The New York Times editorializes on the ongoing effort to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:
For more than two years now, Congress, the news media, current and former national security officials, think tanks and academic institutions have been engaged in a profound debate over how to modernize the law governing electronic spying to keep pace with technology. We keep hoping President Bush will join in.
Instead, the president offers propaganda intended to scare Americans, expand his powers, and erode civil liberties  and to ensure that no one is held to account for the illegal wiretapping he ordered after 9/11.
***
The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law  like the House bill  would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.
It is tempting to simply dismiss the NYT’s editorial as preemptive whining over the likely outcome in this instance, which is bipartisan passage of a law acceptable to the Bush administration and protecting the telecoms who cooperated in the terrorist surveillance program after 9/11. But it is worth a few moments to hold the NYT to the paper’s own standards.
While the editors accuse the Bush administration of putting out “propaganda,” it is apparently not propaganda for the editors to refer to the terrorist surveillance program as “illegal,” when there has been no authoritative determination of its legality (as the editors obviously know from their support of lawsuits to decide the issue).ÂÂ
Indeed, the NYT story which blew the secrecy of the program, based on illegal leaks of top secret information, reported only that some within the government raised questions about its legality. That is one reason why the paper itself delayed publication of that story for a year, right up to the time that the story’s lead reporter, James Risen was due to publish a book, “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” which the paper had every reason to suspect would disclose the existence of the program. This is the high principle by which the NYT operates.
Moreover, by the time the NYT ran that story, Pres. Bush had already suspended parts of the program to address the civil liberties concerns raised by the likely sources of the story, subjected the program to more stringent NSA requirements, and subjected the program to an audit that is not known to have found any instances of documented abuses. At least, that is what the NYT reported on January 1, 2006. This is “the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior” as reported by the paper itself.
The editors of the NYT are gravely concerned that Pres. Bush might be able to listen to international telephone calls and read international e-mail whenever he wants, without a court being able to prevent it or judge the legality of his actions. The same sort of fear of governmental power is notably absent from another recent New York Times editorial on a threat apparently far greater than the next 9/11-scale terror attack:
When millions of Elmos and Barbies and Thomas the Tank Engines were recalled last year, Americans got a warning about the cost of cheap imported goods and the weakness of this country’s regulatory system. Now, Congress and the Bush administration are finally trying to make sure these toys and millions of other imported products are safe for consumers of all ages.ÂÂ
***
These are signs of progress. New port inspectors  perhaps 50  will be able to study sophisticated customs data and demand inspections of suspicious cargo. Still, even the most alert inspectors cannot sift through the thousands of tons of imports coming into the country each year. That means that manufacturers, importers and individual retailers will still be responsible for ensuring that what they sell to consumers is safe.
The Bush administration has little enthusiasm for regulations or regulators. The commission has had to limp along with out-of-date technology and a shrinking staff…
The editors of the NYT apparently believe that the ability to study sophisticated data and immediately inspect suspicious international communications requires judicial involvement in all cases, while no such intervention is required in the case of a suspicious imported Barbie doll. Both issues — as well as the issue of border security with respect to illegal immigration, where the NYT is famously indifferent — implicate the general principle that the routine searches of the persons, effects and data crossing the US border are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant.
The editors of the NYT are under no obligation to explain how they reconcile their opinions on such issues. Nor are they under any obligation to reconcile their opinions with what their own journalists have actually reported. That they fail to do so, however, undermines their credibility in claiming that it is the Bush administration that is insufficiently nuanced in its approach to debating such issues.
That’s a really great post, Karl. And I’d say so even were I not blotto from spending the day cooking Mexican and drinking margaritas . . . to celebrate Palm Sunday, naturally.
EXCUSES!!!
Not to get all Old Testamenty about it, but if I were a Babylonian ruler, I’d be Hammurabi.
I’ve prolly had a Nebuchadnezzar of tequila.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Law makers have recently indicated that this bill’s gulf probably won’t be bridged until next year with a new Congress and President. Music to anyone who cares about freedom.
The apples to oranges post, though? Just gold. Perfectly encapsulates the shoddy thinking of right-wingers. The Bush people don’t want consumer product legislation versus both Houses pass a bill enhancing the President’s ability wiretapping authority, but he rejects because it doesn’t indemnify his pals in the telecom community.
Not your best day, Karl.
[…] bloviate on the ongoing debate with its usual partisan and undeniably hypocritical point of view. Karl takes the editors to the woodshed. Here’s how he finishes: The editors of the NYT apparently believe that the ability to study […]
JDD,
The fact that the Dems felt the need to have a vote before Spring Break ought to tell you what the real odds are that folks are going to want to run for re-election without resolving the issue. Or you could read about the ping-pong strategy for the bill at the second link in the post.
Of course, if you actually bothered to read things, you would figure out that Bush is supporting the border effort on imports. And if you bothered to think, you might figure out that apples and oranges are both fruit.
I certainly hope this isn’t your best day.
Hey, the NYT is just sure that there are all kinds of examples of Bush listening into Americans. And if they dig long enough and hard enough, they think they will find some example of spying. Thus far the only thing they have done is give lefties an opportunity to remind Americans {yet again} that they are not serious about national security. They think that is a winner for them. Go figure.
And JDD, if these idiots did get these telecom people into court and drive up everyone’s phones bill while they rave like the paranoid morons that they are, don’t expect a big thank you from normal people.
I mean really, if they manage to get billions {I heard one suit was for more than a trillion} out of AT&T who do they think will pay that bill? The consumers is who, and when is all is said and done if they are successful there is no way these companies are going to cooperate in the future if they think there is even a chance of facing pack of trial lawyers. That of course makes an attack more likely. I realize the NYT thinks Bush invented AlQaida out of whole cloth just so he could spy on people, but if there really is such a thing as international terrorism and there is an attack…guess who I will blame?
I’ve heard that Obama’s an excellent listener. Anyway, that’s what Cass Sunstein says.
Nice panties, Dan.
Uh, JDD, if the feds are within the Constitution to inspect packages coming across the national border, then they’re also within the Constitution to inspect packets coming across the national border.
That was just a joke cause of something what psycho said is all.
For you, John DD
Client #10
Karl – Please refrain from associating my name with that fucktard’s. Grassyass.
That goes the same for the rest of you. O’Doyle doesn’t rule.
I’ve never understood this- if you’re not talking to terrorists, why does anyone care if the government is listening ?
Wait, we’re talking about libs here and I wouldn’t put it past them that many actually do indeed talk to terrorists. Hell, Obama wants us to talk to that asshole in Iran. If he’s not a terrorist, I don’t know what a terrorist is.
Matt – I actually do think privacy is important, and there are right and proper limits on what the government should be able to do. I just haven’t seen a pattern of abuses in this case.
Probably because the CIA and the NSA really don’t give a rat’s ass if you’re sharing some really good pot with your cousin Lydia.
The larger issue is what it is, but the so-called “spying on civilians” thing is a semantic creation of the MSM, which frankly has IMHO become a Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organization. Lies have become so culturally embedded in our press corps that you have to get caught in a pretty big whopper to even get noticed.
– Hmmmm. Could there be some other reason, not so obvious, that the SecProgg gaggle, and insta-trolls of the week such as Doyleass, along with the mediots of the Liberal MSM, don’t like the idea of iternational interceots.
– I’ll bet I know why. I’m sure you can deduce it as well. Just think back over the past 7 years to some of the videos and leaks, and so forth. Doesn’t take rocket science, and you aunt Lydia has not a fucking thing to do wit it. Protecting Americans My ass.;
– There still remains that little matter I mentioned the other day. I’ll repeat. So far in the 7+ years the Libturds have been floating the “trampling on citizens privacy” bullshit, not a single case out of 320+ million people has come to light. this in spite of the efforts of every commie front organization in the US doing its level best to handcuff our services and stop them from doing their jobs.
“The editors of the NYT are under no obligation to explain how they reconcile their opinions on such issues.”
I’d guess there is a different privacy interest in the content of communications vs. a shipment of toys. But I’ve never shipped that many toys before.
The traitors at the NYT know that the “intercepts” are not intercepts at all, but rather, the government is “data mining” with the info they get from the Tels.
But, hey. Anything to get a progg elected.
What also amazes me, is how the drive bys have taken nationalized health care, and just sort of unilaterally turned it into a “fait accompli”.
Jeebus! I just can’t WAIT for the government pricks to take over health care. What a treat THAT’S going to be! How great is it gonna be when all the Brownies (parking agents)in NYC are given desks and the ability to tell your doctor what he/she can and cannot do? I just can’t WAIT!
A lawyer tried to explain it to me once.
If you ever figure it out, be sure and get back to us.
Good one! However the new york times parts seem to have difficulty with the Queen’s English.
Where in the Constitution is there mention of privacy? The closest you can come is the Fourth Amendment, and it doesn’t distinguish between property and communications (“papers”). Given that, if you believe the government has the right to inspect imports without a warrant, what beyond your personal preferences makes you think they should be required to have a warrant before inspecting communications that cross national boundaries?
“The closest you can come is the Fourth Amendment, and it doesn’t distinguish between property and communications (â€Âpapersâ€Â).”
It says searches have to be reasonable. A search for customs purposes is more reasonable than one that looks at contents of communications, because of the different privacy interests as well as the intrusion required.
Thats how I tell them apart. Wheter this difference is enough for you is another matter. But it is a difference.
Leaving aside the childish rhetoric, scatological references, and the sheer stupidity of the entire post, there has been a case.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=hsnews-000002661145
Meanwhile, since the Executive won’t release any names to Congress (our representatives) regarding the details and the telecoms claim they are prevented from doing so? Well, it’s hard to figure out who was illegally listened to.
As for Darleen, as the NYT noted the other day and, as I have informed Karl and he has confirmed, the plaintiffs in these suits are represented by two non-profits, the EFF and the ACLU. If you want to be ill-informed, Darleen, could you just stick to fear-mongering about Hispanics?
B moe, et. al, for people who claim to be a certain age and IQ, you lack basic historical memory. The Church committee hearings can be found online. News reporting about the original passing of FISA is available.
As Justice Scalia has noted, Constitutional rights are not for sale. I certainly don’t give my right to be secure in my possessions willy nilly to any bed-wetting “terrorist” fighter.
Finally, Big Game Hunter, you are willing to sacrifice your rights to be safe and claim, erroneously, that no collateral damage has been done. But, what did you sell your rights for? Has there any prosecution from these intercepts, any plots broken up? Of course not, or the President and 29%ers would be trumpeting it.
It amazes me how little work the commenters do here. At least Karl has looked stuff up and has a reasoned, if incorrect, opinion. The rest of you seem to be knee-jerk Jack Bauer wannabes.
In what way does analysis of communications that cross the national border make you less secure in your possessions? If you were receiving a package from overseas, would it bother you if Customs opened it? Would it be a violation of the 4th Amendment?
Well, it’s hard to figure out who was illegally listened to.
Argument by repetition and assertion. Standard fare from our little buddy.
I guess the ACLU is a non-profit, kind of like how the Soros groups are non-profit. Claiming they are a non-profit and ignoring their ideological cant is really remarkable, even for you, IJS.
IJS – What fucking rights have you lost? Name one, and prove it, or go away.
Rob – That would not bother him, because he has not yet constructed a conspiracy theory where W and Halliburton were conspiring to monitor his packages. Give him time.
A search for customs purposes is more reasonable than one that looks at contents of communications
Are you under the impression that customs inspectors don’t have the right to look at papers entering or leaving the country?
Hint: you’re wrong.
Geogetown Law School Prof. Neal Katyal and Richard Caplan (Class of 2007) have an article titled, “The Surprisingly Stronger Case for the Legality of the NSA Surveillance Program: The FDR Precedent” from the forthcoming issue of the Stanford Law Review available for download as an Adobe Acrobat file. According to the abstract:
As normal the idiots have not bothered to read the actual report link
This Article explains why the legal case for the recently disclosed National Security Agency surveillance program turns out to be stronger than what the Administration has advanced. In defending its action, the Administration overlooked the details surrounding one of the most important periods of presidentially imposed surveillance in wartime-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s wiretapping and his secret end-run around both the wiretapping prohibition enacted by Congress and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As explored through primary source material, President Roosevelt acted against the interpretations of, among others, his Attorney General and the Supreme Court regarding a law passed by Congress, deciding, in secret, that wiretapping was essentially his prerogative. That Attorney General, Robert Jackson, later remarked that it was “[t]he only case that I recall in which [FDR] declined to abide by a decision of the Supreme Court.
Ignoring the fact that on the very first page the authors state:
In our view, the argument does not quite carry the day, but it is
a much heftier one than those that the Administration has put forth to date to
justify its NSA program
The FDR precedent provides some justification for what is known about President Bush’s wiretapping program
No it does not say this at all in fact the report states clearly :
Third, as a matter of constitutional governance, it is exceptionally
dangerous to vest a president with the power to break the laws, at least at a time
when Congress can act. If the 1934 Act was such a problem, FDR should have
dispatched his staff to Congress to explain why new legislation was needed to
modify it. Instead, they pursed the Janus-faced strategy of seeking legislation in
public and then secretly wiretapping anyway. In one sense, that decision not to
put all their eggs in one basket was understandable; had the legislation failed
then its failure could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment that Congress was
against wiretapping (thereby complicating subsequent executive efforts to
engage in the practice).283 But that is the wrong way to look at the situation.
The right way is this: if legislation does not pass, that failure is a pretty good
indicator that such action is contravening the nation’s norms. If the President is
unable to persuade Congress to authorize a measure he believes necessary to
national security, there is likely to be good reason for that refusal
– more, it would seem, than what has been put forward by the Administration itself. By outlining some of the general conditions under which Executive Branch precedent may justify contemporary national security decisions, we develop a framework for Executive Branch stare decisis and ultimately conclude that the FDR precedent should not be followed today. And as such the abstract points out that the line of reasoning is wrong. I guess you boneheads failed to read that part
We recognize, however, that our conclusion is debatable, and believe that the FDR precedent deserves widespread debate, instead of the inattention it has received thus far. We further explain why the past history and present experience with wiretapping reveals the relative frailty of both courts and Congress in national security disputes, and highlights the need to lace the concept of “separation of powers” into the Executive Branch.
And again shows that this was the wrong path, in fact all it really points out is that as normal the Bush administration was incomitent in coming up with the best legal argument that they could have and it was up to Al Gores former lawyer to show then how. LOL
The authors fail to explore some of the reasons why their conclusion is debatable,
As typical, the dolts at cumwisdom failed to do their homework and reallied on skimming the abstract.
including the view of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court of Review on the president’s authority,
You mean the SECRET ruling? The one that no one outside the the court and the legal counsel knows? That one? Give me a brake!
and the knowledge and acquiescence of the House and Senate majority and minority leader
So? Does nto make it legal and in fact that itself was designed to restrict their actions as much as it was meant to “inform them” Congress is co-equal member of the government to the executive, they have oversight. Every informed person in the world can see that such an action does not support the legal claims of the administration.
s and the co-chairs of the Intelligence Committees in the current program’s operation. Nevertheless, it is both a fascinating look at the historical precedent for the terrorist surveillance program and more moderate in its tone than most of the opposition for having taken the time to examine that history.
All the while ignoring the fact that the report states in no uncertain terms their and the whitehouse’s justifications are works of legal fiction.
face it ignorant nutcases you don’t have a leg to stand on.
http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=georgetown/fwps
Give me a brake!
Why? You are already two days behind.
ha ha, would that be disc or drum?
Good info and well presented, for more quality free info on pc security related issues have a look here.
I found this site called Dog Training Manual, It has alot of awesome information on how to train dogs. Check it out!
“My Mom never did any of those things when she was here!” Hilarious!