From the NY Post:
U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.
n the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers – including Spc. Jimenez – were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the “Triangle of Death.”
Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.
Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers – obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance – cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the “probable cause” necessary for the attorney general to grant such “emergency” permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
“The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law,” a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.
Notes Dreadpundit bluto (via Jawa Report):
The search for SPC Alex Jimenez was held up for nearly ten hours while lawyers quibbled querulously over the ramifications of FISA […]
Even though the cell phones they wanted to tap were operating within Iraq, because the conversations were shunted through US hubs, they were subject to FISA restrictions.
Alex Jimenez has not been found. Al Qaeda says they murdered him and and buried him.
Those who surrender freedom for safety deserve neither, we’re constantly reminded — as if NSA surveillance of terrorist communications, the fruits of which are not usable in court (and so really should pose no civil rights problems) is some kind of civic moral dilemma that strikes right at the heart of What Our Nation Stands For™
Presumably, allowing the NSA to track phone traffic in and out of terrorist hot zones is a surrendering of our freedoms that real patriots (think Glenn Greenwald, or the Kossacks, who represent the “center” — and who oppose all violations of civil liberties, unless they happen to be imposed on neocons) should not be willing to trade for the safety that comes through the use of pattern analysis, etc, by an intelligence agency created for just that purpose.
Unless, of course, a FISA court gets around to saying it’s okay. In which case, the Constitutional problem disappears, with the President’s war time powers handed over to FISA judges and lawyers.
Some separation of powers are more equal than others.
None of which Alex Jimenez was able to weigh in on, of course. But given the chance, I’m sure he would have willingly sacrificed his life so that Congress, through its embrace of the FISA courts, could wrest away some power from the CiC operating under an Authorization of Military Force.
No word yet on whether or not Russ Feingold will read Alex Jimenez’s obituary into the Congressional Record.
In the Sorosphere, pointing this out is exploiting the troops.
As opposed to hiding behind a 12-year-old political spokeschild, which is just good tactics.
As Allahpundit would say: Nuance.
Also, several other Western democracies have different understandings of the security-liberty line, without us all being concerned that they are devolving into dictatorships – for instance, modern day France. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/french_9-3.html (The link discusses the French legal system in the framework of an investigation of the death of Princess Diana.) When’s the last time you heard one of these types say they were a-scared to visit France?
True patriot fuckers.
No word yet on whether or not Russ Feingold will read Alex Jimenez’s obituary into the Congressional Record.
That’s a real cheap shot, Jeff, particularly when you have no clue what you’re talking about. First, emergency surveillance under FISA can commence instantaneously. As has been reported elswhere, the delay here was caused by incompetence at the Justice Department (people sat on this for no reason).
Second, and more importantly, literally everyone (including Feingold) supports exempting foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, even when they pass through U.S. switches. All of the Democratic versions of the bill include such a provision. Morever, there is nothing in the original FISA that requires a warrant for such intercepts. A warrant is only required when one of the participants is a U.S. person. The only reason this needs to be reaffirmed through legislation is, supposedly, because a FISA judge issued an order requiring warrants for such intercepts. But the administration won’t show anyone this order, and it’s virtually certain that things are more complicated than we’re being led to believe. As I said, FISA doesn’t require warrants for purely foreign intercepts, even if the interception takes place on U.S. switches. So it’s likely that something about the interception process requires the government to sort through some communications that involve U.S. persons as well, thus trigger a warrant requirement.
Either way, though, the delay in passing legislation was completely the fault of the Bush administration, which didn’t even disclose the existence of this secret order until late summer, at which point legislation was hastily passed to correct the problem.
It’s unbelievably cheap to blame people like Russ Feingold for Alex Jimenez’s fate. Feingold had nothing to do this. He (like every Democrat) supports exempting all foreign communications from FISA, and he had nothing to do with the incompetence at the DOJ or the tactical decision not to disclose the existence of an adverse FISA ruling. This post is just agitprop and disinformation and you should be ashamed of yourself.
For once have the integrity not to engage in crude and dishonest strawman argumentation.
That’s not a Copperhead, sonny, that’s just a pretty little garter snake with a lethal bite.
Never forget Jeff, it’s the pointing out of odious behaviour that is cheap. Actually engaging in it, or alibing for it once it has gotten someone, or one whole hell of a lot of someones, killed. That’s the hieght of nobility.
Jeff, I just reread my comment and, for the record, I retract the last line. It goes too far. I didn’t mean to imply that your posts are dishonest generally. I just think this particular post is cheap, unfair, and inaccurate.
because who cares if a bunch of us are dead, we’ll have MORAL AUTHORITY again!
Gee, you mean adding layers of governmental bureaucracy — to the point where everyone is afraid to act, lest they be accused of “shredding the Constitution” — led to a delay?
Maybe had certain members of Congress not used this FISA thing as a political cudgel, these kinds of “for no reason” snafus wouldn’t have happened.
As for Feingold, he is famous for reading Greenwald’s interpretations of Constitutional law, outlined in blog posts, into the Congressional record.
As to whether or not I know what I’m talking about with respect to FISA, I never claimed to be a Constitutional lawyer. At the same time, I think I put in quite a bit of groundwork in coming to an understanding of the issue — and it is my conclusion that this was nothing more than a cheap turf battle launched against an Executive bent on pushing back against years of legislative mission creep.
And of coure, you really aren’t one to talk about taking cheap shots, are you, AL?
Hey A.L.: let’s say you’re right and it was incompetence rather than bad law that screwed this all up.
But that doesn’t matter, you see, because the situation is EMBLEMATIC of a Higher Truth about excessive, and even deadly, legal meddling in warfare. So it doesn’t matter what the actual details of the situation are, it’s still True.
See, I can think like a Lefty too!
And MORAL AUTHORITY trumps grieving widows and children every time. Come to think of it it trumps everything including Democracy, freedom of expression, women’s right, good sense, courage, ethics and morals. That MORAL AUTHORITY is some powerful, powerful stuff.
Look, Jeff, here are the facts. Nothing in FISA gives any hint that it would would even apply to foreign-to-foreign communications. Go read the definition of “electronic surveillance” in the statute. Furthermore, the court ruling that supposedly required warrants for this type of interception was a secret order, which the administration didn’t disclose the existence of until late summer (well after the Jimenez kidnapping). So Congress (Democrats and Republican) didn’t know that any kind of legislative fix was needed. As soon as they did, both parties quickly offered legislation that would have clarified that purely foreign communications are not subject to FISA. There is no dispute about this. Neither Greenwald, nor Feingold, nor anyone else supports requiring warrants for purely foreign intercepts, even those that pass over U.S. switches.
So it’s incredibly cheap to imply that people like Feingold are somehow responsible for what happened to these soldiers. Why don’t you just admit this? I’m a blogger too, so I understand that this medium can lead one to write things that are unfair and ill-considered. But own up to it when you do.
A.L. – I happen to think Jeff’s take on this is closer to the truth than yours. I do not think you can fathom the depth of frustration at least a fair number of us in the Armed Forces (I cannot speak for all, obviously) feel about this.
The Dark Night of Fascism is always proclaimed as decending from our CinC, but the consequences of the Guardians of Liberty valiant effort keep being borne by us, or the non-agenda pushing portions of DIA, NSA, CIA, etc. I would really not rather die for an ACLU fundraising bullet point.
Shorter AL… anything I do to extend the political and power and control of my side, even at the expense of innocent lives and my own honor is good. Any comment you make upon my wretchedness in doing thse things is bad. Own up to it.
Bullshit.
I seem to recall quite a bit of bellyaching about telecom companies “helping” this administration “shred the Constitution” by allowing the use of their hubs, leading to talk about where exactly the intercepts take place.
And I HAVE read the bit about electronic surveillance. You and I had these arguments at the time, if I recall. Go back and read through the threads. I think I cited a Duke paper on the subject drafted with respect to the Clinton program that claimed a circumvention on this point because the intercepts actually take place in space, not here on US soil.
Feingold, Greenwald, et al., contributed to a culture that has blurred the lines of jurisdiction, and created a situation by which we must fight an embedded enemy with lawyers. They did it for cynical political reasons, and as a way to take power away from an executive they didn’t like.
You can pretend to be outraged over the Feingold comment, but it was merely an allusion to his having read Greenwald’s consistent objections to the program’s “illegality” into the Congressional record.
Don’t like it? I’m terribly sorry. But then again, I’m Hitler, so what do you expect?
Disgusting doesn’t cover it. Pathetic doesn’t cover it. Outrage doesn’t cover it and it’s sadly become passe. Sickening is the closest I can get.
A.L.,
The shot doesn’t appear to me to be at Feingold, it’s a shot at the Gleen(s), who have been very much behind attacking just this sort of surveillance as “shredding the constitution”. That lousy, dishonest son of a bitch deserves every bit of criticism he gets for it.
Well, I guess I’m somewhat mistaken. But Greenwald is still a cocksucker in more ways than one.
Jeff, what are talking about? The thing people are objecting to is the warrantless interception of communications involving U.S. persons within the U.S., something that until recently was illegal. No one ever argued or even implied that warrants should be required for intercepting the communications of Iraqi insurgents, and it’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.
It’s also pretty hilarious to claim that Greenwald and I “contributed to a culture that has blurred the lines of jurisdiction,” whatever that means. All we have ever said is that the Bush administration is bound to follow the law. It’s the Bush admininstration that has blurred the lines by bypassing the law based on specious legal theories concocted by their lawyers (in secret).
But all of this is beside the point in this case, because, like I said, literally no one favors requiring warrants for purely foreign communications. That’s why Congress immediately passed a bill to clarify this point as soon as the administration asked for one (which, by the way, was well after the events at issue here).
It’s not the point whether foreign-to-foreign communications are exempt or not. The point is that you goddamn well better have a lawyer determine whether the intercept is exempt or not. Not much different really than taking it to a judge, really, and so you now have endorsed a category of situation in which military decisions are wholly dependent on the vetting of attorneys. This is just very gay.
Purely foreign communications don’t pass through the US. Ask Alex Jiminez.
Oh, wait….
Just stop being so very gay, A.L. Unless you’re actually gay, in which case that was probably a poor choice of words.
“It’s not the point whether foreign-to-foreign communications are exempt or not. The point is that you goddamn well better have a lawyer determine whether the intercept is exempt or not.”
Thank you, hf. I think you got to the heart of the matter. Create an atmosphere of stifling indecision and legalistic trepidation – and things like this will happen (and now have happened).
[…] Jeff Goldstein: Those who surrender freedom for safety deserve neither, we’re constantly reminded  as if NSA surveillance of terrorist communications, the fruits of which are not usable in court (and so really should pose no civil rights problems) is some kind of civic moral dilemma that strikes right at the heart of What Our Nation Stands Forâ„¢ […]
And while we’re on the subject does anyone have an innocent victim of this surveillance to wave around yet?
I’m looking at you, A.L.
Actually, it was US persons within the US even when one side of the conversation was not in the US.
Which made defining whether the call was foreign or domestic confusing.
Then there was the question of the hubs.
From Commondreams:
Any conversations that crossed into the US ought to be given amnesty.
I’m pretty sure Rusty will support my opinion in the excerpt you highlighted, but AL, and any other revolting little apologists should know that I wrote it, not Rusty.
Hopefully they will find a semi handicapped african american gold star mother who once got a funny busy signal and a couple of disputed charges on her phone bill
Morever, there is nothing in the original FISA that requires a warrant for such intercepts.
Over at Greenwald’s blog they argue over “the original FISA” like religious scholars once argued over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and I am left wondering: What is sacred about original FISA?
We are talking about a piece of legislation that was adopted in 1978, not the Constitution or holy writ. If technology has changed, and the nature of our intelligence problem has changed, why can’t “original FISA” be changed as well?
AL is just a chickenlawyer. He is never going to face a congressional committee for any legal advice he gives. If you’re so sure you’re right AL, why don’t you volunteer to go to Iraq and make these decisions yourself!
BURN AT&T!
AL-
I think you also have honestly look at time frame and context.
Honestly.
I say that because if the original “hot pursuit” bypass of FISA was in use there would have been no Justice Dept. lackeys to blame.
Which was the whole point of the expedient appraoch. Pragmatic and effective approach.
Then you cout to a time and place where the Democrats are making the legal terrain a lot slipperier and the ACLU is suing ATT and the other telcos and in that time and in that climate a couple of our guys get captured and the people at the Justice Dept. don’t know whose signature to get now.
So rather than accpeting the blame for starting the whole thing, your side wants to blame Gonzales’ department (because it is easier… and more ahem “expedient” in all the right ways of course)
Manbitch up and realize that the cat fight your side started over wiretapping had unforeseen consequences to Americans who underwent real torture and then death. That was not your intent of course, but in a rhetorical figurative way “fuck you” anyway on behalf of Jimenez and his family
Go talk to Think Progress, and we’ll think about it, okay, AL?.
Bastards! Just like Halliburton, I tells ya! We should string them up, except for that would be racist.
People like Greenwald, Mona, and the ACLU are examples of a certain ideological genus of (mostly) New York City attorneys, who have fetishized procedural due process to the point where a set of procedures written into law in the 1970’s by a Congress concerned with Watergate-era problems has now become the lodestar by which all national security issues must forever be guided.
Let’s not forget that it was never intended to interfere with NSA programs, according to Carter’s own people.
Actually, it was my understanding that, technically, the Executive is not, in fact, “bound by law” when said “law” is FISA. Powerline has a decent round-up of a Senate Judiciary Committee from March of ’06 which features testimony of five former FISA judges:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/013584.php
So Jeff’s point, I think, is valid. The Greenwalds, et al. just don’t want THIS Executive to have such Constitutional privilege. Plus it sounds like a bitchin’ accusation on the latest Springsteen album.
The Bush administration was mocked and vilified for saying that American’s would die due to the changes Democrats were asking for and the exposure of our methods the hearings were requiring…. of course these soldiers don’t count to the left as real so even though their actual deaths were probably due to real torture, not the democratic party kind like where they put peanut butter on your face so the dog licks you or where you treated like a surfer caught in the impact zone… but real agonizing pain torture where the body shuts down and dies from loss of energy due to intense and prolonged suffering.
I am about as angry as I have ever been
That’s the thing, LionDude. This has always been about competing legal interpretations — but the Greenwaldian interpretation was given the imprimatur of TRUTHINESS by many in the media, who followed the reasoning of a certain legal trajectory.
The opposing legal trajectory — which posited AUMF powers, FISA’s original intent, and the power grab by Congress (a pushback to the pushback against the erosion of separation of powers) — while embraced and defended by many conservative experts (and a few liberals, as well), has nevertheless been characterized as legally illegitimate.
The truth is, this has always been a difference in legal interpretation — but only one interpretation (given the Clinton-era intelligence gathering that we never heard a peep about) seemed cynical and dangerous to national security.
With that, I’m off to Krav Maga class. Back later.
Let’s not forget that it was never intended to interfere with NSA programs, according to Carter’s own people.
The post-Watergate Congress was understandably concerned about checking executive power, which makes their view of the balance of legislative/executive powers a very convenient one to elevate into Unquestionable Divine Wisdom for people who dislike the current executive.
Those people, like Cheney, who believe that they went too far in restricting the executive may or may not be wrong, but it’s time to get beyond calling them Nazis.
I just reread my comment and, for the record, I retract the last line.
Every journey begins with a first step, AL.
KEEP ON TRUCKIN’ !!!
Yep, a fine example of refusing to see the forest for the trees.
After all, what would one expect of their armed forces, operating in a foreign combat zone, when faced with the apparent capture of one of their own troops by the enemy – an enemy of illegal combatants known to have no regard for abiding by the requirements of any treaties, conventions, or other legal niceties?
Why yes, they should feel compelled to seek clearance from a Federal law enforcement agency before employing any observation or surveillance techniques within theatre. Because it would be an absolute shame if, in there zeal to save the life of their brother, they perhaps trampled on the ‘privacy rights’ of anyone in that foreign combat zone.
I’d like to second that ‘rhetorical figurative’ “fuck you.â€Â
“to put it another way, it was a carefully designed emotional appeal crafted by craven politicians”
Well, in fact …. Ooops. Wrong thread
“I seem to recall quite a bit of bellyaching about telecom companies “helping†this administration “shred the Constitution†by allowing the use of their hubs, leading to talk about where exactly the intercepts take place.”
Certainly. If they were turning over, as alleged, communications or other records which we all agree require a warrant or other court order.
You are a goddamn strawman machine.
“People like Greenwald, Mona, and the ACLU are examples of a certain ideological genus of (mostly) New York City attorneys”
So we have to modernize FISA. Is “New York City ACLU lawyer” like a modernized “jew”?
“BURN AT&T!”
Just link to the lawsuit. From “San Francisco City EFF lawyers.” Which is modern for “faggot.”
Just link to the lawsuit
– I’m still waiting for a Lefturd to show me a single instance anywhere in the Constitution, or the bill of rights, where it says you have a defined “freedom” of privacy over electronic communications. Period. Feel free to respond.
*crickets*
“I’m still waiting for a Lefturd to show me a single instance anywhere in the Constitution, or the bill of rights, where it says you have a defined “freedom†of privacy over electronic communications.”
The explanation for the constitutional wiretap requirement for a criminal wiretap is in Katz vs US. It overturned Olmstead vs. US, which found no requirement. FISA type warrants are a statutory, not constitutional, question.
– All defined “freedoms” are by writ of the Constitutional definition and limits, and are unchangable except by unanamous amendment asshole. If you’d ever studied the Constitution, you’d know that. You can’t simply write a statute to either enforce, extend, or otherwise effect a defined freedom, either to create or to limit. Even more to the point, the Constitution makes such shananigans strictly prohibited in detail. Read the IX and X, and then think a little before you run your piehole and show your ignorance. That you, and others like you, get away with such crap does not change a thing.
“All defined “freedoms†are by writ of the Constitutional definition and limits, and are unchangable except by unanamous amendment asshole.”
So if you read Katz vs US, you’ll find out that a wiretap constitutes a “search” for Fourth amendment purposes.
You don’t need unanimous amendment asshole to change the Constitution. Have you read it?
– Just to show the depth of your ignorance, and that of your allies in trying to surrupticeously alter and rewrite the Constitution, you talk about “wiretaps” where there are none. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
– You are simply so devoid of a rudimentary working knowledge on the subject of electronic communications its simply useless to entertain even a conversation with you on the subject, let alone a debate. You have no idea where China is do you
Billandy.You’ve never lost at anything, ever. Not on the Internet. Right?
No, it’s the right thread, actus, except that it wasn’t just politicians crafting the craven emotional appeal.
– andy. Stop while you’re head is posed to enter your ass. I designed and contributed to a number of NSA intersept systems. I am intimately familiar with the entire field. Stick to things you know. You are out of your league on this one. You can’t argue the issue because you don’t know a thing about the actual workings. Trust me when I say that even most of the administration, and certainly none of the lawyers or judges, in fact very few of the DoD people are well enoughed versed to argue the merits, let alone a neophyte such as yourself.
– Its actually amusing, in a sad sort of way, to watch the arguments back and forth like two men, blind from birth, arguing over the color red.
– Oh and andy. So far you’ve been able to get away with such things under the table. You better hope we never have a Pres. with enough balls to force strict Constructionist interpretation, or the “Living” document bullshit is doomed.
– If you want to restrict electronic warfare, get up a movement up to add it to the Constitution. Until then only the Pres. has any powers to effect such things under the Congressional approved war powers act. FISA is, and always was, unConstitutional.
You will find by reading Katz vs. US that they allege that tapping the fiber optics in room 641A (and other tbd places) is an illegal search.
Fiber optics carries 99% of the worlds long distance and data. Please read the following to see that fiber optics requires different technology than the old “wiretapping” and the way fiber optics move data necessitates specialized equipment spliced directly into the data flow. Or maybe I am misreading…
“Plans for the “secret room” were fully drawn up by December 2002, curiously only four months after Darpa started awarding contracts for TIA. One 60-page document, identified as coming from “AT&T Labs Connectivity & Net Services” and authored by the labs’ consultant Mathew F. Casamassima, is titled Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco and dated 12/10/02. (See sample PDF 1-4.) This document addresses the special problem of trying to spy on fiber-optic circuits. Unlike copper wire circuits which emit electromagnetic fields that can be tapped into without disturbing the circuits, fiber-optic circuits do not “leak” their light signals. In order to monitor such communications, one has to physically cut into the fiber somehow and divert a portion of the light signal to see the information.
This problem is solved with “splitters” which literally split off a percentage of the light signal so it can be examined. This is the purpose of the special cabinet referred to above: Circuits are connected into it, the light signal is split into two signals, one of which is diverted to the “secret room.” The cabinet is totally unnecessary for the circuit to perform — in fact it introduces problems since the signal level is reduced by the splitter — its only purpose is to enable a third party to examine the data flowing between sender and recipient on the internet.”
Wow. How “Orwellian”.
Wth
Lemme see. The government should get a warrant when they want to listen in on a call they have reason to believe is being made by conspirators. Then they have to splice into the fiber optics, bring in a router and banks of hardware and software.
Right.
By that time I believe the call might be over… unless of course the terrists gave two weeks notice between calls… and after all we’ve all seen the Geek Squad commercials and now they can hook that kind of stuff up in mere seconds…. right?
Come on. Of course they have a “secret room” you knucklehead. Of course they have the splitter, router, hardware, software preinstalled and sitting on the fiber optics.
How else would you do it?
Of course they need ATT to let them sit on the fiber…. how else would it be done?
My limited understanding of fiber optics tells me that all the data has to be sifted and sorted to find specifics. I don’t think it is possible to find and see an isolated piece of information without having the hardware and software process all the flow.
Also since it is legal to spy on foreign to foreign calls and data, it would make sense to sit on those hubs 24/7 and sift all that data.
In short, the massive flow of data and voice over fiber would require a room in a hub, a splitter, hardware, software and real time processing. Or it would be useless. The technology of ifber optics runs into spy programs built for copper wire and satellite.
Basically this is a complaint that the US government spy agencies had the audacity to migrate to fiber optics and its surrounding technology when the data did.
Good luck outside the 9th Circuit.
“You can’t argue the issue because you don’t know a thing about the actual workings.”
Thats why I’m trying to get you to read US vs. Katz. Because the “actual workings” aren’t what the Constitution cares about. Just whether it is a “search.”
– SteveG, I won’t go into mind numbing detail, but just suffice it to say that every extant fiber optic system already has numerous “splitters” required because of the nature of “looping”, ect, and multiple paths. No one builds a system without multiple paths these days, generally a minimum of four per trunk, sometimes more, with up to 120 fiber lines in three or four runs. Redundemcy, and so forth.
– But fiber is not really where its at. Its more focused on the Electromagnetic spectrum (mainly microwave and sattelite, although the entire spectrun is covered.)
– In 1865 we installed one of the first elint systems called “Tennis”. Its long since been retired. It was so new the storage of data was done on punch cards. The first days worthe of operation required cartons of punch cards, since 10 million frequencies were being monitored. At the end of a week NSA was up to uts ass in punch cards. Thet was then. Today over 100 million type os communication transfers of all sorts are done each day, to and from the US.
– There are not enough people in all the services to monitor or reduce even the data that is generated by intercept software, let along have someone actually listen to uncle andy enjoying phone sex, or whatever other nefereous passtime the paranoid dittoheads are worried about. It simply doesn’t work that way. Its impossible. so the very thing the Left is fighting so hard over doesn’t even exist in fact. their efforts are totally irrelevant.
– Once a recognition word has been pirocessed, then theres no reason for a warrent, because “cause” has already been established.
– Personally I think that the Administrations, all of them, both Dem and Rep, let the bird brains fight over the wrong apple just to keep them busy and out of their hair. The whole thing is a joke.
– Obviously that should be 1965…..My bad…..
“Once a recognition word has been pirocessed, then theres no reason for a warrent, because “cause†has already been established.”
Thats really interesting, that probable cause can come from just a word string. You must be right about that.
– Anyway andy, that should give you a little flavor of “reality”, and why its amusing to watch the FISA wars, because it looks like you’re bitching at the ref for misplacing the ball short of a first down, when the real game is baseball, preceeding along merrily in another venue.
You know, its nice to see people on the Internet are not wrong.
Now if only we can them them to not be obtuse and inane…
Change starts with you, actus.
“You know, its nice to see people on the Internet are not wrong.”
You KNOW that not to be true, Act-douche…
Here you sit, posting merrily away…
andy
so you mean a word string in or about an airport like “bomb”?
“What is sacred about original FISA?
We are talking about a piece of legislation that was adopted in 1978, not the Constitution or holy writ.”
It was delivered to The People by Saint Jimmah, Hissownself. Can’t get any more Holy to a proggtard.
‘so you mean a word string in or about an airport like “bombâ€Â?’
Could be. like if I’m talking about the ken burn’s “The War.” And mention the air war over europe. you know. “bomb.” WWAID? What would an intentionalist do?
“What is sacred about original FISA?”
Its not so much that it is sacred. The point is that people pretty much agreed with what it tried to do (warrants in the US, none for foreign-to-foreignt, etc…) but the problem is that the way it did that (technological and geographical definitions) no longer works.
Bueller? Bueller?
Pablo,
I think the Democrats have a 12 year old they’re ready to put behind a microphone again.
I’ve said before, there are people waiting for their day in court to talk about the billions in damages from domestic spying. But the administration isnt having none of it.
Billions in damages.
For what?
care to point them out andy?
Bullshit. Grade A prime bullshit.
The Dems do not hesitate to run out a 12 year old to be the face of their political pandering. Were there an actual victim that could claim billions of dollars in damages resulting from this, the Dems would be shoving them in front of every camera and microphone they could find.
So, andy, put up, or shut up.
Sure. Here is wikipedia on the case. All the legal documents are here. And there is a nice FAQ.
I’ve linked to this case before. And said that those that DO want to find out about what was going, and DO demand answers, should help this case as their best bet on getting to the bottom of this.
The Dems are not so united in supporting this. Telecom money goes to all of Washington. Some would give immunity to those alleged to have broken the law.
Administration officials and the Director of National intelligence have implied, though weakly, that these damages claims have merits. They have argued that immunity is needed so these billion dollar companies are not bankrupted.
What damages, actus? Billions? Where?
I don’t quite understand your problem. But here are some lines from the FAQ that might help:
“The lawsuit request an injunction and damages under the statute. The laws provide that the victims can receive damages of at least $21,000 for each affected person.”
“By the end of 2004, AT&T Corp. provided long distance service (including both stand-alone and bundled) to approximately 24.6 million residential customers, dropping from approximately 34.4 million customers at the end of 2003. Before the acquisition, AT&T Corp.’s bundled local and long distance service was available in 46 states, covering more than 73 million households.”
Doing the math, we get to billions. Now, none of this is proven. Which is the point: lets have it aired out court. That way those that want to see victimization will see it.
No, andy, you must prove victimization. Simply asserting it is insufficient.
“No, andy, you must prove victimization.”
The proof is what people are trying to do in court. What all this talk about immunity and assertions of state secrets privileges will stop: us finding out what happened.
It makes sense that right now there is much we can’t prove about a secret program. Thats the point of “secret.” That people not know what is going on. If you want proof, like me, ask for openness.
“The proof is what people are trying to do in court. What all this talk about immunity and assertions of state secrets privileges will stop: us finding out what happened.
It makes sense that right now there is much we can’t prove about a secret program. Thats the point of “secret.†That people not know what is going on. If you want proof, like me, ask for openness.”
When I was in college I had a roommate had an Irish Setter. If that dog could have talked, I’ll bet it would have sounded about like that.
B Moe – I am positive that your Irish Setter was exponentially smarter.