiot.
The other thing that ought to be mentioned from time to time, although it doesn’t come anywhere near the heart of the matter, is the purely practical aspect that the NSA intercepts, by their very nature, are more nearly exculpatory than anything.
This is a natural consequence of the fundamental rules of intelligence work, and more deeply of the difference between “data” and “information”. The problem in intelligence is rarely (almost never) getting data. It is finding ways to eliminate the 99.99% of the data that’s useless, irrelevant, misleading, and downright wrong, that keeps the intelligence analyst up at night. Traffic analysis, whether done by computers based on telephone numbers or manually based on surveillance of people’s movements, inherently throws up clouds of useless irrelevance that obscures the useful information, and trivial behaviors on the part of the people being surveilled can multiply that by orders of magnitude. NSA not only isn’t interested in your heavy-breathing sessions, they are actively trying to find ways to automatically reject them as early in the process as possible because they don’t need the extra complications.
People who know they’re being subjected to traffic analysis have a whole sheaf of things they can do to make the analysts’ lives harder. I won’t enumerate them, but to paraphrase Tom Clancy, it’s to salve my own conscience, not because I think it makes a damn bit of difference. But dammit, the overwhelming majority of the spooks’ efforts is to eliminate connections to the blameless — not because they’re dedicated to civil liberties, but because the amount of effort they can put into the work is finite and every scrap of it that ends up diverted to chasing down the uninvolved is as wasted as if they’d used it playing cribbage.
Regards,
Ric
Ric
as a small addendum to your comment of how NSA intercepts work (and the SHOCK!!1!! and OUTRAGE!!11! turned up to 11 over someone might be looking over Grandma Millie’s secret pecan pie recipe) I wonder just how much nj realizes how much of his/her life is recorded right now, every day, by all manner of public/private agencies. The digitized surveillance at the local mall, indeed within each store or bank that follows customers and ties their image to their transactions, goes unnoticed. For every easily spotted dome on the ceiling, there are more cameras unseen. Parking lots, elevators, hallways, intersections… all being unobtrusively surveilled, recorded, saved … 99% to be deleted, but there’s always that 1%.
conservatives keep pushing WARRANTLESS wiretapping
It doesnt mean what you think it means, nj.
Jaysus on a Pony, nj
educate yourself
an honest statement why conservatives keep pushing WARRANTLESS wiretapping
How about this one. I want the President of the United States of America to provide for the common defense, and during a time of conflict or war, to take whatever lawful steps necessary to preserve the safety of the Republic. Period.
And, to our new talking point spewing friend, using ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR POINT ANY MORE VALID !!!! In fact, it just makes you look like a fucking tool.
Darleen – If they could figure out a way to blame that on Chimpy McHitlerBurton, they would.
And here’s the heart of it:
That’s a lie, nightjar. It was a lie when first said, it’s been a lie every time it was repeated, it’s a lie when you repeat it, and it will continue to be a lie no matter how many times you lie about it. And since you lie about that, it leaves us free to assume that you are lying about other things — including your motivations for lying. That, in turn, leaves us utterly unmoved when you start breathing heavily.
Regards,
Ric
Jaysus on a Pony, nj
educate yourself
And I’m supposed to accept the rants of right wing bloggers. Are you
claiming that when Bush admitted he was circumventing FISA because of his Title 2 constitutional war powers, he was somehow wrong or untruthful?
I think nightjar and Tim Rutten must be related. Liars are their very core.
I think that since nightjar asserts that we are WARRANTLESS wiretapping, then he/she/it should describe, in detail, exactly how this works. Because it seems rather clear that he/she/it has absolutely no fucking idea how this process works. But that does not keep him/her/it from blathering on about how it is illegal.
Simple question, nightie. When you pick up your rotary dial phone, and call your buddies in Palestine, or Syria, does your phone company consider that to be a domestic or international call?
Once again then by to he/she/it JD.
“Are you claiming that when Bush admitted he was circumventing FISA because of his Title 2 constitutional war powers, he was somehow wrong or untruthful?”
Cabanaboy is informing nightjar today:
“It’s worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans for many years without warrants of any kind. All sorts of “controversy” erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain.”
How does the internet’s most dishonest blogger know all this activity is illegal you may ask? It is merely his opinion, misinformed as it is, because he goes on, referring to the Democratic Senate, to say:
“Far beyond that, once in power, they are eagerly and aggressively taking affirmative steps — extraordinary steps — to protect Bush officials. While still knowing virtually nothing about what they did, they are acting to legalize Bush’s illegal spying programs and put an end to all pending investigations and efforts to uncover what happened.”
It’s all freaking guesswork. Greenwald doesn’t have special knowledge and neither do you nightjar. You’re grasping at straws as has already been pointed out. Only that ridiculous partisan judge in Detroit whose ruling has since been overturned has ruled against the program. Do you have any facts on your side or just inane blathering?
nightjar – Let me be very clear. You are a liar. An aggressive liar. You try to couch it in nice words, but a liar you are. You have given me to basis in which to believe one word that you type. If you told me it was raining outside, looking out the window would be insufficient proof before I would be willing to accept your assertion. Now, having said that, I do not accept any of your premise in the question you assert. It is biased, loaded, and in short, every bit as honest as you have shown yourself to be.
daley – Assert, assert again, and repeat. When you have a compliant media carrying the spears for you, it makes it easier for such mendacity to become part of the collective consciousness. They lied long enough and loud enough until people simply started to accept it. Fuckers.
nj
you obviously have been “informed” by the ITS WARRANTLESS arguments, with little in the way of facts then you accuse us of either not caring or not knowing what is going on.
Our esteemed host has posted extensively on it, and I pointed to that body of work which you then dismiss out of hand.
You are actually not dealing in good faith here.
As I suspect, you are a moral idiot.
and that’s your good side.
For Daleyrock,
SAN FRANCISCO / Walker becomes chief district judge
And show a link where the case was overturned.
And JD et al call me a lier. All there is to you JD are ad hominem attacks, you are an aggressive ad hominem attacker and I don’t give a shit about your attacks. You know your wrong but you just can’t admit it. I’ve told no lies here. Whether I was right or wrong each person gets to decide that. But lying. No. So you can take your foul mouth and shove it up your wingnut ass. Have a nice night, asshole.
nightjar – Is Walker from Detroit? Did he issue a final ruling on a case or merely rule to allow a case to proceed? Try to read a little closer.
daleyrock
You must have the wrong case. Again I’ll provide the link for the case I cited earlier.
Feds appeal loss in NSA wiretap case | CNET News.com
uh, what’s happened with that case since 2006?
To summarize, before I go to bed:
1) There is no credible public information indicating that the program in question rises in general to the level of “wiretapping”, WARRANTLESS or otherwise. I do not include the perfervid imaginations of people whose declared intent is to frustrate or damage George W. Bush in the category of “credible information.”
2) There is no credible public information indicating that any information derived from the program has been used to deprive an American citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or any credible indication that any such action was ever contemplated.
3) Kicking the can down the road accomplishes little. It may be that I’m prejudiced; being out fifty grand thanks to a judge with friends and an agenda does not predispose me to a belief that a black robe and a lifetime appointment confers absolute sanctity. At some point we are obliged to either destroy the program by exposing it completely, or trust somebody to deal with necessary secrets. Frankly, I have no more reason to expect a judge to issue proper warrants on valid grounds than I do to assume that George Bush and the NSA are worthy of the public trust.
4) The program in question has been explained and overseen by members of Congress who are not only not allied with Bush, they are declared political enemies. The public objections are not coming from them, but from people I have no reason to believe have any knowledge I lack on the subject, and whose declared intent is, as publicly, repeatedly, and loudly stated, to damage or frustrate George Bush and the Bush Administration. To consider those objectors disinterested parties is risible to the point of asininity.
5) Those same objectors are curiously silent on the subject of Executive misbehavior in other contexts. It is known for a fact, multiply attested, that the Clinton administration collected IRS files and FBI dossiers on their political opponents, and I heard no outrage then, and hear none now. That same administration was, and its members continue to be, much less than forthcoming about what they knew and when they knew it, and one of its deputies has gone so far as to destroy or at least remove and conceal evidence concerning that, and I heard no outrage then, and hear none now. Spittle-flinging expostulation concerning one Administration, coupled with either silence or praise with faint damns for another, is not conclusive evidence of good faith.
6) The public information surrounding the “circumventions” so smugly cited points to the behavior of a specific judge entrusted with issuing the necessary warrants, who appears to have a vastly inflated notion of his importance and authority and an agenda contrary to what I consider the security interests of the United States.
7) There have been multiple investigations and hearings, and so far as I know, other than one ruling overturned on appeal there have been no official sanctions whatever, even when those with the power to issue such sanctions had much more information than has been made public.
From these and other lines of reasoning I conclude that the entire issue is one of mock outrage intended as a political ploy, and nothing nightjar or steve have posted gives me any least wisp of a clue that this might not be the case.
Regards,
Ric
nightjar – Obviously you are new to this subject and unfamiliar to the history. I’ll even give you a link to the ACLU for the correct case:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/index.html
nightjar, welcome to PW…MeatHead,LLC. don’t let the negativism get to you. They’re actually not so bad and have interesting takes on the political scene.
JD. don’t go scaring off friendly folk like nj. Do you have get ur lederhosen all bunched up ’cause of something ur allegedly “moonbat” Pa did. I don’t think u PW folk know shit about the NSA. They are not supposed to be ‘domestic’ but some how they are. People don’t realize how much money is spent there and for whom. It is a purely military vernture..but hires mostly civilians…so what do you know? I doubt you’ve been recruited by them and know anyone working for them. (both, in my case)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Pelton that guy isn’t the one I am talking about but serious gambling seems to be a NSA thing from my source’s lifestyle.
We know from Watergate, Iran-Contra, Arms for hostages, that modern Republicans don’t abide by the law but the law is there to at least restrain them in their pursuit of power. The guidelines enacted by the Fisa law is only a fig leaf to cover what’s really going on. NSA has an immense amount of money and eclipses the CIA in personal by 2 to 1. Their recruiting methods are suspect in academia. And the people they recruit are a weird bunch of iconoclastic types not necessarily respectful of the law. Ah, after hearing of one character’s antics…maybe I should’ve reconsidered the NSA..but that was in the day of proxies torturing thousands and my friends being hounded by the FBI (the GOP’s political police).
Maybe, I should’ve reconsidered and joined the dark side. They do have a lot of fun on the govt. tab.
anyway, PWers maybe should reconsider their attack methods as they become the message, not the content.
e.g. “he learned that the smoothest way to beat back a staunch social conservative message is to attack not the content but “the over-the-top negativism†that often accompanies it.” a quote from David Axelrod.
this is why even Rush L. is realizing his limits like ….”I don’t endorse McCain ’cause that’d be the best way to torpedo his campaign”. (like he’s really against McCain, sucka’s, and you thought Fred was a serious contender…..hosers)
I think McCain has a more than even chance to win but if he develops the same tactics as used against you, nightjar, he’ll lose ’cause it seems the Democrats are using the high negativity ratings of Republican attack dogs like Rove and Limbaugh and turning them around against the Rethugs. (I think ms. Clinton’s got a real problem getting elected even if the economy tanks…) Axelrod’s had some success of late turning the Right’s standard thuggish debate tactics around against them. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=3
Hello Mr. nightjar,
Thank you for being a member of the Kroger Preferred Customer Club where you can use your Kroger Card to get discounts on Food, Medicine and Gas at our over 600 location nationwide.
Our records show that you purchased SuperBone male-enhancement cream 6 times last month. We are including a coupon for Deluxe SuperBone XL along with this letter. Once again, you are a valued Preferred Customer and Kroger loves you.
It’s like? Like 2001 never happened!!
I heard that SuperBone causes brain damage
The public information surrounding the “circumventions†so smugly cited points to the behavior of a specific judge…
OMG! UNATARY JUDISHULZ!
I doubt you’ve been recruited by them and know anyone working for them. (both, in my case)
…
Their recruiting methods are suspect in academia. And the people they recruit are a weird bunch of iconoclastic types not necessarily respectful of the law.
dave, you are a fucking treasure.
nightie – I apologize if I hurt your oh so sensitive feelings. I do not tend to respond well to the type of mendacity you and your ilk bring to these topics. There are reasonable arguments that could have been made. You chose to make none of them. Scurry back to the Gleens and whine about how mean we were.
data – Are you feeling okay?
You forgot to close the self-referentially ironic tag, nightjar.
If you’re not going to pay attention to counterargument, this is a one-way communication.
Which, comes to think of it, explains quite a lot. Nightjar, fingers in ears, LALALALA!
More unclosed self-referentially ironic tags. Jesus, boy, clean up after yourself.
I called you an asshole JD. I didn’t call you mean. Actually, people like you are cowards at heart. Your all bluster and rage, but scared little boys deep down. And I don’t read Greenwald fyi.
You would have been better off just sticking with asshole. Now, scurry back under your rock. And adjust the tinfoil. BushCheney is watching you.
I detect a distinct lack of self-awareness, here.
If you are correct in all you assert nightjar, then what is your take on why the Senate, currently controlled by the Democrats, is so complicit in keeping this program alive? Further, any guesses on what the House, also held by the left, is going to do?
Gleenwald, Kos, Atrios, manbearpig … it makes no matter. Until you bother to give the concept of intellectual honesty even a passing glance, scorn and derision is all you can expect.
LOL
When “LOL” is your best response, not responding at all is probably a better choice.
How about you respond to Ric Locke’s dissection of your perfidy, nightie? Since I am so mean. and that bothers you so, focus on those that are without exception, well mannered. But, I suspect that you would rather whine about someone being mean that attempt to respond to the points Ric made.
JD – The kid pretends he’s an expert and he’s not even familiar with the one judicial ruling against the program which subsequently got slam dunked. Pitiful performance. You can tell he believes everything he reads on those lefty blogs.
JD, i’m okay…yupp. just gradually getting over 30 mins. of listening to Rush. And that was Monday. More snow today and work’s pretty iffy getting to it…so yahoo, just getting out and scooting around on the “two by fours”. Ha, they’re pretty light 2 by 4s. like 1000 grams apiece, even if shaped and relatively wide. Bet your’s are probably 120 mms at the tip eh? and about 3 lbs apiece?
Rusty…yeah, 9/11 is like not that important. Really. You want to scrap the constitution and get in a tizzy over 9/11 forever, go ahead. But most Americans are over it and see their personal bank accounts or lack thereof as a bigger issue. But we were forewarned about 9/11 and at least I wasn’t the least surprised. A tragedy? yeah. But a very local tragedy. Except for the newsmedia’s tendencies to exploit tragedy and expand it.
Rust, don’t let the little men w/ the box cutters freak u. Some liberal type men w/o any weapons thwarted their plans on the 4th plane and that loophole for the mujahideen has been closed.
Maybe the “left” is a little more testy about things like torture, police state tactics than the “right” who gets in a tizzy about the rights to stockpiles of military weaponry in bsmts and such: Don’t tread on my assault rifle. Just go over to some far right site and see ’em ready to ship all the libruls to concentration camps for that ‘right to bear arms’…(a most misanthropic “right”) ..its more like a right to increase crime but doesn’t threaten an elitist high tech weaponed govt….like the govt. couldn’t take out some guy in a bsmt even with his grenade launchers and machine guns?
Like you said, E.G. powerful Dems and Repubs are probably on the same page…it’s just a ‘fig leaf’. But the “left’ wants some restraint and has a well earned fear of extralegal procedures…like when did the KKK finally expire….or did they?
bmoan…i’ve revealed maybe too much personal info…how about you giving some…oh, you work in some office (I think?) and aren’t making much money….maybe you spend too much time here..if that’s the case? Me, I am used to gentlemanly poverty. I guess I should read “Rich man, Poor man” books about how we ‘shouldn’t save’ cause that’s “poor man” thinkn’.
thank you, night jar. For getting this thread going into the next day. I read some of Jeff’s past links here and just don’t see too much we can get worried about. Except maybe the whole concept of the NSA using unlimited funds and hiring all these people for only news analysis, code breaking and computer hacking…seems their doing much more than that and being under the executive’s military prerogatives while under a very suspect administration (and Clinton’s was too.!) we do have a right of restraint.
maybe it’s the blur of legalese and memories of college (w/ my minor in Chinese) that’s wanting me to get some real two by fours and cut em up into kindling and ignore this whole matter.
I thought this thread would have pushed the ticker over 9 million,, not yet.
Never mind, JD. He can’t, and won’t try.
What we have here is an issue of trust. The program is secret, and if it is to work at all it must remain secret. There is no way it can simultaneously be secret and have its details known to all Americans, so that they can verify that no abuses occur.
nightjar and the others don’t trust George Bush and his administration to administer the program without abuses. They don’t, won’t, and in fact cannot address the issue on rational grounds because their objections aren’t rational — they can rationalize them, but at root is the bigoted assumption, requiring no data and no support, that Bush isn’t trustworthy. The whole thing then comes down to a tight little circle: Bush isn’t trustworthy. Therefore any program he administers contains abuses. Those abuses confirm that Bush isn’t trustworthy.
The closest any of them come to breaking out of the circle is simply to expand it a bit: programs Bush administers contain abuses, and the fact that he won’t tell us what they are confirms that! This is what passes for cleverness in that sort of reasoning. The program is secret, and must remain so in order to exist. Bush won’t reveal the details of the program — from our point of view, because he wants it to remain secret and therefore effective. But in nightjar’s “reasoning” that motive doesn’t exist; the only motive he will allow for secrecy is to conceal abuses, and the existence of the secrecy confirms that the abuses exist. Round and round and round.
His “solution” is to kick the can down the road. There will be judges, and the judges will monitor the program to insure that abuses don’t occur. But the program must remain secret; therefore the judges in question can no more reveal the details than Bush can. If failure to reveal the secrets confirms the existence of abuses — which is nightjar’s argument, with the underbrush cleared away — what possible reason is there to assume that a judge won’t become complicit in the abuse? Why is a judge more trustworthy than Bush?
Furthermore, there is already oversight. Members of Congress, both houses, are sworn to secrecy and the program explained to them, on the presumption that if abuses occur they will correct and/or reveal them. Why is that not sufficient? — because Bush isn’t trustworthy and doesn’t fully explain the program? or because the Representatives and Senators aren’t trustworthy and don’t correct the abuses? Either or both are possible explanations if you assume the core of nightjar’s “argument”, which is that the abuses must of necessity exist; but what possible reason is there to prefer the discretion of a judge to that of a Senator? The paradigm is that refusal to reveal the abuses confirms that the abuses exist. If the judge doesn’t reveal the abuses, by that reasoning he therefore becomes complicit in the abuse. What does that solve?
Discussion of details, whether technical or legal, solves nothing because it doesn’t break the circle of faux reasoning. Break the core assumption — that abuses exist because it’s Bush doing it — and the problem goes away. Leave the postulate in place, and the only way to “solve” the problem is to destroy the program. The rest of it is twaddle and obfuscation. Fun and interesting twaddle and obfuscation, I’ll grant you, but with all the real-world effect of a World of Warcraft campaign.
Regards,
Ric
You came to us, nitwit. We didn’t go seeking you out to try to tell you this stuff.
Like you said, E.G. powerful Dems and Repubs are probably on the same page…it’s just a ‘fig leaf’. But the “left’ wants some restraint and has a well earned fear of extralegal procedures…like when did the KKK finally expire….or did they?
Wrong, the “left” or at least the part of it that is currently in power wants to give the impression of restraint. They don’t want to actually restrain it because it is a useful tool against those who wish to murder their constituents.
Were you aware that Grant suspended habeas to fight the KKK? How do you feel about that?
And of course, there’s the added bonus of dragging the telcos through the mud because corporations are inherently evil too.
What we have here is an issue of trust. The program is secret, and if it is to work at all it must remain secret. There is no way it can simultaneously be secret and have its details known to all Americans, so that they can verify that no abuses occur.
The preceding words were brought to you by the “We know what’s Right for you, so Shut up Committee.”
Founded soon after abuses were revealed by the Church Committee, “We know what’s Right for you, so Shut up Committee,” the committee’s very existence has been secret from even it’s members (given our authoritarian bent, that’s fine). At that time, some of the more reactionary, insane citizens of Texas gathered together and in direct contravention to Justice Jackson’s “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” line decided that democracy is best protected by secretive folks who are afraid of commies (or terrorists) hiding under the bed.
We formed this group with our President Ric Locke to combat the idea that Americans need to know what their government is doing or have any right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Without the government having secret powers, WE MIGHT LOSE the Bill of Rights!
The irony is not lost upon us. We just don’t care and will continue to spy on all you until you do what we say. We’re good people and you can always trust good people who say they are good people.
To sum up our position, in the immortal words of one of our founders: we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded…We have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for your “civil liberties”, and you curse the NSA? You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. That the loss of these rights, while tragic to you, saves lives. And that the necessity of our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you don’t want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to men who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way!”
Or, in the words of Walter Duranty, another charter member, you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.”
The preceding ad was brought to you by the Committee of “We know what’s Right for you, so Shut up” Ric Locke, founder.
Hey IJS,
Tell that story about the tragic loss of civil liberties that you suffered. That’s a good one. You remember. Tell it.
Well, sure, Pablo, but that doesn’t affect the core problem in any way; it just obfuscates it.
Nothing but trial lawyers doing what trial lawyers do — “I see money! Gimme!” Of course they’d all be broke (and therefore negligible) if they weren’t highly skilled at dragging Jesuitical arguments out to justify themselves. It’s a side issue being inflated to cover up what’s going on, like a cat scratching in the litterbox.
Regards,
Ric
because there would never, ever be a reason to keep anything secret. which is why you post using your name.
Which is the goal. And it just feels so good! Which is the other goal.
IJS just isn’t smart enough to understand what you said Ric. I suspect he also doesn’t understand how a representative republic works.
All of those words, and the only thing he got out of it was SHUT UP, which also happens to not be what you said. Sad really.
As if on cue, the prototypical BDS victim arrives with the ridiculous notion that anyone gives a damn about his phone conversations and the deluded idea that he’s being forced to do something or other because of it.
I want to file a protest that my cicvil rights have been violated by IJS, STT, Semi-conscious, steve and datadave.
My pursuit of shredded constitution as a happiness gourmet condiment is being sidetracked by all this talk of Unitary Executives and unreasonable searches and seizures.
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, BITCHES!
Plus, the ACLU has got to extort money from somebody to fund its existence. Collecting legal fees on settlements for the pro bono work of lawyers is a pretty lucrative racket that they don’t want to see vanish.
datadave – Are you one of those crazy Vermonters who wants arrest warrants issued for Cheney and Bush if they set foot in the state? How many of your own teeth do you have left? How many deer did you get last season? Do you think your own cousins are super hawt?
Ridiculous. Nearly everything the NSA does is secret, as regards surveillance; ditto CIA. If you’re going to drag this through the secret-therefore-perilous mudpit, everything else goes, too. Because, you know, if it’s secret, who knows what’s really going on. For all you know, the CIA has built an orbital death ray, POINTED RIGHT AT YOU!
You either trust the constrained oversight, or you don’t. If you don’t, there’s no reason to trust the constrained oversight on any other program.
cute. e.g. even if he had suspended habeas corpus, Grant lost the war n the KKK won..at least until maybe the 1960s.
the KKK was a terrorist organization…a successful one.
I am reading (Sen.) James Webb’s book about the Scotch-Irish . He does have more of a take like yours I am thinking…that the evil “carpet baggers” shoulda never came down to the South to free them “nigra” cottin-pickers from terrorism…but that’s another side to the story. “Born Fighting” (pretty well written with a fat blurb from John McCain on the front with Reagan’s face there too…I guess he was Scotch Irish too. Webb makes history enlivened but not sure very pretty for the Scotch Irish…(who are me, at least a major part)….like stubborn and bullheaded comes to mind. I am guessing that McCain is too. Seems like a great book. Just got into it. (Need I say more? Webb saw the light about party affiliation. Maybe not so “bullheaded” anymore…)
Grant didn’t do much to help Reconstruction or to protect freedom from terrorism and the black’s rights withered while former Confederates took out their misery upon the former slaves. Absolutely pitiful reflection upon America. Obama as President would be the balm for that sore spot of history.
need to work….
How many of your own teeth do you have left? How many deer did you get last season? Do you think your own cousins are super hawt?
damn….you knew we have a Republican governor. Am glad you didn’t buy into the Vermont stereotype, like Chris Buckley did in ‘Thank You for Smoking’.
later, gator
Alas, Ric, you could not be more right. Then, if there was any doubt, IJS and datadave drop in and give crystal clear examples of how to read without comprehension, and then completely distort what was said.
Nightie just fled. Coward, he/she/it is.
And a Socialist Senator.
“#
Comment by JD on 2/13 @ 8:05 am #
How about you respond to Ric Locke’s dissection of your perfidy, nightie? Since I am so mean. and that bothers you so, focus on those that are without exception, well mannered. But, I suspect that you would rather whine about someone being mean that attempt to respond to the points Ric made.”
I thought you wanted me to go away JD. It sure doesn’t sound like it with juvenile drivel like this. Make up your shakey mind. But then maybe you thought I’d left and you were getting in a few low blows. Neither Ric nor you are serious about debate. You just throw out one insult after another. You don’t care about national security. Your prime goal is to beat liberals and get your talking point, like you stated earlier. I got better things to spend my time on.
He does have more of a take like yours I am thinking…that the evil “carpet baggers†shoulda never came down to the South to free them “nigra†cottin-pickers from terrorism
I say this with all the kindness I can muster, you need to get a new batch of voices in your head. The ones you have currently are not serving you well. In any case, you missed the point regarding Grant and limits on civil liberties, as usual.
datadave – Howlin’ Howie did wonders for your state. It’s a wonder more people didn’t see him as qualified to lead this great nation.
nightjar – Study up kid.
Mr. nightjar,
Thank you for being a member of the Kroger Preferred Customer Club where you can use your Kroger Card to get discounts on Food, Medicine and Gas at our over 600 location nationwide.
Our records indicate that you purchased 20 cucumbers and the Family-size tube of KY Personal Lubricant last week. Please check this week’s flyer for more great deals on magazines and ointments!
Meanwhile the real investigation is only beginning:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3242944
What is the NFL trying to hide? Why did they destroy the evidence?
What did Bellichek know and when did he know it?
Just why were the Jets using “secret signals” anyway, what where they hiding? No one is asking this question?
SPECTER AND HIS TEAM NEED ANSWERS!
#
Comment by daleyrocks on 2/13 @ 10:58 am #
nightjar – Study up kid”
Owe you mean about the court case I brought out where you got confused. There’s more than one court case out there on Bushes Illegal wiretapping program, knucklehead. The one in San Fran I cited is still pending for appeal. The Judge Walker who ruled against Bush is a conservative republican appointee.
nightie – Ignore me. I am mean. Answer Ric’s questions, or admit that you are a partisan political hack more concerned with your hatred of all things Republican. Accuse me of being unserious, no problem. I called you names, hurt your feelings. I can understand that. But Ric’s points were serious as a heart attack, and for you to dismiss them out of hand shows you to be the liar that we all knew you were, from the get-go.
nightie – It would be easier to just be honest, and admit that cheap sophomoric political points are all you seek. It is clear that you know little beyond your talking points. You are a persistent little foot soldier though.
BMoe – Since they got their ass kicked, I suspect that the whole investigation will get swept into the dustbin of history.
JD:
Naa huh! Spector is pimping for Teh Eagles and their Superbowl loss. Yes, he actually went on sports talk radio and made that very point.
He is such a #%*&@ng tool!
nightjar – Not even close. No confusion on my part.
Comment by daleyrocks on 2/13 @ 12:18 am #
nightjar – Is Walker from Detroit? Did he issue a final ruling on a case or merely rule to allow a case to proceed? Try to read a little closer.
The case you keep flogging is merely about a ruling allowing it to proceed. As I said, study up.
JD
“I called you names, hurt your feelings” funny. Now your playing the macho republican, it doesn’t wash. I called you a coward JD, and cowards don’t effect my feelings. As for Ric’s arguments, what I hear is I don’t trust Bush so I hate him, or some such. My answer is I’ve never trusted any government {republican and democrat} to do what’s right without another branch of government keeping tabs on them. It’s true, I don’t much like Bush, not did I like Clinton. The difference being, I did like how Clinton ran the country, and I loathe the way Bush is running it. Last I checked the vast majority of Americans agree with me. FTR, I voted for Bush’s pappy twice and thought he was a good prez. Now do want me to go away or not. If so, quit posting comments about me. If not, well it’s your move.
Anyone watching the Clemens testimony? It’s pretty brutal.
Congressional oversight doesn’t appear to be doing it for you. You seem to want the public, led by the ACLU to do it.
So you liked ECHELON?
well, see, Pablo, the government had TEWTELLY different reasons for intercepting your communications back then. and Clinton was honest.
Me, too, nightjar. I just loved the way the Clinton government fed China US military and trade secrets.
That was my favorite part, I think
The last few posts have convinced me you people are completely insane. Somebody out to throw a net over the bunch of ya. I’m leaving now and you can burn my dumb ass in effigy to your hearts delight. None of it means a damn thing.
My answer is I’ve never trusted any government {republican and democrat} to do what’s right without another branch of government keeping tabs on them.
Then it’s clear you didn’t even bother to read Ric’s comment, since he clearly pointed out that on this issue, one branch of government is keeping tabs on the other.
another steaming pile, nightie. you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of the judicial proceedings you reference. You dismiss out of hand that which you are not capable of responding to. You are sad and pathetic. A small man. How about this, little man. Quit lying or just making shit up, and I (we) will quit calling you on it.
Another one bites the dust.
Oh. I wanted to be the first to leave, claiming victory.
Shit.
E.G., come on, let JD do the creative name-calling. He’s better at it+ a few others here who apparently actually work for a living. That hearing voices in ur head thing is pretty shopworn by know. Now I question if y’r Bitching about the pooor Confederate folks that attacked the USA from within and they’re briefly losing ‘habeas corpus’..what did it matter then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s As they denied basic rights to their fellow citizens of color. The KKK had no respect for habeas corpus of their fellow citizens and were a successful Counterinsurgency. So there! Think of how counterinsurgency works and one that succeeded in turning the “mission accomplished” supposedly valiant Blue States into eventual failure as the Blue coats eventually retreated and allowed the Grey states to go on with a practical denial of habeas corpus for a large portion of the Southern populace. From that wiki article, there is a more modern note as to the major concerns of terrorism from within after Oklahoma city bombing…which per cursed Bush’s further erosion of the habeas corpus precedent.
Now, don’t get all historical on us and tell us about how complicit the historical Democratic party was involved in that dark period of history. That’d be like comparing Classical Liberalism with “modern” liberalism.
someone finish this thing…back to clean up duty with lots of snow afalln’
Peace !! bro-drs
Good God, is this still alive? :-)
dataless, you ought to look again. The original KKK (which is not the same organization as later emerged in the 1920s as a pure anti-black movement) kept up a low-level campaign of harassment, sabotage, kidnapping, etc. which the Copperhead Democrats used as an excuse for continual calls to Get Our Boys Out Now. The campaign eventually succeeded as Northern Americans lost interest, and occupation troops were withdrawn, leaving
al Qaeda(oops) the resurgent Southern autocrats an opportunity to seize power. When they did, they joined their Northern brethren out of gratitude and swore never to support a Rethug, which is how the Democratic Party went from bare equivalence to a fairly commanding position in less than a generation.Unfortunately for you, Iraqis don’t vote in US elections.
Regards,
Ric
See. nitejar. here is where your arguement breaks down;
y answer is I’ve never trusted any government {republican and democrat} to do what’s right without another branch of government keeping tabs on them.
You depend on government too much.
I wish you were as passionate about the individual rights outlined in the 1st and 2nd amendments as you are about the 4th.
dave, your lack of self awareness is how you can say the following to me:
He does have more of a take like yours I am thinking…that the evil “carpet baggers†shoulda never came down to the South to free them “nigra†cottin-pickers from terrorism
and then take some sort of umbrage when I talk about the voices in your head. In case you have no idea what the words mean that you type out, which is possible, you essentially called me a bigot. Which is just mean.
Also, while you can’t see the connection between the KKK/al queda and temporary limitations on civil liberties now and then, it doesn’t mean they are not there.
@ #234 Now do want me to go away or not.
Please stay.
well, it’s your move
“John has a long moustache.”
Or was it “Wounds my heart with a monotonous Moonbat?”
comma.
Preview held hostage, day 747.
DAMN YOU GOLDBERG !!!
Mr. nightjar,
Thank you for being a member of the Kroger Preferred Customer Club where you can use your Kroger Card to get discounts on Food, Medicine and Gas at our over 600 locations nationwide.
Our records indicate that your last purchase was at our Kroger Pharmacy for a prescription for estrogen therapy. Please keep in mind our specials on hair-removal products and tweezers in the Personal Hygiene aisle.
crap
…the pooor Confederate folks that attacked the USA from within…
Yep, that sneak attack by Fort Sumter on those Union cannonballs was despicable.
Punctuation.
It’s what separates us from the Democrat Party.
And spelling,
Like “Turn-Signals.”
Or am I dating myself?
BEACHBALLS !!!
My point is, nj, Jeff owes me a comma.
guinsPen,
No need to bother Jeff. Here you go: …………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;;;;:::::::::::!!!!!!!!!!??
If you need more, just ask. The previous owner of my house was a schoolteacher trained in the late Forties; she left behind an incredible cache of punctuation, which I’ve been raiding at need. There’s plenty, so don’t be bashful. There are even em dashes in there, should you need a few. Not so many exclamation points. I don’t think she used them much, by modern standards.
I can help you out with HTML markup, too, although I can’t be as generous — the garden produced well and they’re easy to put up for winter, but I didn’t plant enough to supply everybody. I did get several jars of quotesalad — mixed <blockquote>, <em>, and <b>, with a few <strike> for seasoning — and I could let you have one if you need it.
Regards,
Ric
quotesalad annie might ought to be a song.
[…] guerrilla war games in downtown Toledo, can write post after post about immunizing companies who help the government break the law without mentioning the word “freedom” even […]
crap
busted!
Yep. It was the militant arm of the Democrat party. When a Republican won an election during Reconstruction — which usually meant a black, BTW — the Democrats would trot out the KKK to terrorize the politician into withdrawing/resigning/dying.
Thanks,, RL.
I need a cigarette.
Or is this a “NO SMOKING !!!” blog?
In Major Metropolitain Midwest City some downtown buildings have gone as far as duct-taping 15′ No-Smoking Creases on the sidewalks in front their entrances.
And no smoking in parks or on beaches, either.
Coming soon, to an apartment near you.
For the children.
Have new traktor, too.
Did I mention the new thermostats?
That there’s groups of people gathering together thinking that’s a good idea, scares the benightjars out of me.
Osama’s a punk.
Was.
Let my people go, Jeff.
Yes. Osama is dead just like the Dodge Neon and Kurt Cobain.
Oh. And Burgess Meredith.
And the Berlin Wall.
Tear down that Wall, Mr. Goldstien!
~ Ronald Reagan ~
Sorry.
Has anybody seen nj?
fdjzw svrpem vhpn rslqdcyo lobhfkxy hnefbwo oqcip