The Associated Press misreports:
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Tuesday to the Bush administration’s domestic spying program.
The bias here is blatant, insofar as the Terrorist Surveillance Program involves international communications and there is no evidence that US persons have ever been targeted by the program without a warrant.
Not even Rick Ellensburg, in his usual high dudgeon over the issue, could bring himself to so badly mislabel the program.
However, in recounting the history of the case, Ellers emphasizes that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision reversing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion that the program was both illegal and unconstitutional did so on the issue of the plaintiffs’ legal standing to bring the case, and that Judge Gilman wrote a dissent arguing that the court had jurisdiction and that the program was illegal.
This was badly slanted the last time he wrote it. It remains so today, as Gleen(s) continues to claim that the only two judges to have ruled on the legality of the program have held it illegal — an assertion that completely ignores Judge Batchelder’s majority opinion for the Sixth Circuit, in which Batchelder clearly expressed the opinion that the program was legal.
However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case has the Internet’s most notorious sock-puppeteer clinging to the hope that the Democrats running Congress will continue to hold pro forma sessions so that President Bush cannot call Congress back into special session to take up the now-expired Protect America Act, an enhanced surveillance bill that lapsed over the weekend, or the Senate-passed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  If Congress were allowed to vote, it would vote in favor of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and in favor of protecting the telecom companies that assisted the government with such surveillance in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Having been kicked out of court, with a president and Congress opposed to them, people like Ellers McEllerson have to rely on a handful of Democrats to thwart the will of majority seeking to protect the national security. In their minds, they have met the enemy, and it is us, not al-Qaeda.
Update: Mona, the sock-puppet’s sock-puppet, has a trackback claiming the following:
FISA unambiguously requires warrants where one party to an electronic communication is on U.S. soil. Were it otherwise, there would be no FISA scandal. I’m not even going to provide a cite for all that, because it should be as necessary as citing that homicide is illegal.
Actually, she’s not going to provide a citation for it because she is wrong. The definition of “electronic surveillance” in the FISA is simply not that broad. She also happens to be wrong that there would be no scandal. If she actually bothered to read FISA she would grasp the potential legal significance of the alleged collection of data on US soil, for example. But maybe not, as she is so clearly out of her depth.
It’s pretty easy for some fancy sonovabitch living in Brazil to say that Americans’ concern over their national defense is mere paranoia. His opinions would have a better Teh Narrative of Authenticity if he actually had a stake in this game.
The great populist “civil libertarian” advocating for a shadow government of Truth to Power types. For the good of Freedom.
To quote Heston when he found himself surrounded by “intelligent” apes, “It’s a madhouse. A MAAAAAAAAAADHOUSE!”
Ah the press. Redefining reality so that you can feel better about your progressive positions.
International intercepts = Domestic spying
Illegal immigration = immigration
Perhaps its time to remove accreditation for J schools. It doesn’t seem to be working out.
Oh, it’s working just fine, EG. See, for instance, OBAMAMANIA!
Fuck ’em. We know where they stand. Let them defend themselves at the ballot box. In the interim, Pelosi can explain why it is more imporant to bend over for the trial lawyers than to actually do the will of the majority of the House and the Senate.
Well we could combine it with marketing. To save time and money. Then again, B Schools tend to be filled with evil capitalist right wingers.
The AP lied and people died just doesn’t have the same ring to it …
On the bright side, I am glad that Michele Obama is finally proud of America. I would hate to think that she would become first lady without ever having known that joy. Plus Obama is dreamy. And hopeychangey.
In their minds, they have met the enemy, and it is us, not al-Qaeda.
In fairness, we’re a lot easier to sue.
A thought just came to me — if he gets the nomination, does that mean the Dem convention will be the Obamarama?
“here is no evidence that US persons have ever been targeted by the program without a warrant.” True, but you forgot to explain why . . . because the Unitary Executive refuses to release any evidence or show, in some other way, what it was doing or who it was doing it to. Remember, the entire top management of the Unitary Executive’s own DOJ threatened to resign en mass if certain activities being engaged in by the Unitary Executive were not immediately halted. One can assume, given the degree of loyalty will excuse minor transgressions, that whatever it was the Unitary Executive was engaged in was illegal — otherwise a bunch of political appointees and career prosecutors wouldn’t have protested as they did. But you go on vilifying the trial lawyers. More fun I know.
…the Unitary Executive…the Unitary Executive…the Unitary Executive…
Oh, look everybody! Little po learned a new word today!
But you go on vilifying the trial lawyers. More fun I know.
Actually, as much fun as that is, the ones being castigated here are the Democrats who suck the lawyers’ dicks for campaign donations, over the will of the American people and in opposition to national security concerns.
Unitary Executive. Wasn’t that that one-piece business suit that Haggar came out with back in the 80’s?
the ones being castigated here are the Democrats who suck the lawyers’ dicks for campaign donations,
Now c’mon Bender. That’s pretty sexist. You know Nancy could have been lappin’ up some stinky lawyer quim for donations too. Equality, it ain’t just a river in Egypt.
I wonder of po has a unitary trak infection.
The Unitary Executive: Once a canard, always a canard.
Is it too much to ask for the likes of data, steve, Gigi, AP, popo, IJS, etc … to at least give a nod to the truth, at least in passing?
The Terrorist Surveillance Program involves international communications and there is no evidence that US persons have ever been targeted by the program without a warrant.
Really?! How do you know that? I thought the whole incredibly keeping-us-safe program was so super-secret that the terrorists would win if we knew anything about it. And yet even though you don’t want to know who was spied on, you’re making statements about who was spied on. Cool.
Of course the evil treasonous leakers who started this whole story in the first place noted that “President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States.” So apparently spying on Americans does not count as monitoring domestic communications. Probably that makes sense from the Bush-cultist point of view, since from that point of view anyone the government spies on is a “terrorist” and therefore not a real American.
In the real world, the facts are: the government spied on Americans without warrants even though this is illegal; we don’t know who was spied on; normal people do not assume that our wise and wonderful government had a good reason for spying on Americans illegally. If you want to argue the contrary, it would probably help to avoid making statements that are demonstrably untrue (Bush has admitted that Americans were spied on, you know; he just claims they were all evil terorrists talking to their buddy Bin Laden overseas).
I can’t remember what I’ve never known. Teach us, po.
See, there you go — proclaiming facts that just aren’t so.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would tell us, wouldn’t they? that whole no evidence thing comes from there being no evidence. And your link>
People inside the United States does not equal Americans. And people outside the United states, to whom they’re talking, doesn’t equal Americans either.
[…] Matters of Which They Know Nothing? By Mona . Posting at chez Jeff Goldstein, “Karl” spews an absurd and wholly false statement in the context of SCOTUS having just declined to review a 6th Circuit case involving the illegal […]
See, there you go  proclaiming facts that just aren’t so.
Which facts aren’t so?
Bush has admitted that there was warrantless spying on Americans. He’s not only admitted it, he’s proud of it. His talking point is “If Al-Qaeda is calling this country, we want to know.” Of course sensible people don’t believe that every call they’ve monitored was from “Al-Qaeda,” but the point is that there is no controversy over the fact that they were spying on Americans’ calls, just whether it was the most awesomest thing ever or not.
And it is unquestionably illegal to spy without warrants on calls made by Americans in America.
So where’s the dispute? The only thing we don’t know is who was spied on. Bush says it was all Evil Terrorists. We moonbats say that when the government says that their huge unaccountable program is meant to save us all, they’re probably lying. But where is the dispute over the basic facts of illegal spying?
T.B.
From the article you just linked:
You either have difficulty reading or are intentionally dishonest. In either event, you are going to have to do better than that to make any progress here.
“I wonder of po has a unitary trak infection.”
Nah. Just has his head up his ass.
It claims “the entire top management of the Unitary Executive’s own DOJ threatened to resign en mass if certain activities being engaged in by the Unitary Executive were not immediately halted.”
Yeah, right. I can just imagine the hay the LSM would have made out of that little gem, if it were actually true. And note also it never says just what it was the “Unitary Executive” had been doing that was so awful. (Don’t forget to snug up that tinfoil hat, po. The McChimpy/Bushitler/Cheney/Rove/FBI/NSA/CIA/HALLIBURTON!!!! mind-control satellites are going up just any day now.)
This is all about just one thing; bringing this country down.
But then, if James Risen says so, it must be true, right?
Fuck starting a third party, I am starting to think we need to form our own country. Then one seems to be terminally infested with amoral suicidal morons so filled with rage they can’t see past their own vile auras.
Start with the “illegal” part, and work your way from there.
Do you have a source for that, or are you just going to make crap up?
“What, no plaintiffs?” For some strange reason, I like the kind of “damage” that no one ever knows is happening. Could it be because it’s the same as the damage never happening?
People inside the United States does not equal Americans.
Yes, because our wonderful government has a magical plan to make sure that only evil foreign terrorists on vacation are monitored through their warrantless domestic spying.
The conservative belief that government is all-wise and infallible is so touching.
Karl – They are willful and aggressive in their absolute bald faced lying about these. They intentionally conflate domestic and international.
BTW – Mona linked to you. You must have hit a nerve.
THAT UNITARY MOTHERFUCKER!!!!ELEVEN!!!
Got links, TB? They’d be Bush quotes, BTW. Can’t wait to see them.
And won a Nobel Prize for it, so it must be good.
Stories of this nature are interesting, except for the cloak of anonymity is a double-edged sword: it permits people to speak with the press without fear of retribution, but it leaves the informed reader wondering if the authors ever spoke with people who know what the hell they’re talking about.
Which we still don’t know, unfortunately. We do know, however, that the authors favored tangy words like “eavesdropping” over anything accurate, or descriptive.
Uh, no. Try again. But first, tell me your thoughts on universal health care.
They are also willful in their conflation of law enforcement and intelligence gathering during wartime, but those differences are brushed aside as being inconsequential to them.
Free calls to Abdul for everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Karl, so you’re saying that if an American, in America, calls his grandma overseas, and the government monitors the call, that’s not spying on an American?
You will now say that none of these calls were so innocuous; they were Americans calling terrorists. And your proof is….?
I mean, if you want to argue that Americans aren’t protected by FISA once they call England or France, an argument that never applied to FISA before, then go ahead. But it might behoove you to actually make the argument that it’s OK to spy on certain types of Americans’ calls without warrants, instead of saying falsely that no Americans were spied on.
The conservative belief that government is all-wise and infallible is so touching.
We are well aware the government isn’t all-wise and infallible. That is why they need good intelligence gathering resources to know what the fuck is going on. The progressive belief that government can operate effectively in the dark is frankly quite disturbing.
Errr…Pulitzer. Sorry for the mixup with less reputable awards.
That argument has been made here dozens of times. If one end of the call is outside the US, then it’s an international call, and a warrant is necessary if and only if the information is to be used in a court.
Stoopid, stoopid Karl.
I think I actually got some foam on the inside of my monitor.
The conservative belief that government is all-wise and infallible is so touching.
Actually the conservative belief is that terrorists hit the buildings, people were killed, and they want to do it again. No one has come forward and shown any personal damage from your so-called domestic spying. Therefore: Terrorists dangerous, domestic spying non-existent.
Reverse for the T.B. belief.
I’m saying it’s an international telephone call, not a domestic call. And that the law for surveilling international calls differs from the law for surveilling domestic calls.
JD & Slart,
I have updated to address Mona.
and T.B.,
if spent more time on being a productive member of society instead of worrying that George Bush overheard you ordering your crab lice medicine from Mexico, maybe you’d sleep better.
I don’t think you’ve got enough spittle in your update, Karl.
He can’t be honest about it, Karl. If he and his ilk were, their arguments, such as they are, would fall into dust even faster than they usually do.
The fact that the “warrantless wiretaps”, as they like to call this activity, are done ONLY on communications where one or both parties are outside the US, which is perfectly legal. Deal with it.
Yeah, I saw that right after I commented.
Despite the fact that her angst is dialed up way past 11, I think I’d want to see just exactly how all of the various obstacles in that statute were avoided. When you have time, of course.
Because I don’t see it, really. How is 1801)f)2 avoided?
“In July of last year, two of the three appellate judges voted to reverse Judge Diggs Taylor’s ruling, not because they disagreed with her conclusions about the program’s legality. Instead, they found that the plaintiffs lacked “standing” to challenge the legality of the program — and courts were therefore barred from ruling on their claims — because the plaintiffs were unable to prove that they were actually subjected to the warrantless eavesdropping (due to the absolute secrecy under which the program operates). ”
Dishonest Gleen fails to mention that once you blow the case out of the water based on standing, there is no reason to rule on its merits or legality. What a dishonest crapweasel. His claim that the only two judges to rule on the case have found it illegal is just a huge pile of useless shit.
Give it up, Karl. That the “eavesdropping” is not of the type we tend to think of as such, and that the FISA requirements for “electronic surveillance” have not been breached by the program — you know, intentionally targeting individuals without first obtaining a warrant — is immaterial to these people.
But seriously. I wish Mona wouldn’t link here. She leaves a stink all over the telecom switches — which I’m pretty sure IS a FISA violation.
Go back through the archives, Slart. I’m certain I’ve addressed that question before.
Oh, but why would I do that if I can get Karl to do the work for me?
Ok, dangit. I’ll go. *sulk*
No shit? But,hey, I’ve been wire tapped and actually set up by State plants wearing wires where the “warrant” was worse than rubber-stamped, because it was obvious that the basis presented for the warrant contradicted its self/”evidence”.
This probably happens a lot, quite apart from the wot.
I got the State to cave even prior to the never-occurring arraignment, just by holding out – because what the State had alleged was false to begin with and completely disproven by their own paper and recorded evidence, which I quite generously explained to them repeatedly while they were tapping my phone, as I was talking to the other person they were also trying to snare. I also laughed at them a lot.
It would be nice of Progs ever focused on a real case of “legal” damage. Maybe after that, I’ll get around to worrying about the “illegal” damage no one ever experiences.
IIRC per Volokh, Judge Diggs decision was considered somewhat creatively sourced penumbra-wise and, uh, weak; the “standing” problem notwithstanding.
“I can’t remember what I’ve never known. Teach us, po.”
LMMFAO. Go read a fucking paper. Even the conservative press knows that Ashcroft et al threatened to resign over the program. Never known. Blind ignorance is no fucking excuse at all, even the Unitary Executive knows this. Thus, retroactive immunity for companies that already have immunity under the law (provided they followed it to begin with, which, apparently since we keep having to argue about passing immunity again they didn’t). Ask why every now and then and you might get surprised. But lapping up your own protein shakes are more fun I know.
And why don’t you like the Unitary Executive moniker? W does in all his signing statements. Unitary Executive — as if some portion of the Executive Branch can operate without him. Silly boy, that’s only Dick. Suck Dick’s dick and swallow those Chinese chits given to his boys at Halli. Swallow now, or leave them for your children’s children. Like that cheap oil?
Y’all be a laugh riot here. But y’all don’t know much. Still, you seem content to continue to rant and rave about that which you’ve never known. Carry on.
I’ve read plenty of papers, po. Now I want to read your evidence. Links will do.
Put up or shut up.
Go link a fucking story. You made the claim, you back it up.
“The definition of “electronic surveillance†in the FISA is simply not that broad.”
(f) “Electronic surveillance†meansâ€â€
…
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
Slart,
(f)(2) is tricky, which is why I mentioned the collection location in the update. It took you all of a couple of seconds to suss out what Mona still hasn’t grasped after years of blogging the topic.
(f)(2) is discussed in these comments, though not resolved, esp. with respect to whether “wire communications” are at issue. (Ric Locke might well say there technically is no such thing anymore, but as a legal point it’s debatable). Concern over (f)(2) is (imho) the primary reason people get into arguments over the AUMF, the President’s inherent Article II authority (esp. as delineated by the FISA court in In re Sealed Case), etc.
why is it that when a prog leads with “so what you are saying” that which follows is almost invariably a whopper ?
tao – If there is no standing, would it matter if she cited Norwegian divorce law or Aboriginal civil law ?
Because they follow it with a strawman they pulled out of their ass?
emmanuel,
See my prior comment.
Moreover, I would love to see the argument as to why — apart from the language of (f)(2) — a civil libertarian should care about the location of the surveillance, inasmuch as Echelon does the same thing outside the US. I have to be away for a bit, but I would suggest people Google for the 60 Minutes piece on Echelon, which describes eavesdropping on Americans, including then-Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Thanks, Karl. I would have gone and looked, really, but not until later.
I think the “wire communications” bit is probably fodder for lots of debate, but not particularly compelling when enemy-crushing arguments are emitted from either direction. Arguably, “wire communications” just doesn’t mean what it used to, but it doesn’t mean something entirely unrelated, either.
“I’m not even going to provide a cite for all that, because it should be as necessary as citing that homicide is illegal.”
Oops. She may have inadvertently stumbled into an ironic point. “Homicide” is the killing of a human being. It is not necessarily illegal or criminal. It can be justified (e.g. self-defense), mandated by law (execution after due process) or necessary (combat).
As always a thoughtful and appealing post,Karl.
Lawyers, Soros and ACLU are enemies of Americans and they are very dangerous.
Poor telecoms should be protected in case they did commit something illegal, which we do not know and will never know, if the immunity is granted.
After all everybody and private businesses should always cooperate with the government, any government, right or wrong.
Just ask Putin, he will confirm….
Hey sashal, when the FBI kicks down your fucking door and drags you off to a gulag for posting this shit, then you can compare Bush to Putin. Otherwise you can piss right off, and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
B Moe,
Sashal may want to play the absolute moral authority card of having lived under Soviet oppression.
Oddly enough, I have never had a member of the US Army hit me in the gut with his rifle the way I did on the Moscow subway, simply as a bystander to a drunken Muscovite being overly critical of the Soviet Army after Dynamo beat the Soviet Army team at soccer. Dude was hauled off the train at the next stop.
The USSR lost the Cold War primarily because people like us did not listen to people like Sashal, not that we’ll ever get thanked for it by Sashal.
Take That, ACLU!
The worthless far-left secular progressive gang of nuts and kooks at the ACLU have rightfully been slapped down by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights America haters and privacy advocates terrorist coddlers who …
That was damned nice of sashal to take his/her hands of Greenwald’s dick long enough to type a comment here. I surely appreciate it.
Sashal put in my mind a truly thought-provoking query- who do I trust least; lawyers or the government?
It’s because he CARES too much.
Slart,
Exactly. I think people would see the folly of going after a purely-electric car maker for not having a legally required catalytic converter, but I don’t know whether we’re quite at that point in this instance. Hence, discussions about Art. II authority, etc.
I should add that while there has been evidence that US nodes were tapped introduced in the suits against the telcos, no such evidence was introduced in the Sixth Circuit case, so the opinion is essentially agnostic on the (f)(2) issue.
Can you say n*des on teh intarwebs?
Pingback by Why, Oh Why, Do Stoopid People Post About Matters of Which They Know Nothing? § Unqualified Offerings on 2/19 @ 3:46 pm #
Wait, hasn’t Unqualified Offerings badly embarrassed themselves a number of times – quoting a radical Iman or something and attributing it to Mark Steyn for one?
That doesn’t invalidate the question, K9. Just the questioner.
TSK9 – To the rest of the world, yes, they have badly embarassed themselves. Unfortunately for them, and forunately for us as it makes for such irony rich reading, they are blissfully unaware, and incapable of introspection, so the embarassment never quites makes it to them. Kind of like Corky’s band.
Somewhere in one several of my earlier FISA posts is a bit that deals with f(2). It’s been a while, but I believe the crux of the argument (made in Duke Law journal, if I’m remembering correctly, and made during the Clinton years), is that the intercepts take place in space, not on US soil, and so don’t take place in the US.
Unless by way of manifest destiny and the Apollo program, we own the stratosphere.
Karl,my friend, the “thank you” note you have received already (Reagan was my hero )
Besides, I am not talking about USSR or Russia here, I am talking about USA, the beacon of freedom and democracy.
And I was not even discussing(check my top post) the legalities of FISA and the hardships of the court to grant a warrant 3 days AFTER the surveillance start.
I did not discuss it, I am not a lawyer to know and feel when authoritarian tendencies may appear even in the best democracy in the world.
I was just feeling pity for the telecom companies.
See my original post.
As far as my treatment by soviet authorities is concerned, Karl. I was there, in the august of 1991, in the pickets in the front of the White House, when coup happened. And that is absolute truth…( and I was really genuinely scared for my life).
And you are correct, that I am very sensitive if I can see or know about even the slightest reminders of what had happened somewhere else on the other side of the world…
I’m going through some old posts to provide links to things that might come in handy. Here. And here. And here.
The Duke Law journal article is no longer showing up at the link; but here’s the legislative history, including Griffin Bell’s comments on FISA’s scope. Here’s Clinton’s own executive order (UNITARY EXECUTIVE! WATCH OUT!)
And, of course, there’s this.
Have at it.
Karl–
Then which broad is it?
DCollins
–Why, Oh Why, Do Stoopid People Post About Matters of Which They Know Nothing? —
I’m taking issue with the “stooopid” question in the title of Moaning Myrtle’s post
Well, yeah. I know.
I’ve followed your intarweb career for a long time, TSK9.
I have to say I’m pleased with “Moaning Myrtle” – it’s pretty perfect.
Not an original observation, but it is really fucking creepy that Moaning Myrtle only parrot posts Glenn cubed like a obsessed little puppy dog shadow at the same time using “authoritarian”. It’s creepy and a little pitiful.
And way sockpuppetty. But you’re correct, Moaning Myrtle is very apt.
Why is it these same people were silent during Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzales?
Did the ACLU sue over any of those incidents?
Semanticleo answered this one a couple weeks ago — they trusted Clinton.
Seriously.
Ya know, I’m actually a little saddened to see the EFF chipping in with the ACLU. The EFF was founded specifically because the ACLU refused to take a case — Steve Jackson Games vs. the Secret Service. You’d think the EFF would keep that in mind, or at least not spend their (limited) resources on a case the ACLU’s already abusing.
Living Room,
What problem did you have with Waco and Ruby Ridge? My own view is that those that have problems with them, don’t know as much about them as they think.
I dunno. Why was Waco a federal dealio anyway? I really don’t know. I could google, but that’s kind of always been my take-away from that.
Elian Gonzales? No silly. Elian Gonzales was a pawn in Castro’s game. I mean, not Catro’s but Clinton’s, I mean, um, um…
Waco was a federal dealio because of UPS.
Seriously.
A UPS delivery driver dropped a package he was delivering to Mount Carmel and it broke open. Inert grenade hulls rolled out.
They were inert, that is, not explosive–they had no charge and no primer, but the driver was not trained or qualified to know that.
UPS knows that their people aren’t qualified to recognize the various illegal and hazardous substances they may be shipping about the country, so teh policy is that their drivers must report anything that might be a problem.
It would be illegal to ship grenades, primed or charged or both, through the federal mail or by private courier.
It was reported. It was investigaed, by ATF, their jursdiction since is was UPS, rather than the Postal Inspector, if it had been USPS.
That investigation turned up other,legal, shipments of the chemicals and materials needed to charge and prime the grenades (and, in my book, case closed, seeing as four of the ATF agents that raided the place on 29 Feb 1993, were injured by grenade shrappnel) which is enough to constitute probable cause even if they weren’t also receiving many firearms, ammunition and parts kits that can be used to convert semi-auto weapons to full auto.
There’s much more, but I don’t want to hijack the thread. Back to FISA matters.
(If you want more info you can e-mail me rtoDOTtrainerATgmailDOTcom)
If that is indeed the case, then game over. And also, Mona’s dumber than sand for having hung onto this particular argument for so long, if it were indeed that self-invalidating.
Off checking Jeff’s here, here and here links. Back in 12 years or so.
Now lets rip apart this bloggers post
First off he states: Terrorist Surveillance Program involves international communications” He know this how? As the AP article and many other point out the Bush administration has given no information on the scope of the program and what we do know came from leaked information, information that is incomplete as to the complete nature of the program and this the legal case.
Next he blathers “and there is no evidence that US persons have ever been targeted by the program without a warrant.” Well that is the point, isn’t it? There is no evidence, what the case wants is to confirm this was not the case or if it was to prevent it in the future.
Next a diabtie personal attack on sum unrelated person to the subject of the article Mr. Rick Ellensburg, and he sates “so badly mislabel the program.” Which mislable is this? “domestic spying program” it was spying on people, that is what eavesdropping is and it was done on domestic targets and it was a program, so what is so misleading about that? Is it “warrantless wiretapping program”? but it was warrentless and it was wiretapping phonelines and it was a program so we can’t be talking about that one. What about “eavesdropping” but wiretapping is eavesdropping, thats the whole point of doing it, so that can’t be the mislabel. So were is the mislabel exactly, or is this a case of truth hurts?
Next he sates that what is a factual representation of the events of the court case is ” badly slanted ” and that “continues to claim that the only two judges to have ruled” which is ludicrus, the article talks about the two judges who viewed the program was not legal, it in no way implies that there were only tw judjes, infact it points out that one has a minority opinion, a clear indicator that there was a majority. Only a fool would think this and so the claim is obvously both slanted and bogus. Judge Batchelder’s majority opinion for the Sixth Circuit, is clearly the opinion opposite of the minority opinion.
Next the author tries to claim that the AP author of the article is “Internet’s most notorious sock-puppeteer ” which is strange because I did nto know it was a contest or an official title awarded to anyone by a group. Next he talk about Congress’s pro forma sessions which he gets wrong, the claim is that is is “so that President Bush cannot call Congress back into special session” The president can not do this regardless, the constitutional language of the call to convene congress is “he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,(Article II section III)”, pro forma sessions do not block the presidents ability to convene a full house of Congress under “extraordinary Occasions”. What it does do is block his ability to make recess appointments. this little tactic has been going on for 8 months since he went around congress and appointed someone the Senate would not pass.
As for the now-expired Protect America Act, there was an offer to extend the act for a few months while they worked out the issues, but the republicans and Bush refused.Next he makes the claim “If Congress were allowed to vote, it would vote in favor of the Terrorist Surveillance Program” The house had a chance to vote for four days, and the Senate measure could not be passed, so the claim is BS.
Next I love the claim here “Having been kicked out of court, with a president and Congress opposed to them” If this was the case then why did the law not pass? Oh yes because of the large opposition to the special intrest protection of the telcoms for their part in warrentless wiretapping. I love the next grand pronouncement ” thwart the will of majority” it is almost comical. I love the next part “seeking to protect the national security” No this is dishonest, they are speaking to protect special interest who paid for the GOP lock and stock. If they cared about the national security they would have passed the bill that was sent from the house to the senate 3 months ago..
Next the author states “Actually, she’s not going to provide a citation for it because she is wrong.” Actually she is dead on. the language of the law is very clear. Here it is
“Electronic surveillance” means-
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
So what part of “electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States” does this guy not get? Next “The definition of “electronic surveillance” in the FISA is simply not that broad.” I would love to find out that communication he is thinking of? What telepathy?
So clearly this guy is out of his depth, not only did he not read FISA he lied about the very definition he was hoping would defend his inane view of how the world works. Why you read this guy is not surprising, but the fact you would openly admit to your guilty pleasures is another thing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
well see, there are these things waaaaaaaay over the Earth called satellites…. aw screw it.
Thanks, RTO. Then mostly I think Waco made for bad tv, except at the end. I mean that part was good tv, not that it was good.
Elian though I’ll never think that was right, but he’s a proud little commie now so I don’t really care that much.
I’m still trying to figure out “diabtie personal attack”.
My 11-year-old daughter writes a little like that. Emily, is that you? Get to bed!
Reading comprehension, ur doin it rong.
Nancy had plenty of time, plenty of notice, but she choked. She really just kind of sucks at this legislation thing.
and didn’t because Dem House leadership decided not to. The Senate did pass a bill.
Why would Nancy even care to allow it? Really the laps of the bill does not hurt the Dems at all. You act like she should have seen this passage as a good thing? If anything she called the bluff and so far the majority of the American people seem to care less, they are all interested in who the next president is going to be.
I fail to see why the protection of the telcoms is more important then the protection American people. It comes down to that.
“and didn’t because Dem House leadership decided not to. The Senate did pass a bill.”
actually, the House version of the bill was voted on and passed 3 months ago, it was the Senate that took the time, preferring instead to talk about steroid use in sports, rather then dealing with the lapsing law.
It’s nice to hear from Glenn tonight. I think he’s trying to be clever with all the spelling and grammar errors.
er, so wouldn’t they then just be debating it in committee?
and it was the House that held the hearings.
Someone seems to think their constituents care. The Democratic Senators who voted for the bill that included immunity as well as those of the Democratic representatives who would have ensured its passage if Nancy hadn’t taken her orders for the trial lawyers. Someone sure thinks they care.
*from* the trial lawyers. That gave her money. Cause she’s corrupt. It’s a cultural thing.
anyhoo, maybe you’d like to see where we discussed this yesterday?
Forget it, Maggie. The idea is to try to drown you in verbiage, while at the same time forcing you to re-argue points you’ve already argued a thousand times. In new words.
People like Don are not worth your time or mine anymore. Most of them didn’t live through Carter. Maybe now they’ll get their chance.
*sigh* I know, I know. RTO and I were talking about where we going to dig the bunker tonight.
D,
1. The AP called it a domestic spying program. There is no evidence it is a domestic spying program. You might want an answer to that question, but the fact is that the AP has no basis for calling it a domestic spying program. It’s a news story, not an opinion column.
2. The reason the lawsuit failed was precisely because the plaintiffs could not show an injury to themselves (or anyone else, for that matter). The federal court system does not exist to provide legal rulings upon mere request. The plaintiffs had to make a minimal showing that they could not make.
3. You clearly have a problem keeping the people mentioned in the post straight, though this is perhaps not surprising when dealing with Glenn Greenwald, a man of many identities. My first point regarding his column was that Greenwald — a lawyer who is on your side here — does not call it a domestic spying program, because he knows that would be innacurate. It was mentioned to show that the AP was inaccurate.
4. Greenwald wrote:
Greenwald’s claim on this point is misleading because he knows — or as a lawyer should know — the relationship between the “standing” issue decided and the merits of the case. You clearly do not and are not paying me to teach you a class in federal jurisdiction.
5. I like to remind people of Greenwald’s sock-puppetry because it goes to his honesty and credibility. Even Greenwald would tell you that credibility is always an issue in a dispute.
6. You are factually wrong and apparently do not understand how the House functions. The Senate passed the bill. The House is controlled by the Democratic leadership, which chose not to bring the Senate bill to the floor, precisely because they know it would pass, with the telco immunity the Democratic leadership cannot abide.
7. I find it interesting that you claim the GOP is captive to special interests, while ignoring that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
8. Regarding subsection (f)(2), it has been pointed out more than once already that Mona is skipping the “if such acquisition occurs in the United States” language, which is why Mona’s characterization of the statute is wrong. You are making the same error. If you and Mona were correct, then every administration going back to the 1970’s has broken the law, because the Echelon program has been operating that long, intercepting international calls, including those where a US person is a party to the call. Mona (and you) apparently also lack knowledge of how the current telco system works when attempting to determine what is intercepted is or is not a “wire communication” as defined in FISA.
JG,
I canna hep mysef.
BTW, D is such an idiot that the steroid thing is wrong also — the hearings with Clemens were in the House, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). And the main accusation dealt with HGH, which is not a steroid.
Beverly Hills? really? *looks him up* huh, cause you’d think he’d know someone who could do something about those nostrils.
Why you read this
guycomment isnotsurprising, but the fact you would openly admit to your guilty pleasures is another thing.There fixed it for you.
And yes, I’ll admit to my guilty pleasure. The sanctimony made me laugh.
“and it was the House that held the hearings.” ~Maggie
“No Maggie,Karl, Last December when this the FISA was being passed in the House, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell tied up the Senate on steroids use in professional sports. Don’t you people remember the monumental waste of time? The 300-page report? Ring any bells people? – duh
Kurt because I had so much fun with you last time, lets start again
“1. The AP called it a domestic spying program. There is no evidence it is a domestic spying program.”
Really? well then riddle me this. Why exactly do they need the FISA courts whose only reason to be involved is to grant warrants, even retroactive ones for domestic wiretapping? That sure sounds like domestic spying program to me? Lets not forget they had to change the law last year to keep the program open after it had been in operation for SIX years. rather telling
“You might want an answer to that question, but the fact is that the AP has no basis for calling it a domestic spying program. It’s a news story, not an opinion column.”
Well their basis would be because it was a domestic spying program, by every definition you can come up with.
“2. The reason the lawsuit failed was precisely because the plaintiffs could not show an injury to themselves (or anyone else, for that matter).”
Well I wonder why they possibly could show that? Their ability to do discovery was limited, however the I grant that having to alter their modes of communication was a weak case.
“The federal court system does not exist to provide legal rulings upon mere request.”
Actually that is the purpose of the court in civil cases.
“The plaintiffs had to make a minimal showing that they could not make.”
In the opinion of the two judges of the 6th court, yes.
“3. You clearly have a problem keeping the people mentioned in the post straight,”
Perhaps your derisive writing style was a contributor.
“though this is perhaps not surprising when dealing with Glenn Greenwald, a man of many identities. My first point regarding his column was that Greenwald  a lawyer who is on your side here  does not call it a domestic spying program, because he knows that would be innacurate. It was mentioned to show that the AP was inaccurate.”
Actually I consider the warrantless wiretapping to be a criminal case and one that should not be handled by civil courts. I feel that it is an abuse of federal power and a violation of state rights, however feel free to generalize about me all you like.
“4. Greenwald wrote:”
Thats not a 4th point that is a continuation of your 3rd point.
“Thus, even to date, the only two judges ever to rule on the legality of Bush’s NSA program  District Judge Diggs Taylor and the Sixth Circuit’s Judge Gilman  have both ruled that it was illegal.
Greenwald’s claim on this point is misleading because he knows  or as a lawyer should know  the relationship between the “standing†issue decided and the merits of the case. You clearly do not and are not paying me to teach you a class in federal jurisdiction.”
LOL, I think given everything you teaching anything would be a mistake.
“5. I like to remind people of Greenwald’s sock-puppetry because it goes to his honesty and credibility. Even Greenwald would tell you that credibility is always an issue in a dispute.”
However you admit that his position as a award winning sock-puppetry is only a matter of your won opinion.
“6. You are factually wrong and apparently do not understand how the House functions. The Senate passed the bill. The House is controlled by the Democratic leadership, which chose not to bring the Senate bill to the floor, precisely because they know it would pass, with the telco immunity the Democratic leadership cannot abide.
Wow that was just about the most inaccurate and inane summary of how the legal systems of the US works, you really should retake high school civics if you think it works this way. In actually the House bill must be rectified with the Senates changes (that was the whole joint committee thing) before it can be passed to the executive.
Here this maybe you speed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVo3nbLYC0
“7. I find it interesting that you claim the GOP is captive to special interests, while ignoring that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.”
I am shocked you ignored the fact that Telcoms have bought the votes at the supposed expense of the safety of Americans. Lets be clear AT&T’s Political Action Committees have contributed nearly $1.7 million to the GOP federal campaigns. Lets not stop there lets look at the rest:
National Cable and Telecommunications Association $1,048,444,
Verizon Communications $905,700
BellSouth $686,850
Comcast $581,000
National Association of Broadcasters $403,820
Qwest Communications International $384,702
Clear Channel Communications $342,000
Time Warner $309,750
Thats legal protection bought for $5,313,822 or so and we all know there is more money than that being traded.
“8. Regarding subsection (f)(2), it has been pointed out more than once already that Mona is skipping the “if such acquisition occurs in the United States†language, which is why Mona’s characterization of the statute is wrong.”
Since this is the part of the law that lapsed in favor of special interests lets talk about it. If you are talking about routed telecommunication traffic through the US, then you are also forgetting that only one US based Echelon interception point exists inside US borders.
“You are making the same error. If you and Mona were correct, then every administration going back to the 1970’s has broken the law, because the Echelon program has been operating that long,”
Actually it was the 1960’s but I don’t expect you to know this. The only issue is that the SIGINT work of such programs do their work outside the US under perpetual authorizations. Remember it does not matter if you catch it on the other end.
“intercepting international calls, including those where a US person is a party to the call. Mona (and you) apparently also lack knowledge of how the current telco system works””
LOL, ok please enlighten me as to how ATM switched interpacket exchange would be somehow not be considered electronic communication and somehow not include radio waves or a wire, which can be made of glass or metallic materials?
“when attempting to determine what is intercepted is or is not a “wire communication†as defined in FISA.”
The median of interception is the deciding factor as it has been for 40 years, IF you intercept the cellular communication and decrypt it is radio, if you tap the connection of the call at the tower it is wired, if you capture if from the sat uplink it is wired if you capture my receiving the signals from the transmitter it is radio. Nothing complicated about it.
You also seem to be ignoring section 3 or the FISA definition
“(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or ”
Oh one last thing the house was talking about rhGH, however as I pointed out this is not what I was talking about.
See that word “former”? It’s the one that indicates that Mitchell is no longer a Senator. The hearings were held by the House, or more specifically:
This is a good gauge of your grasp of the facts, D. And that gauge is stuck on E. Oh, and – duh.
Try HGH. Oh, and duh again.
However you admit that his position as a award winning sock-puppetry is only a matter of your won opinion.
Your opinion won some sort of award Kurt uh Karl?
And lastly, duh.
D is datadave. If not then they should both ask for their respective institutions of education for their money back.
Really the laps of the bill does not hurt the Dems at all.
I am thinking the D might stand for Duh!, Pablo.
Could be “dyslexic” too. Named must your fool be before banish it you can.
Heh. Maggie doesn’t think my tactical shrubbery landscape plan is so crazy anymore.
Dumbbb as a door knob this D commenter is. He’s even appropriated his own initial to prove. He’s special.
does anyone have any idea what House bill he’s talking about? the extension that just ran out or what? I can’t read more than a couple sentences before my eyes glaze over.
Has anyone ever noticed how folks like D think that asking questions is the same as having proof of something? Seriously, because they are not bright enough to think of all possibilities it must be something odious. It’s a frustratingly lazy and egotistical tactic.
“does anyone have any idea what House bill he’s talking about?”
Try H.R.3773
Click on this link http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
Then go to “RESTORE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)”
” the extension that just ran out or what?”
No, the final law, which clearly you have not been paying attention to.
“I can’t read more than a couple sentences before my eyes glaze over.
The same goes for me and your dribble, come on how how hard was that to find? Really do any of you idiots ever read up about the topic you are pretending to debate? make fun of my spelling and grammar all you like, but you need to pull your head out of yoru collective buts and pay attention to what is happening int he real word.
Education Guy,
I love that egotist name there. I pose things in question because the the statements are batsh*t crazy and when you question them the person can only do one of two things, shut up or post ad hominem attacks.
Seriously do you people somehow think this whole warrantless wiretapping thing is some big misunderstanding that there is nothing wrong with the fact that a presidential order violated the US law and the constitution for over 6 years? Are the democrats this much of a bogeyman that you feel you have to defend the inexcusable?
When you allow this kind of thing to happen you let the demons out of the box. What do you think the nation is going to be like if Clinton wins the election with as much power as you have allowed the office of the president to take? It is not all going to go away. In the last 8 years the governments ability to control the president has been eroded to such a point that they can arrest people, throw them in a secret jail and not tell anyone about it as long as they, YES THEY feel that the person is a “terrorist”. Think of that, what would someone like Matzzie would do to conservatives of all strips if given that power.
“As for “Try HGH. Oh, and duh again.”
You are using faux newz as a source? pleeeease, It is rHGH or recombinant Human Growth Hormone, after all we stopped harvesting corpses for GH in the late 80’s.
Really, you can’t make this shit up.
Forget it, he’s rolling.
I don’t think I ever write more than a couple sentences. huh.
the Senate passed that with changes, it’s up to the House now to vote on it again. SB2248.
I love that egotist name there.
No ego, I used to go by Defense Guy when I was a contractor with the DoD. Any guesses which department I’m working with now? Thank you for proving my point once again though.
I pose things in question because the the statements are batsh*t crazy and when you question them the person can only do one of two things, shut up or post ad hominem attacks.
Again, just because you think they are batsh*t crazy doesn’t make it so. To persuade you need reason and passion. You have decided to replace reason with questions meant to imply conspiracy. If you want to grow up to be a real boy one day, you will take this to heart.
D thinks Section 1801 of FISA expires? Has he joined Mensa yet?
I mean, can you not read your own citation?
It’s a direct fucking quote you imbecile, from the mouth of Brain McNamee. Argue it if you like, but you’ll have to do a whole lot better than “faux news! booga booga!”
As for H.R. 3773, it passed the Senate with an amendment, and never made it out of conference committee. It’s DOA. As for what’s on the table, let me try a link you’ll find favorable:
What do you think the nation is going to be like if Clinton wins the election with as much power as you have allowed the office of the president to take?
I can’t let this pass, because you need to know that you should be worried. Clinton isn’t going to make it out of the primaries, and McCain is going to mop the floor with Obama. He isn’t even going to have to go negative, the first debate between those 2 is going to show just how much of an empty suit the Dems are putting up. Again.
D,
Go to thomas.log.gov.
Put in the bill number.
Click the “All Information (except text)” link.
Scroll down to “All Actions”. Keep scrolling to the events of 2/12/2008.
Then, please try, read for understanding. You may have to shut off the TV, ask other people to leave the room–you know minimize distractions. I think this should clear the matter up for you. You know, actually reading up on the matter you are pretending to debate.
If you’re really curious, you’ll also clik on the “S.2248” link and see what that’s all about.
That should be thomas.loc.gov
Hmm Well RTO when I look at the major actions of the page I see this
MAJOR ACTIONS:
10/9/2007 Introduced in House
10/12/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-373, Part I.
10/12/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent). H. Rept. 110-373, Part II.
11/15/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 227 – 189 (Roll no. 1120).
2/12/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
WHAT can it be!?! Lets look again!
11/15/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 227 – 189 (Roll no. 1120).
Why Yes, it shows the Bill passed the House with a vote of 227 – 189 back in NOVEMBER!
I hope this bit of sarcasm helped you figure out your mistake.
daleyrocks,
subsection (f) as modified by the PAA (Protect America Act of 2007) expired as pursuant to Section6 subsection(C) of the Protect America Act of 2007 This section reads as:
“(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
The section in question is
“SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:
`CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
`Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”
So yes, the section2 of the PAA expired and section 1801 has reverted back to its pre-2007 version. Thank you for playing, you bonehead.
Pablo, you imbecile.
“It’s a direct fucking quote you imbecile, from the mouth of Brain McNamee. Argue it if you like, but you’ll have to do a whole lot better than “faux news! booga booga!â€Â
I don’t care if some idiot who spent his time sticking grown men in the ass with the stuff thinks its called HGH, its rHGH. Play systematics games all you like, but the stuff was rHGH, because we bloody don’t f*cking pull the stuff out of corpses any more. Further more don’t tell me I am wrong when you have no clue on the subject.
As for H.R. 3773, it passed the Senate with an amendment, and never made it out of conference committee. It’s DOA. As for what’s on the table, let me try a link you’ll find favorable:
Again don;t talk about things you have no clue about. for one this what you said is not possible because the senate does not consider bills with house numbers. They are recast into Senate bill numbers in this case S.2248. It (as tradition dictates) was read twice in the Senate and placed on the calender on Dec 3rd.
Ed guy,
Firstly, I don’t want to persuade you, that was your first mistake.
Next I love your confidence for McCain and I hope your right, problem is I thought the same thing about McCain in 2000 and he still lost to an empty suite. McCain has an annoying skill at doing that, but here is hoping.
Maggie,
the Senate passed that with changes, it’s up to the House now to vote on it again. SB2248.” Thank you for seeing what others could not. However to be clear you do see it passed the house first, then went to the Senate judiciary committee left that and went to the floor before returning back the the house changed. Now the house bill and the senate bill need to be rectified and passed usually this is by conference committee, then it has to pass both houses again unless one adopts the passed bill of the other.
This is really very basic stuff.
Someone please make it stop ! This new Mozilla thingie that I am trying out is really pretty sharp, but for all of the extensions, add ons, plug ins, etc … I cannot find one that will block pedantic fucking epistles from asshat commenters.
I think D is getting frustrated.
You screwed up again D. Section 1801 of FISA did not expire as I was sarcastically trying to point out. The law superceding portions of it did. Your original comment was incorrect as I pointed out.
Did you bother to read Judge Taylor’s laughable original opinion, which was essentially granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs and finding the program illegal based on public disclosures? The government provided no defense except on standing. Her opinion was a joke. Even liberal commentators with any self respect, which would exclude Greenwald, expected it to be overturned.