Gleen(s) today make jackasses of themselves even more than usual, picking a fight with an AP puff piece on Mike Mukasey. He begins by asserting that Mukasey is one of the most divisively controversial figures in American politics today, which is something that Gleen(s) would like to see to, but which brings hermeticism to the brink of absurdity by any reasonably objective measurement.
Anyone more than casually familiar with the works of Rick Ellensburg knows how disingenuous he can be.
Ellensburg’s claim that Mukasey is one of the most divisively controversial figures in American politics today rests in no small part on his belief that Mukasey lies about “the 9/11 attacks, our surveillance laws and the pending lawsuits against the telecoms in order to demand warrantless surveillance powers and telecom amnesty.”
Yet a NEXIS database search shows that “Mukasey and 9/11” turn up in a paltry 73 stories over the past month — hardly suggestive of any great controversy.
Guess who ran that search one day before Ellensburg made his claim about Mukasey being so divisively controversial?
Ellensburg wishes Mukasey was divisive and controversial, but it is merely a wish. It is similar to his wishes about Iraq — attacking the establishment foreign policy community based on a memo to Barack Obama by Samantha Power — when compared to the reality of Power talking about Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan being revisited if he is elected and Obama adviser Colin Kahl writing about having 60,000-80,000 troops in Iraq at the end of 2010. Or Ellensburg’s wishes about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, juxtaposed against the reality of Obama’s intelligence adviser supporting legal protection for the telecoms who cooperated with the government after 9/11.
Railing against a media more people see as left-leaning and attacking the Congressional Democratic leadership as “complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses” are further signs of the paranoid style. Ellensburg works hard at marginalizing himself, but this may be the first time Ellensburg has preemptively refuted himself.
Since he works for the Bush Administration he is controversial.
How difficult was that?
– This is not a “percieved” effort. It is actually all too real. The hard Left feels its strangle hold on the Dem party slipping with each passing day as underlined by the complete break by both Dem candidates camps with the Kos/HuffPo, etc., gaggles.
– They’re merely trying to rally the smallish group of the faithful with as much red meat as they can get into print, but even they know the end is near. Still time though to pile on as much sour grapes as possible, particularly against their own apostates.
– Contrived non-existent conflicts is about all they have left.
– I still think they could defray a good deal of their frustration by running a Lamont/Sheehan ticket under the Marxocrat banner. They’d look like clowns, but no worse than they already do.
For our additional delectation, Gleenwald uses Mukasey’s former “law” partner Scott (I imagine conspiracies everywhere) Horton of Harper’s No Comment fame. Readers familiar with Horton’s oeuvre as a self-promoted international human rights expert will remember his remarkable work on Haditha, Bilal Hussein, the TSP, torture, and more recently flogging Karl Rove’s involvement in the prosecution of Governor Seligman in Alabama. Horton’s style of legal argument is much like Gleenwald’s and based on firm Constitutional principles, hey, these guys are Republicans, I don’t know if there’s anything there, but dammit they need to be investigated until the cows come home or we have a democrat in the White House.
Like Gleenwald, Horton never admits his errors. Let’s play two.
GiGi – I denounce myself !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of meeeees.
“Rick Ellensburg beclowns himself”
Dog bites man. Water is wet. And yet, his deranged meanderings are still amusing to note because it’s hard to believe someone has that strong a sense of denial.
daleyrocks,
You forgot that Horton also thinks there was a conspiracy to get ex-Gov. Spitzer (which is ironic, since you gave me the last tip on that).
[ballistic moment number one. Jeff’s edit:
Leave, I’m Just Saying. Leave. Go away. Don’t come back. Buzz off.
I can’t tell you how tired I am of all this shit. All of it. Tired.
You want to accuse me of running a groupthink site? Cool. Then I may as well do it — given that you can’t seem to grasp that your ability to post here makes a mockery of that claim.
But why continue to point out the irony, the disingenuous-ness, the ankle biting, soul robbing suckitude of it all? Fuck it. Let’s just truly run a group think site. WHO’S WITH ME?]
I am fixing to go ballistic at any moment. Either that, or, you know, it’s the corn dogs I’m feeling.
Did I hear something, or was it just air escaping?
Karl – Thanks for the reminder – since he sees conspiracies everywhere it’s tough to keep track. I think he’s onto one in Mississippi or Missouri now related to the tobacco settlements. He’s just all about innuendo as opposed to facts. IMO a total asshat. He also checked in on the Scott Beauchamp matter.
Karl you are doing a helluva job here. I enjoy your stuff.
Jeff: Feeling a bit cobbed, are ye?
IJS: Is it raining in Indianapolis?
Jeff is must be genetically modified corn, you know, Franken Food.
it
“Only your usual groupthink will bring you the success you need.”
My irony meter just exploded.
BJ – IJS iz not frum Indie. He/she/it is a TX creation.
JD: Got it on the last thread. Will stop with the “you know who” references.
Mr. O’Brain: Ours is Teh Groupthink, theirs is Teh Narrative.™
You say tomato, I say polyurethane…
I’m expecting it to get windy shortly. Bean with bacon soup for lunch. I need to find someone to imprison for a car ride to share the pleasure methinks.
Right, twin sons of different mothers. Which makes sense once you realize that they’re both asshole babies.
Jeff, you’re supposed to eat the corndogs. they’re tasty. especially with mustard. unless this is some covert tuber op, then, carry on.
BJ – Why do you hate people that live in Indiana?
Every time a Cylon goes out the airlock, God creates a kitten.
McGhee – Is a Cylon like an Air Biscuit?
Thanks, daleyrocks.
Also, I’m sorry I missed the posting from IJS. Okay, not really. As trolls go, he was pretty freakin’ lame. No balloon fences or anything creative.
Ever been there?
I keed, I keed. I have lots of relatives in Indiana.
2 issues about the world boiling …
1) If it is this critical, this important, why must they intentionally use bad data to reach their conclusions?
And along similar lines …
2) if it is this critical, this important, why don’t the AGW proponents actually act like it?
Hmmm. I was referring to IJS, but really, what’s the difference.
And the gleeeens totally lying again? Feh.
But I do love it when Jeff, Karl, and Dan give all of the gleeeeeens a good old-fashioned cock-slapping.
Yeah, I went there …
“I was referring to IJS, but really, what’s the difference.”
I figured it referred to some troll or other, but can we actually be against the cylons? It seems like half the people on the show are cylons these days. Maybe they all are: that’s the grand finale.
Well, Indiana, I-65 North of Indy is one of my most favoritest highways. The scenic rolling countyside, the two lane road with drivers who refuse to get out of the left lane, land yachts in the summer. Good times, good times.
daleyrox – Hysterical.
Uhhhh – the whole point is that Mukasey’s actions would be controversial if the press would report what he did rather than telling us that he likes long walks on the beach.
The idea that said phone call could not be intercepted because of FISA is wrong (not even getting into which call it was) and that would be controversial if reported properly. The action itself IS controversial, but the reporting keeps a lid on it.
Must be ‘teh liberal media bias’ (hey, that is fun!)
steve–
This is what he actually says:
Really?
By his action – yeah, I agree. His testimony before congress, the recent speech and ‘phone call’. Pretty controversial.
But in the public eye – no. You’re right there.
But why no media reaction? Like I said, the liberal media protects him. What other explanation can there be for his San Fran speech going more or less unreported than a massive media conspircay to hang conservatives in the court of public opinion!!!!!!!!
Oh….hold on a second…..
Okay, but what about Obama? Controversial? Divisive?
Go read this, and then we can talk.
I did, back then, but had no time to comment.
That an agency adopts policies that aren’t statutorily required does not mean the statute needs changing. Same goes for the applicable exec order he inexplicably referenced. And then there was the open court business, which is a complete lie coming from a former fed judge.
I still don’t understand why we need to (basically) do away with warrants with a court which issues them retroactively – and this sort of nonsense makes me feel no better about it.
Remember: when a dem becomes POTUS, he (she?) will have these powers too.
Obama? Yeah – he’s controversial.
?????
I think the question, steve, is why Gleen(s) aren’t interested at all in pursuing the possibility that extra-legal procedures installed by–oh, I don’t know–such people as Jamie Gorelick might have had anything at all to do with the failure of the NSA to communicate some of this information . . . so that it wouldn’t fucking appear that there was anything untoward going on?
OK, fine. I don’t really give a shit about the endless blogger personality wars, and I don’t hold anyone up as this sort of non partisan perfection. I think your whole point is a red herring to the larger issue.
Mukasey is the current fucking AG, and he’s lying to the American public w/o consequence to enable a suspension of (some) warrants. I’m much, much more concerned about that than Glenn’s even-handedness, or PW vs. Gleens or whatever else.
Why don’t Gleen(s) limit themselves to attempting to argue the point on the merits? Why don’t they reproduce the context?
Because their allegations are the red herring. Because they don’t understand how they open the door to revisiting Gorelick. Because they are partisan shitbag(s).
And you’re not a partisan? Come the fuck on dude….
EVERYTHING that this administration does re: the war on terror is OK (save for strategy). And then this defense – like somehow what Glenn wrote can make what Mukasey is doing alright?
That context is damning to Mukasey’s statements as well – why don’t YOU talk about that? Becasue in your non-partisan world, dismissing some other blogger is more important than the issues themselves?
steve sez this…
“Mukasey is the current fucking AG, and he’s lying to the American public w/o consequence to enable a suspension of (some) warrants. I’m much, much more concerned about that than Glenn’s even-handedness, or PW vs. Gleens or whatever else.”
…and then Dan Collins responds by saying this this…
“Why don’t Gleen(s) limit themselves to attempting to argue the point on the merits? Why don’t they reproduce the context? Because their allegations are the red herring. Because they don’t understand how they open the door to revisiting Gorelick. Because they are partisan shitbag(s).”
…which is to say that, unlike Steve, Dan Collins is clearly more concerned about Glenn Greenwald’s evenhandedness than he is in assessing whether or not the U.S. Attorney General is lying to the American public in pursuit of additional unchecked powers for the executive branch.
I believe that Dan Collins’s priorities are misplaced.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
What is it that Mukasey is supposed to be doing?
No, I didn’t claim that I’m not partisan. I will claim, though, that I’m not partisan enough to lie in order to make my case. I will claim that if I seek to reopen the 9-11 Commission, I would like to have questions answered on both sides, because I am interested in the truth, and don’t believe my lawyerliness will change it. I will claim that it is absurd to insinuate that media “canonization” only occurs on one side of the aisle, or that it is only destructive of our institutions when it occurs on one side of the aisle.
That’s just revoltingly stupid, and viciously disingenuous. Or can’t you see that?
Patrick,
Where’s Glenn’s analysis of Gorelick? Was she not a member of the 9-11 Committee, whose partisan report he so deplores?
And you, by contrast, don’t think it’s at all about the honesty of his representations, because . . . well, c’mon! it’s not like he might be innocent!!!
For the purposes of what I’m talking about, shit on Glenn Greenwald. Who gives a fuck about GG?
What Mukasey SHOULD BE doing is telling the truth. And when he claims that statutory redress is needed for something and his example has nothing to do with that statute, he’s lying (or really, really incompetent). When he says that there’s a risk that security issues might become public becasue of FISA warrants, he’s lying. What he should do, simply, is tell the truth. Why is that so hard, and what does it have to do with Glenn, ultimately? Fine – your post was about all the blogger politico slap fighting, so maybe you can accuse me of thread hijacking. I plead guilty.
But when I question what Mukasey does, and your answer is “Buyt Gleens said!”, I think that’s a poor defense of Mukasey’s actions. In fact, I think it’s not really a defense at all.
“And you, by contrast, don’t think it’s at all about the honesty of his representations, because . . . well, c’mon! it’s not like he might be innocent!!!”
I missed this and I don’t understand it.
I’m sorry, but where do you say he asks for statutory redress?
PAA
And does it matter? He still lied regardless of what he’s asking for or not asking for
“What is it that Mukasey is supposed to be doing?”
Michael Mukasey–the Attorney General of the United States–is supposed to be telling the American people the truth. It does not appear to be the truth that the U.S. intelligence community became aware of a telephone call from an Afghan safe house into the U.S. in the period leading up to 9/11. And if it *is* the truth that a telephone call was placed from an Afghan safe house into the U.S. in the period leading up to 9/11 (and that the 9/11 Commissioners are simply unaware of said phone call), it does not appear to be the truth that the U.S. intelligence community was legally required to secure a warrant to listen to said call. As such, it does not appear to be the truth that FISA’s warrant requirements are partly to blame for the tragedy of 9/11, nor does it appear to be the case that FISA must now be amended in order to empower the U.S. intelligence community to listen to phone calls being placed by suspected terrorists residing outside of our borders. Unfortunately, Mike Mukaskey declared and/or implied each of the above. Mike Mukaskey lied. He shouldn’t be doing that.
So what should Mukaskey be doing now? I’d request that Mike Mukaskey simply admit that he was, let’s say, “mistaken” in his earlier declaration. He should admit that no such phone call was placed from an Afghani safehouse into the U.S. prior to 9/11, or if one was, Mukaskey should admit that FISA did not prevent such a phone call’s interception. Mukaskey should then make clear his understanding that FISA can in no way be blamed for 9/11, regardless of what he, Mike Mukaskey, mistakenly implied on March 27, 2008 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
If Mike Mukaskey would simply do this–if he would simply tell the truth to the American people–I would be perfectly contented and promise not to care a whit if you then continue to call Glenn Greenwald “Gleen(s)” or “Rick Ellensburg,” or whatever the heck else you want to call the guy. Have at him.
“Where’s Glenn’s analysis of Gorelick? Was she not a member of the 9-11 Committee, whose partisan report he so deplores?”
I gotta be honest, I’m not sure what you’re driving at with this. Glenn Greenwald has been very, very critical of Jamie Gorelick in the past (specifically for her work as a telecom lobbyist, successfully persuading Democratic Senators like Jay Rockerfeller and Dianne Feinstein to support retroactive immunity for telecoms who violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant… here’s one such link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/22/telecom_immunity/). But I gather you’re referring to something different about Gorelick. I’m guessing it’s got something to do with your above-linked post (the one from April 4th)? But, I gotta confess, I read it, and the point isn’t clear to me.
With apologies, lemme request that you re-state the point of that post in other words, and I’ll take another crack at it.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Dan need Gleeens and all of this BS becasue he’s smart enough to know Mukasey’s lying but too much of a partisan to give him any shit for it. That’s the bottom line.
For the purposes of what I’m talking about
Steve – Could you clarify what the fuck you are talking about. It doesn’t seem to be the topic of this post, whatever it it.
Mukasey seems to be unpopular with dems because he won’t play along with their parlor games and political theater regarding torture and FISA. They apparently expected him to roll over and he has not cooperated and they have become disenchanted with his performance, even to the point of calling him divisive, because he states the law and the administrations position as he sees it rather than as they would like him to see it. It’s that simple.
With respect to his San Francisco speech, who knows whether there was a phone call from Afghanistan. There was none publicly discussed at the time, but that does not mean one did not exist. FISA law as interpreted at that point would not have prevented foreign surveillance. It was only later interpretations by FISA judges which required conversations crossing U.S. switches, even if they involved foreign persons, to have warrants supporting eavedropping before or within 72 hours. Greenwald is obviously no technophile and avoids the technical aspects of FISA whenever possible. More to the point though, the operable restriction on intelligence sharing activities at the time of 9/11 was the so called Gorelick Wall, of which Gleen avoids mention and Patrick claims ignorance. While Glenn is technically correct that FISA did not prohibit intelligence sharing, the Wall theoretically did, as FISA judges would reject requests for domestic wiretaps based purely on NSA leads.
Patrick’ suggestion that Mukasey should apologize for any insinuations that FISA was in part responsible for 9/11 is completely disengenuous given the scheme of arrangement established between the FISA court and the Clinton DOJ. What happened post 9/11 was designed to eliminated those barriers to communication to the extent possible, but of course Greenwald and Patrick would never acknowledge that history.
No, Patrick, this is exactly where you go wrong. Mukasey stated that prior to 9-11 ther inter-agency communication wasn’t there. Why wasn’t it there? In large part because of Gorelick’s rules, which have nothing to do with statute.
So I ask you once again: where is it that Mukasey’s supposed to be begging for more statutory authority? Don’t take it at Gleen(s)'(s) word that that’s the case, because you’ll be woefully disappointed. Please, demonstrate.
So, steve and Patrick seem alright with Ellers lying his ass off so long as he is lying about AG Mukaskey.
The fact is that Gleen(s) can’t argue a case against Gorelick prior to 9-11, because it undermines his tendentious case. He doesn’t realize once again–as was the case with the Hagee thing–that when you open the line of questioning, you cannot control where it might lead, lie and spin as you like.
WHO’S WITH ME?
“Old-time hockey, coach !!!”
so Gleens is now arguing that we can intercept phone calls without a warrant?
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100022153&docId=l:766609890&start=4
“we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.”
And I suppose you’re going to say the “for that” referred to internal policy. Not at all to be linked with his saying that the gov’t “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States,”.
So he was talking shop aloud with the first comment, right? HE wasn’t politicking for PAA.
Otherwise, he’s clearly lying and advocating for statutory redress for a problem that he knows isn’t statutory.
“So, steve and Patrick seem alright with Ellers lying his ass off so long as he is lying about AG Mukaskey.”
Even if this is so (and it is not), what’s worse? Being OK with some columnist lying or with your AG lying?
It is always amusing when people like steve and Patrick show up in a thread like this to complain that somehow the merits of the underlying issue are more important than ripping on a blogger like Wilson.
Because — while it is true that Gleeny managed to preemptively refute himself — another main theme of my posts about him is to point out that the very breadth of his attacks show him to be a fringe crank who plays to his fellow fringe cranks.
The establishment media? In the tank for BushCo!
The entire foreign policy establishment? In the tank for BushCo!
Jay Rockefeller? In the tank for BushCo!
Harry Reid? In the tank for BushCo!
Nancy Pelosi? In the tank for BushCo!
Normal people — i.e., excluding steve and Patrick — see this for the raving moonbattery that it is. steve and Patrick, otoh, by showing up to whine about my post, end up outing themselves as part of the fringe. They are wetting themselves over whether Mukasey correctly remembered the source of a telephone call, when the larger point is that the very top Democrats claiming the TSP is illegal also say it is necessary. That big picture is why the Gleens, steves and Patricks ultimately end up being bitter losers in American politics.
Yeah, it seems to me that he WAS referring to the first comment. You want congressional hearings to determine the referent of a vague antecedent, right?
“With respect to his San Francisco speech, who knows whether there was a phone call from Afghanistan. There was none publicly discussed at the time, but that does not mean one did not exist. FISA law as interpreted at that point would not have prevented foreign surveillance.”
With the bolded portion of your above comment, daleyrocks, you are plainly admitting that the Attorney General of the United States lied when he said the following, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle:
“The government “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States,” Mukasey said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to the Commonwealth Club. Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, “we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/28/BA69VROE9.DTL
Aren’t you just the tiniest bit bothered that your Attorney General told a bald-faced lie about 9/11 in order to secure public support for a piece of legislation that is, by your own admission, not-applicable to 9/11?
“It was only later interpretations by FISA judges which required conversations crossing U.S. switches, even if they involved foreign persons, to have warrants supporting eavedropping before or within 72 hours.”
Do those later (and, supposedly, current) interpretations by FISA judges require warrants to be secured in order to listen to calls placed by suspected terrorists known to be outside the U.S. into locations known to be inside the U.S.? If so, could you please provide a cite proving as much? If not, could you explain to me how this applies to Mukasey’s 9/11 speech, as quoted above?
“While Glenn is technically correct that FISA did not prohibit intelligence sharing, the Wall theoretically did, as FISA judges would reject requests for domestic wiretaps based purely on NSA leads.”
Clearly, the subject of domestic wiretapping based purely on an NSA lead does not, in any way, pertain to Mukasey’s 9/11 speech, above, in which he declares that the government “shouldn’t need a warrant when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States.”
Doesn’t it bother you that the Attorney General of the United States would intentionally cite a non-applicable example in order to secure public support for legislation that, again, does not pertain to the example he cites? If the Attorney General wants the public to support passage of legislation that legally tears down “the Wall,” don’t you think the Attorney General should cite an example that pertains to “the Wall,” rather than citing something emotional but irrelevant, like how we shoulda been able to listen to that (alleged) call from that Afghan safe houses but we (allegedly) weren’t and so then 9/11 happened?
“Patrick’ suggestion that Mukasey should apologize for any insinuations that FISA was in part responsible for 9/11 is completely disengenuous given the scheme of arrangement established between the FISA court and the Clinton DOJ. What happened post 9/11 was designed to eliminated those barriers to communication to the extent possible, but of course Greenwald and Patrick would never acknowledge that history.”
I gotta apologize one more time for my thickness here, but I’m not positive of your point. Is it that the Clinton Administration is primarily responsible for the tragedy of 9/11, but I, Patrick Meighan, would never acknowledge it? If it’s that, all I gotta say is that, in 2008, I’m not particularly interested in finger-pointing over 9/11 responsibility. If you say it was Clinton, fine, it was Clinton. Whatever you say.
What I *am* interested in, in 2008, is preventing my civil liberties from being permanently abrogated, especially if that abrogation is facilitated by willfull lies from very powerful men who, after all, are supposed to be serving us, and not the other way around.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
IT’S A POLICE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, try that.
“so Gleens is now arguing that we can intercept phone calls without a warrant?”
So far as I know, Glenn Greenwald has *always* asserted that FISA law (since its inception, up to the current day) allows U.S. intelligence officials to eavesdrop on calls placed by foreign targets residing outside the U.S. without seeking a warrant from the FISA court.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick Meighan–
I’m sorry, but which piece of legislation is it that Mukasey’s supposed to be trying to drum up public support for through misinformation?
Oh, OK KArl – and this shows that Mukasey didn’t lie how exactly? Deflecting that it’s about his remembering the call or not isn’t even the issue we’re arguing about. Maybe you should try and read the thread before posting.
Let’s face it: these guys can do or say whatever they want and you’re not going to call them on it. They’re you boys and that’s that. Don’t worry – you’ve got plenty of think-alikes over at C&L and KOS. You’re not alone.
And above all, we didn’t intercept that call becasue of statutory inadequecies, not internal policies, and it’s OK for the AG to travel the country pointing that out.
I mean, sure it’s demonstrably false but.. uhhh…. Gleeens McSockppupet Ellendburgh!!!!!!
Ohhhh, Ok, I get it now.
Patrick – he’s lying for a good and righteous cause, so it’s all good. That’s all you need to know.
And there you go again, Patrick. The problem is that Gleen(s) must not acknowledge that Gorelick’s rules might have played a role in prohibiting inter-agency communication on NSA information. What’s so difficult about that concept? I mean, you want to bracket Gleen(s), but then you want to cite them.
have you actually listened to the thing? he’s rambling about foreign intelligence gathering and FISA has all kinds of things to do with that since telcos are being taken to court over it.
Wait . . . are we talking about Gleen(s) again, or not?
They don’t care about the question or the context, Maggie. It’s like McCain’s 100 years.
“No, Patrick, this is exactly where you go wrong. Mukasey stated that prior to 9-11 ther inter-agency communication wasn’t there. Why wasn’t it there? In large part because of Gorelick’s rules, which have nothing to do with statute.”
As documented well by steve in post #60, Mukasey’s Commonwealth Club speech asserted that “we have 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that,” with “that” clearly being the alleged requirement that a warrant be secured before intelligence agents may listen to a telephone call originating from known terrorists outside of the U.S. (be they in Iraq or “someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan”). You, yourself, admit as much in Post #63, making your above-quoted post (#55) moot.
“So I ask you once again: where is it that Mukasey’s supposed to be begging for more statutory authority?”
I find it a reasonable inference that when Mukasey declares that the executive branch “shouldn’t need” to do something (in this case, to secure a warrant to listen in “when somebody picks up a phone in Iraq and calls the United States”), Mukasey is lobbying for relief of the requirement that, he says, the executive branch “shouldn’t need.” Do you, truly, find that inference unreasonable?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I was responding to #60, you lawyer.
Yes, I do find it unreasonable to construe, because it is convenient to your narrative, a pure theoretical subjunctive as a request.
Patrick – I think you’ve got the Greenwald style manual memorized.
“With the bolded portion of your above comment, daleyrocks, you are plainly admitting that the Attorney General of the United States lied when he said the following, as quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle”
The answer to this question is none – no part. Are you certain there was no call? The statement I made was who knows if there was a call. You call that admitting the AG lied. I say that makes you an asshat.
Patrick, your unfamiliarity with the pre-9/11 history of FISA, the Gorelick Wall and changes in the program after 9/11 make you an education project. I suggest you search this blog and Greenwald’s and circle back when your are more informed and perhaps less hostile. A conversation then would be more productive.
“for that”= for not knowing where the call went
“Patrick Meighan– I’m sorry, but which piece of legislation is it that Mukasey’s supposed to be trying to drum up public support for through misinformation?”
Attorney General Mukasey is urging the permanent extension of the Protect America Act, with a provision that grants immunity to telecommunications companies who violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant.
His frequently-quoted-within-this-comments-section piece of misinformation appears intended to curry public support for said extension and provision.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
wait, I thought Greenwald said it was okay, so long as the call originated overseas.
What is PAA steve?
What do you mean by permanent? Where is it said it’s permanent? Or is it going to be permanent because it creates a new federal bureaucracy?
You really buy into that whole Greenwald thing that the administration is attempting to scare us into giving up our constitutional liberties because . . . because Republicans are always in the White House, yes?
Where do you stand on Second Amendment Rights?
Where do you stand on anthropogenic global warming and the US giving up aspects of its sovereignty to appease international apparats?
Wait, somebody admitted violating the law? I thought the telcos just wanted protection from the humongous defense costs being racked up in the bogus lawsuits.
Here’s the PAA.
But the preceding makes it clear that the real problem here is that the AG is advocating for a policy that they oppose, and in order to make that seem sinister they feel licensed to construe anything he says any way they like.
“The answer to this question is none – no part. Are you certain there was no call? The statement I made was who knows if there was a call. You call that admitting the AG lied. I say that makes you an asshat.”
Slurs aside (and bypassing the irony of someone who calls me an asshat simultaneously declaring me to be hostile), no, I *don’t* call that part an admission that the AG lied. The part where you admit that the AG lied is the part of your post that I quoted in bold. I’ll quote it (and bold it) again:
“FISA law as interpreted at that point would not have prevented foreign surveillance.”
With that acknowledgment, you are acknowledging that the attorney general was (let’s dial it back from “lied”) *misleading* the American public in alluding to FISA’s warrant requirements as being in any way responsible for 9/11.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
It is nice that Patrick sees the import of our being able to intercept foreign calls. Except that is a police state. You should try to tighten up that argument there, Patrick. Simple question, should the government have the ability to “listen in” on foreign phone calls?
The fact is, Gleen(s) and his ilk are so blinded by BDS that they don’t care what the policy implications are for the US, just so long as the administration is discomfitted. All the better if their interventions cause a serious breakdown that results in catastrophe, because they then can point to the failure as representative of incompetence.
You argue in circles. We are not stating that it was FISA. You haven’t proved to my satisfaction that that is what Mukasey was stating.
Mukasey says that our failure to determine where this call was going to may have prevented us from preventing 9-11. Mukasey suggests that PAA is a good idea.
Seizing on the all-important determiner “that,” Gleen(s) spins a web of all-encompassing skullduggery that proves once and for all that it’s all an elaborate plot to effectuate a Singularity Presidency.
“Wait, somebody admitted violating the law? I thought the telcos just wanted protection from the humongous defense costs being racked up in the bogus lawsuits.”
If the telecoms are being victimized by truly bogus lawsuits that are costing the telecoms legal fees that the telecoms cannot afford, I suggest that the telecoms respond with a SLAPP suit. I do not suggest granting the telecoms (or any American entity, be it a person or a corporation) retroactive immunity for (potentially) illegal acts.
And, of course, you’re correct that none of the telecoms have admitted illegal acts, nor been proven to have committed them in a court of law. That’s why they should have their day in court, like any other American entity. If they’re guilty, let it be proven in a court of law. If they’re innocent, let a court of law bear out that innocence. After all, that’s what the legal process is for… a process that shouldn’t be short-circuited just because the targets of the process are, in this case, wealthy donors to powerful entities on both sides of the legislative aisle.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
How do you feel about immunity as a part of immigration reform?
But the telecoms violated federal law! I swears it! Becuz steve and Patrick and Gigi says so. Only problem is that in orser to make Mukaskey out to be a “liar”, one must also understand that monitoring foreign calls does not constitute a violation of any law. Cognitive dissonance often?
I love argument by assertion, the kind that Patrick is practicing.
“It is nice that Patrick sees the import of our being able to intercept foreign calls. Except that is a police state. You should try to tighten up that argument there, Patrick.”
I’ve never used the words “police state” in my life, and certainly not on this blog. It’s certainly easy to win an argument when you get to make up the words spoken by the other guy.
“Simple question, should the government have the ability to “listen in†on foreign phone calls?”
My own personal views on what specific phone calls I believe the government should or shouldn’t have the ability to listen in on are immaterial. The government *does* have the ability to listen in on phone calls that originate from suspected terrorists outside of American borders, thus no changes to FISA are needed to effectuate that ability.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I call bullshit on Patrick. The civil lawsuits filed are not designed to prove one’s innocence, nor is that how our system is designed. The civil suits are asking for trillions of dollars for imagined damages. Patrick, when Achmed calls your from Syria, can NSA monitor that call? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Do you care at all to respond to this, Patrick? Is it so, or is it not? If it’s not, wouldn’t this be a very good place for Gleen(s) to apply their effort?
steve,
No the issue is whether the US needs to be able to intercept international phone traffic to prevent further terror attacks. There is a broad bipartisan consensus that it is a necessity. And there are fringe cranks like Gleen and you, whining about Mukasey and demanding that telecoms be punished for doing what everyone else thinks was necessary at the time. That Gleens feels compelled to lie to make his crank case is only the icing on the crank cake.
“But the telecoms violated federal law! I swears it! Becuz steve and Patrick and Gigi says so. Only problem is that in orser to make Mukaskey out to be a “liarâ€Â, one must also understand that monitoring foreign calls does not constitute a violation of any law. Cognitive dissonance often?”
Exactly right, monitoring calls that originate from foreign targets does not constitute a violation of any law. Which raises the question of why Attorney General said the government “shouldn’t need a warrant” to monitor a call from a foreign target. If it wasn’t to imply that said non-existent requirement was responsible for September 11 (i.e., “You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that”), then why did he mention it?
Seriously, lemme momentarily grant, ad arguendo, that Mukasey had absolutely no intention of implying that 9/11 was the result of (non-existent) warrant requirements for foreign-target-originated phone calls (such as the one he claims came from a safe house in Afghanistan). Then why’d he mention that non-existent warrant requirement and that alleged Afghani safe house phone call just before tearing up and talking about 9/11?
I’m honestly asking. Why was it in the speech?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
JD
Don’t you realize that BushCo and the telecoms are guilty until proven innocent?
Because their accusers care so much about civil rights!
Why is the changes in technology part in the PAA?
“Do you care at all to respond to this, Patrick? Is it so, or is it not? If it’s not, wouldn’t this be a very good place for Gleen(s) to apply their effort?”
Dan, could you please give me the source and the whole cite so that I can read it and respond?
Thanks,
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
I bet it’s cause technology has a lot changed. A friend of mine came over and he saw my serial ports and … and … he laughed at me. It was very hurtful.
Shouldn’t as an intended effect of FISA as it stood then, and didn’t as an unintended effect of FISA as it stood then are two different things.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html
Because the FISA court has since ruled that even totally foreign target calls need a warrant if any packet of info crosses a US wire.
But you have already been asked to do your homework on this.
This may be eye-opening as well, Patrick:
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11188#comment-333901
“I call bullshit on Patrick. The civil lawsuits filed are not designed to prove one’s innocence, nor is that how our system is designed. The civil suits are asking for trillions of dollars for imagined damages.”
JD, you don’t have a mind-reading machine, and can’t determine the inner motives of the folks who have filed the civil lawsuits.
I, of course, am not someone who filed any such lawsuit, but I do personally support them, not because I stand to gain a penny (’cause I don’t), but because I would like to assure that the Bush administration (and all future administrations, be they Republican or Democrat) comply with federal law, and that the best way to assure future legal compliance is to have full disclosure of prior lawbreaking (if any) with subsequent accountability, and that every other option for disclosure and accountability has been closed off by the Bush administration and its allies in the legislature and in the courts.
JD, I promise you, the telecoms can afford the legal bills. They are very profitable multi-billion dollar conglomerates with warchests that dwarf the other side. If the telecoms broke no laws (as you seem to believe), they have nothing to fear. Ditto the Bush administration, and those serving within it.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Dan, thanks for the link. Much appreciated. Having read it, and speaking only for myself, I’d easily and gladly support any updating of FISA (call it the Protect America Act or whatever you want) that asserts that any calls known to originate from targets known to be overseas should be free of any and all warrant requirements.
In fact, it’s my understanding that Congress has offered to send President Bush a bill that declares exactly that, but President Bush has promised to veto any such bill unless it provides retroactive immunity for telecoms who may or may not have violated the law by spying on Americans without a warrant. So, anyhow, it looks like it’s that particular provision where the disagreement lies.
But as to your original question (the one you posed in post #95… the updating of FISA to clarify that calls originating from foreign targets in foreign lands should be free of warrant restrictions), let it be known that I’m hereby saying: “you betcha, I’m on board.” In fact, I’m pretty sure that I’ve read Glenn Greenwald declare support for just such a provision as well. Hey, maybe the lion is laying down with the lamb on this one! And I’ll be known as the peacemaking intermediary! Yay all around!
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
JD, I promise you, the telecoms can afford the legal bills
Say what? So, anything/one with deep pockets should be occasionally sued? Just because, well, they can afford it? Regardless of their civil-suit level of guilt? To enrich lawyers for no particular reason?
Geez, am I glad didn’t waste my time reading all of your other quickly tedious arguments.
Karl? Dan? You other guys?
You’re all saints to engage this moron.
But you should know better than to engage steve.
“JD, I promise you, the telecoms can afford the legal bills.”
Well, if Patrick Meighan from Culver City, California says it, that should be good enough, right? Problem solved!
You promise me they can afford the legal bills? You gives a flying fuck if they can afford it? That is meaningless. If that is the case, simply do what Baracky is proposing and punitively fine them for being profitable. They can afford it might be the most patently unserious argument advanced here.
We are now to the point where we have to prove innocence in civil court, and in order to do so, have to publicly divulge the inner workings of a purely intelligence gathering apparatus. No fucking thanks. I do not like your world.
Culver City has scary trains.
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the telecoms violated the rights of some Americans in the technical sense, since, parsing the intent of FISA as meaning extra-territorial targets could be monitored without a warrant, they behaved as if no warrant were necessary, when from a technical point of view FISA required warrants in many instances, in spite of the intent of the law. In those cases, would it also be acceptable to provide immunity?
Oh, come on, HF – how could the Culver City that is the home of Patrick Meighan be home to frightening mass transport as well?
Patrick – If you call a foreign number, is that a domestic or foreign call? If listening to foreign calls for intelligence pruposes is alright with you, what criminal enteprise are you asserting the Bush admin to have been involved in?
They can afford it? Did you really say that?
I mean, the dude promised he put his word out there. That counts for something in Culver, or so I’ve heard.
In Culver, they’d overlook the missing bit of punctuation in #115. Salt of the earth, those folks.
“So, anything/one with deep pockets should be occasionally sued? Just because, well, they can afford it? Regardless of their civil-suit level of guilt? To enrich lawyers for no particular reason?”
No, my point was *not* that the telecoms “should be” sued (occasionally or otherwise) because the telecoms can afford it. My point was that the telecoms’s legal fees are no cause to grant the telecoms retroactive immunity for their (potentially illegal) acts, if for no other reason than that the telecoms can very easily afford to pay them.
I don’t think the telecoms “should be” sued ’cause they have deep pockets. I think the telecoms “should be” sued because it appears (to me) that the telecoms violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant, and because suing the telecoms may be the only remaining way to determine if the executive branch also violated federal law, and–if they did–to hold such lawbreakers accountable and disincentivize future lawbreaking by future administrations and corporations.
I agree that it’d be silly to argue that someone should be sued just ’cause they can afford it, and I’m not arguing that here.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“In Culver, they’d overlook the missing bit of punctuation in #115. Salt of the earth, those folks.”
And it’s done. See how we are? You should come by sometime!
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick really should worry more about teh scary trains than whether his phone is tapped. They try to lull you into complacency and then WHAM!
I don’t know, Patrick – one can’t just go to Culver. You’ve got to work up to it, prove your worth in say, Yorba Linda or something. It’s like one of those Joseph Campbell kind of things.
Yorba Linda is where I got my Nixon t-shirt.
“But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the telecoms violated the rights of some Americans in the technical sense, since, parsing the intent of FISA as meaning extra-territorial targets could be monitored without a warrant, they behaved as if no warrant were necessary, when from a technical point of view FISA required warrants in many instances, in spite of the intent of the law. In those cases, would it also be acceptable to provide immunity?”
Dan, you’d have to explain to me which specific Americans had their rights violated in the above example. But I’m guessing you’re talking about phone calls which originated from targets outside of our borders. Is the idea that the American recipients of phone calls from foreign targets off-shore might have standing to sue, were the telecoms not retroactively immunized?
Speaking for myself, I’d be willing to consider a limited immunity targeted to any eavesdropped phone calls that happen to fall within the above class while momentarily falling outside FISA’s purview (by evident ruling of a FISA court). The reason I’d have to consider it (rather than support it outright) is due to my concern that the executive branch, evidently, chose to violate federal law for several years (and asked American corporations to join them in doing so) by eavesdropping on such calls outside of FISA’s purview, rather than simply asking Congress to update federal law in order to fully legalize interception of phone calls within the above class the very day after a FISA court, evidently, imposed warrant restrictions upon them. Following the law is what the government requires of me, and I ask as much of it. Immunizing those who may have flouted the law, to my mind, simply encourages future lawbreaking. I’m not so down with that.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Lawyers in just one of the dozens of class-action suits already filed against the telcos seeks $7.243 trillion in non-punitive damages– an amount roughly half of the GDP of the US.
That cost, like all costs incurred by corporations, are passed along to the customers.
So we can add basic economics to the list of things Patrick should be studying before typing.
“I don’t know, Patrick – one can’t just go to Culver. You’ve got to work up to it, prove your worth in say, Yorba Linda or something. It’s like one of those Joseph Campbell kind of things.”
I’ll talk to some people, put in a good word, it’s done. You can skip the hero journey, the monomyth, and go straight to Honey’s Kettle Fried Chicken.
http://honeyskettle.com/
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick – When did civil courts become the appropriate venue for the government to prove its innocence?
Bookmarking for when I go to Sony. I usually never eat down there and a lot parking is really hard.
And what do you suppose the reason for that might have been?
Does this attitude towards immunizing those who have flouted the law extend to illegal immigrants? Or have they merely flauta-ed it?
Karl – But they can afford it.
$7.243 trillion is just walking around money in Culver City.
“Lawyers in just one of the dozens of class-action suits already filed against the telcos seeks $7.243 trillion in non-punitive damages– an amount roughly half of the GDP of the US. That cost, like all costs incurred by corporations, are passed along to the customers.”
What cost? I thought the folks here are convinced that the telecoms did *not* violate federal law. Thus, there will *be* no costs passed along to the customers.
Right?
Or would you have me believe now that the telecoms perhaps *did* violate federal law?
‘Cause if it’s that–if they *did* violate federal law–then they should be held accountable, like any other lawbreaker. Right?
These are starting to look like questions best left to a court of law. That’s why the founding fathers, in their wisdom, established ’em in the first place.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“Patrick – When did civil courts become the appropriate venue for the government to prove its innocence?”
When the executive branch and the legislative branch closed off every other possible avenue for the government to prove its innocence.
In any event, if the telecoms broke no laws, they have nothing to fear.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
flauta-ed – Great word, Dan.
What cost? I thought the folks here are convinced that the telecoms did *not* violate federal law. Thus, there will *be* no costs passed along to the customers.
Right?In a “loser pays” system, you would be right.
We do not have a “loser pays” system. The telcoms will win their cases but will still run up huge legal bills in doing so — and you and I will be paying for it.
We don’t have a “guilty until proven innocent” system either.
Okay, you’ve officially won me over with the Honey’s Kettle, and waiving the entrance requirements is like above and beyond.
“Karl – But they can afford it.”
JD, I said that the telecoms can easily afford the legal fees for lawsuits on “imagined damages” (your directly quoted assessment of the case in post 97).
The number Karl throws out there is only germane if the telecoms lose the lawsuits (i.e., if the damages aren’t “imagined” and the telecoms aren’t innocent, but rather, the damages are real, and the telecoms are guilty).
But sure, if the telecoms actually *did* violate federal law (a possibility you folks have spent hours refuting), and if they’re found guilty in a court of law, then yup, they’ll be hit with fines they can *not* easily afford to pay.
But, again, why are we even talking about this? You’re not seriously entertaining the thought that the telecoms violated federal law, are you?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Do you have any idea how much money and time the telecoms are being forced to spend these bogus “civil” claims? Who do you think pays for that in the end?
If you broke the law you have nothing to fear. I doubt you would be so cavalier about that were we discussing searches, etc …
Why is it that even the moonbat Dems briefed about this at the time did not have a problem with it. If they are breaking the law, why isn’t anyone being charged with a crime?
Patrick amy be nice, but this is a standard gleenwaldian form of argument.
That’s Patrick Meighan, JD.
“We don’t have a “guilty until proven innocent†system either.”
Nor do we have an “immunized if you’d otherwise have to pay a lawyer” system. We have a legal system, in which those who believe they can prove they’ve been wrongfully damaged have the right to bring their grievance in front of a court of law.
That’s what EFF is doing, and they are well within their rights to do so.
I think we should let the legal system work as intended. And I don’t think it should be controversial to say so.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
But they can afford it!
Actually, my premise — as it has always been here — is that there is a bipartisan consensus that the program is necessary and that the telecoms should not be forced to defend against the lawsuits for cooperating. And that Patrick is part of a crank fringe that hates the Bush administration more than it wants to prevent another terror attack.
Ok whatever. But if my phone bill goes up you have to bring me chocolate chip bagels from Noah’s. We don’t have those in my zone.
And if they settle out of court to avoid enormous litigation fees and some of the money ends up in the hands of terrorists, then what? What are the risks to the plaintiffs if they are not vindicated?
Actually I heard there’s one in Sherman Oaks now.
Patrick – Do you know that nothing in civil court will show that the government broke thaw law? Guilt and innocence are not determined in civil court.
Take a wild guess at what the defense of just one of these suits will cost.
Does that include the parts of the legal system that write and enact laws?
Karl – But they can afford it! After all, they are just big business.
Help the government protect America, and get sued. This is such a fucked up notion. Ironically, given the chance, the Dems in Congress would grant the immunity.
Here go, JD. There are scarier things than getting sued. Except for maybe those trains in Culver City.
ack. Here?
Hahaha, haps. You had me going for a minute. I thought it might be Cheney.
That was just so wrong on many levels, happyfeet.
Ack, Baracky’s “windfall profit penalty” commercial was just on. Patrick and Baracky think alike when it comes to other people’s money.
“Do you have any idea how much money and time the telecoms are being forced to spend these bogus “civil†claims?”
You tell me. What percent is it of the $75B that Verizon grossed in 2005 (from telephone services alone)?
http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/rank.aspx?act=industry
What percent is it of the $30.3B that AT&T grossed in just the last quarter of 2007?
http://finance.google.com/finance?fstype=ii&q=NYSE:T
Or, if you’d prefer to look at profits, how do those legal fees compare to the pre-tax income of $4.7B that AT&T raked in in just the last quarter of 2007?
Evidently, these “bogus ‘civil’ claims” haven’t prevented the telecoms from squirreling away a tidy little profit.
I guess they’re doing okay.
“Who do you think pays for that in the end?”
It’s probably the case that the consumer does. Still, we don’t have a “rule of law unless it causes corporations to raise consumers’ rates.” We have a rule of law. Or we’re supposed to.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“Actually, my premise  as it has always been here  is that there is a bipartisan consensus that the program is necessary and that the telecoms should not be forced to defend against the lawsuits for cooperating. And that Patrick is part of a crank fringe that hates the Bush administration more than it wants to prevent another terror attack.”
There appear to be many folks here who believe they have mind-reading capabilities. I don’t purport to be able to discern your motives, and I’d appreciate a reciprocated courtesy. I’m telling you that my motive, believe it or not, is to see a full accounting of prior lawbreaking (if any) and to see consequences levied for said lawbreaking so as to disincentivize future lawbreaking. I don’t hate the Bush administration, I just want it to follow the law, and if it hasn’t been following the law, I want it to face consequences so that it won’t be tempted to break the law some more.
As to consensus, there is *certainly* a bipartisan consensus that some form of surveillance program is necessary. There does *not* appear to be any consensus (bipartisan or otherwise) as to what checks and balances (if any) should exist to prevent the sorts of privacy abuses that have occurred in the past when surveillance programs have been executed by administrations both Democratic and Republican. There is also no consensus (bi-partisan or otherwise) that corporations who may or may not have violated federal law should be immunized from accounting for those potential crimes. And saying that there is such consensus over and over again won’t make it so, any more than using phrases like “crank fringe” or BDS, or Gleen(s), or other such substitutes for critical thought.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“And if they settle out of court to avoid enormous litigation fees and some of the money ends up in the hands of terrorists, then what?”
I have no idea why this lawsuit settlement money would be any more likely to end up in the hands of terrorists than any other sum of money in circulation would be. This seems like a very specious argument, but if you have an actual piece of evidence to support it (preferably not a press release from the White House, please?), go ahead and link it.
“What are the risks to the plaintiffs if they are not vindicated?”
I’m sorry, I don’t know what you’re asking.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
and y’all haven’t even touched on exposing intelligence gathering methods and hampering further cooperation without loads o’ paperwork (adding delays). go listen to Mukasey’s whole spiel. well, most of the regulars here are already familiar with the arguments, whatevs, it’s starts about forty minutes in.
Well, let’s say, again for the sake of argument, that the firms bringing this litigation don’t really have a case. They subpoena all sorts of internal documents, depose all sorts of people, blah blah blah, and in the end it turns out to have been a wild goose chase which causes the defendants to spend a disproportionate amount of money to respond to. What’s the relative disincentive with respect to the plaintiffs, again?
um, actually, I think there was and the agreed upon members of Congress were briefed on this program and didn’t say “boo” at the time.
Call me cynical:
news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/aclunsa11706cmp.pdf
“Do you know that nothing in civil court will show that the government broke thaw law? Guilt and innocence are not determined in civil court.”
I understand that, but if AT&T is forced to defend itself in civil court, AT&T will have to explain what it did, and why it did it. If, let’s say, AT&T happens to be found liable for damages by virtue of its violation of federal law, and if, let’s say, AT&T contends that it violated federal law because the executive branch asked it to violate federal law, that will–at the very least–constitute public exposure of the executive branch’s malfeasance, which is, at least, a first step toward accountability and will help disincentivize future executive branch malfeasance (certainly more so than the continued concealment of lawbreaking and abuse).
Alternately, AT&T may demonstrate that it is not liable for any damages ’cause it did not violate any federal law, ’cause the executive branch never asked it to violate federal law, and they all come out smelling like a rose!
Let’s let it go to trial and see what happens.
“Take a wild guess at what the defense of just one of these suits will cost.”
Again, I ask how the tally compares to AT&T’s multibillion dollar quarterly profits.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“and y’all haven’t even touched on exposing intelligence gathering methods…”
Intelligence gathering methods can be presented in camera, without public exposure. The FISA court processes cases in which intelligence gathering methods are discussed every day without public exposure. Judicial review does not necessarily translate into public exposure of specific methods.
“…and hampering further cooperation without loads o’ paperwork (adding delays)…”
Under current FISA law, warrants can be applied for up to 72 hours *after* the wiretap has begun. No delays necessary.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
you are not aware of the volume we’re talking about?
Karl – I was kind of joking earlier, but it is clear that Patrick thinks that “they can afford it” is a valid argument. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously if you continue to maintain such a painfully stoopid position.
sorry, this goes back to the packets thing.
“Well, let’s say, again for the sake of argument, that the firms bringing this litigation don’t really have a case. They subpoena all sorts of internal documents, depose all sorts of people, blah blah blah, and in the end it turns out to have been a wild goose chase which causes the defendants to spend a disproportionate amount of money to respond to. What’s the relative disincentive with respect to the plaintiffs, again?”
Oh, what’s the disincentive to the plantiffs imposing a wild goose chase upon the defendant? Well, for one thing, it costs them money. It’s the same disincentive I have keeping you from suing me for… I dunno, carpal tunnel syndrome after arguing on yer blog all day. It’d cost me tons of money and I’d have no chance of winning. If the plantiffs’ case is as frivolous as you appear to believe, they’d be shelling out tons of money with no prospect of success. They, however, appear to disagree with you with respect to the lawsuit’s prospects for success.
God willing, we’ll see who’s correct in a court of law.
“Call me cynical: news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/aclunsa11706cmp.pdf”
I don’t know what your point is with this.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Maggie, I read the packets thing, and that appears to refer to foreign-to-foreign transmissions that happen to pass through U.S. switches. I know of no one (including the hated Gleen(s)) who does not support a revision of FISA to allow such transmissions be eavesdropped upon without a warrant. If the president wanted it, he could get a bill saying precisely that on his desk to sign tomorrow.
So, in those cases, warrant restrictions would not apply and the volume is immaterial.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
maggie – Patrick does not understand that civil court and the FISA court are not the same thing. He is a nice enough chap, but this is really just well traveled ground. He is gleenwaldian, less mendoucheous than the gleens, but advancing the same package of BDS.
the point is, they didn’t have a case against the NSA so they decided to go on a fishing expedition with the telcos in civil court.
“Karl – I was kind of joking earlier, but it is clear that Patrick thinks that “they can afford it†is a valid argument. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously if you continue to maintain such a painfully stoopid position.”
It appears I’m having trouble communicating this one. My position is not that the telecoms should be sued because they can afford it. My position is that the telecoms should be sued because they appear to have broken the law, and that the law should not be retroactively changed in order to free them from legal bills, particularly in light of the fact that the legal bills are something that they can afford.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick,
If Pelosi had dared to bring telcom immunity to the floor of the House, it would have passed, just as it did in the Senate. Instead, she is playing to the crank fringe, so be happy. Unless a whole lot of people die in the interim.
The fact that you think “packets” refers only to foreign calls is only further evidence of the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
“um, actually, I think there was and the agreed upon members of Congress were briefed on this program and didn’t say “boo†at the time.”
a) Several of those members of Congress contend that they were not fully briefed on the program, that certain elements of the program which have since been revealed in the press were concealed from them in the briefings, that they had no way of checking the program’s legality because they were forbidden from discussing it with counsel, and that even if they did wish to moderate or halt the program they had no way to do so.
b) FISA law does not require a warrant for domestic surveillance unless several members of Congress are briefed and don’t say boo. FISA law requires a warrant for domestic surveillance, period.
“the point is, they didn’t have a case against the NSA so they decided to go on a fishing expedition with the telcos in civil court.”
The only reason they didn’t have a case is because the administration exercised its state’s secrets privilege at every turn, when it wasn’t petitioning to have cases thrown out over standing grounds. The administration has never defended the NSA program in a court of law and had said program confirmed to be legal.
Well, finally, there’s a plaintiff that appears to have standing, giving this program the day in court that it richly deserves.
AT&T’s customers deserve to know if their privacy rights have been violated by the company that it trusted, and the American people deserve to know if the executive branch willfully violated federal law over the course of several years. If they’ve done nothing wrong, I expect AT&T will be found not liable and this administration will appear (to all observers) to be the faithful follower of federal law that you all believe it is.
And you can come to Culver City and tell me that you told me so.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Will there be parking and chicken?
Members of Congress were barred from legislating. Okay, Patrick has reached a new level of dumb.
“If Pelosi had dared to bring telcom immunity to the floor of the House, it would have passed, just as it did in the Senate. Instead, she is playing to the crank fringe, so be happy. Unless a whole lot of people die in the interim.”
a) The full House passed a bill that does not include retroactive immunity on 3/14/08. The vote was 213-197. That’s a majority of the House voting for something other than what you say the majority of the House demands, which throws a wrench in your “broad bipartisan consensus” rap, and puts 213 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in the “crank fringe” group you’ve termed.
b) Retroactive immunity has no bearing on whether or not future terrorist attacks can be prevented. Bush can, this very day, have a spying bill on his desk that includes almost everything he wants, but not retroactive immunity. But he’s said he’d veto it. All so AT&T doesn’t have to shell out a miniscule percentage of its multibillion dollar profits on legal fees to fight off a couple of dudes from the EFF? If this program is as necessary as you believe it is, that would appear to be a very irresponsible and dangerous stance for our president to take.
“The fact that you think “packets†refers only to foreign calls is only further evidence of the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.”
That was in reference to the reading assignment that Dan gave me in Post 105.
Why, are we talking about warrantless wiretapping of *domestic* telephone calls as well? Is that what we’re talking about?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick – Your earlier comment about Mukasey’s lies/misleadings, appreciate the dialing down, it was a combination of the FISA Court’s unwillingness to grant domestic eavesdropping warrants to the FBI purely based on NSA leads and restrictions on information sharing between agencies as a result of the Gorelick Wall which I believe Mukasey was referring. As other commenters have mentioned in my absence, those items were the priorities attacked by the Bush Administration post 9/11.
The telecom immunity issue arose much later after democrats began having second thoughts over their support for the program. The standing issue is indeed interesting and I am looking forward to seeing it thrown out in the future. I have not seen one person demonstrate actual harm from the program in any judicial proceeding, have you? As a shareholder of AT&T, I object to the company spending money on this bullshit litigation for actions they took to assist the government in protecting its citizens with the full knowledge of the leadership of Congress. To me its is more partisan theater that should not be occurring. The Senate passed immunity, Pelosi won’t let it come to a vote because she is scared it would pass. Greenwald has been wrong about virually everything he has written regarding the Bush Administration and he is desperately trying to salvage a shred of credibility by dishonestly flogging this issue. Honest readers don’t believe his bilge.
What always fascinates me about this subject is: what is the desired end state?
We can dismiss Patrick’s “nobody here but us chickens” out of hand. There are lots of people, starting with the Congressional oversight committees, who have the authority to bring formal charges. They have not done so. Ergo, no formal charges can be filed because no lawbreaking has occurred. Patrick is assuming lawbreaking and subsequent coverup, and looking for a way to bring it out in public. Sorreee, Patrick, the President’s name is “Bush”, not “Clinton”. No frogmarching will occur.
But again, what’s the desired end state? I see only a few possibilities:
1) The Government cannot do anything in secret.
2) The Government cannot do anything in secret under a Republican administration.
3) The Government cannot do anything in secret so long as the President is George Bush.
4) The Government can do things in secret, but only if approved by a Court.
No. 1 is foolishness. No. 2 appears to be the Pelosi Doctrine. No. 3 is the NYT/Greenwald position. None of those seems particularly useful, so it must be that no. 4 is what is aimed at.
But the assumption is that things are being done in secret. Asking permission in open court to do things in secret sort of defeats the purpose, don’t it? So clearly the Court charged with approving or disapproving secret operations must itself be secret.
The question I have is: How is that better? I mean, if we’re going to have secret Courts listening to secret arguments and issuing secret rulings, in what way does this improve on having, e.g., NSA just go ahead and do it? Will the courtroom have elaborate moldings on the ceiling in the shape of a star?
Regards,
Ric
“Members of Congress were barred from legislating. Okay, Patrick has reached a new level of dumb.”
Members of Congress had *already* legislated. It was something called FISA, and it declared that the exclusive means for domestic wiretapping is to secure a warrant from an FISC.
If, ad arguendo, one of the Gang of 8 (later, Gang of 4) had decided they wanted to put a legislative halt to an NSA program that included domestic surveillance without a warrant, what legislation was said member of Congress supposed to promote? SuperExtraFISA? A law that says, “No really, seriously this time, we mean it that the exclusive means for domestic wiretapping is to secure a warrant from an FISC, no foolin’, guys.”
And how, exactly, would said member of Congress be expected to get such legislation passed (redundant though it may be) when said member of Congress is barred from discussing the program that makes such legislation necessary?
FISA was the law. There was no “You Must Tell The Gang of 8” Law. There was a FISA law.
Is AT&T liable for damages by virtue of violating that law? And, if so, were those violations the result of illegal requests from the branch of our government charged with enforcing the law?
I believe it’ll be great for our democracy if our vaunted legal system gets the opportunity to adjudicate on these questions.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Patrick, they do not appear to have broken the law. The law itself, in fact, allows for exceptions as the COngress may authorize them (as with the Authorization for the Use of Force). Even if that were not the case, the Presidency still has specified powers and obligations under the Constitution which would superceed statute in any event.
You show me that these actions are not related to the President’s specific Constitutional authority, and I’ll grant there could be a case. Until then, your argument is devoid of mositure.
In addition, your comparison of the proceedings of the FISA court to civil court practice is spurious at best. FISA is not a trial court. It is a secret court by it’s nature and, but for that, would amount to little more than a federal magistrate court handling administrative matters, such as approving warrants.
Perhaps you’d be good enough to explain, as EFF has been unable to do so, how plaintifs have standing to bring suit in the first palce. Federal Rules of Civil Prodecure prohibit suits brought as “fishing expeditions” even in matters of far less weight.
They was only trying to help so nobody would get blowed up.
Patrick – Thanks for stopping by. Your attitude on suing the bastards because they can afford it is quite disturbing and you appear to fully ingested Greenwald’s Kool-Aid. Otherwise, after a rough start you’ve been a good guest with admirable staying power.
Legislation; at minimum, Congress would have to revise the Authorizations for Force.
However, that won’t be enough, unless the Presidnet were willing ot roll over for Congress on the usurpation of his Constitutional authority. Realistically it’d take a Constitutional Amendment to prevent.
But prevnetion isn’t the only game in town. Congress is itself fully Constitutionally empowered to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts and to set the rules and procedures for them. By continually changing the rules, the program could be tied up in red tape (they have an excellent road map for this in their previous work–VA claims adjudications).
Or forego the legislative route and just go public. That would, of course, require a quantum of courage so is probably unworkable.
“What always fascinates me about this subject is: what is the desired end state? We can dismiss Patrick’s “nobody here but us chickens†out of hand. There are lots of people, starting with the Congressional oversight committees, who have the authority to bring formal charges. They have not done so.”
When you say “formal charges,” I assume you’re talking about impeachment. Right? Is that Congress’s only prerogative, in your mind? ‘Cause this Congress subpeonas documents, and the subpeonas are frequently ignored by this administration. This Congress summons executive officials to testify and declares them to be in Contempt of Congress when the officials refuse, and the world keeps on spinnin’ and the AG refuses to enforce. What, short of impeachment, is Congress supposed to do to act as a check on this administration?
“4) The Government can do things in secret, but only if approved by a Court… it must be that no. 4 is what is aimed at. But the assumption is that things are being done in secret. Asking permission in open court to do things in secret sort of defeats the purpose, don’t it? So clearly the Court charged with approving or disapproving secret operations must itself be secret.”
It’s possible to have a court case (even a public court case) in which classified information remains classified. I’m gonna do what must never be done and quote he who must never be quoted on this:
“Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in “open court.†There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information  closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex parte communications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge  and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases  is going to allow “disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence.†And Mukasey knows that. Worse, FISA itself (50 USC 1806(f)) explicitly provides that telecoms are permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (both in camera and ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. Just go read 50 USC 1806(f) of FISA; it’s as clear as day. In fact, it doesn’t merely permit, but explicitly requires, the federal judge to review evidence in secret whenever the Attorney General requests that (â€Âthe United States district court in the same district . . . shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance.â€Â).
Beyond that, the key provision of the House’s FISA bill expressly provides that any classified information in the telecom lawsuits shall be submitted in secret to the federal judge. Mukasey’s claims that these lawsuits will result in disclosure of classified information in open court is a complete lie  term used very advisedly.”
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7962/
Back to Ric, now:
“The question I have is: How is that better? I mean, if we’re going to have secret Courts listening to secret arguments and issuing secret rulings, in what way does this improve on having, e.g., NSA just go ahead and do it? Will the courtroom have elaborate moldings on the ceiling in the shape of a star?”
I dunno, man. I happen to believe in checks and balances. Maybe the Watergate Hotel doesn’t get broken into if Nixon has to get a court (even a secret court) to okay it ahead of time. Maybe JFK doesn’t bug Martin Luther King Jr.’s telephone if he has to run it by a judge (even if that judge issues his ruling outside of the public eye).
Time and again, history tells us that if we trust the executive with that kind of unchecked power, it gets abused. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are no more immune to temptation than anyone else. You don’t want them to have that kind of power, and neither do I. So let’s not let them have it.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
WTF?
That was weird.
“Patrick, they do not appear to have broken the law. The law itself, in fact, allows for exceptions as the COngress may authorize them (as with the Authorization for the Use of Force). Even if that were not the case, the Presidency still has specified powers and obligations under the Constitution which would superceed statute in any event.”
The above arguments would all be excellent arguments for the executive branch to make in a court of law. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has steadfastly refused to defend its program in a court of law. Which should give you an idea of the level of confidence the Bush Administration has in the above arguments.
“Perhaps you’d be good enough to explain, as EFF has been unable to do so, how plaintifs have standing to bring suit in the first palce. Federal Rules of Civil Prodecure prohibit suits brought as “fishing expeditions†even in matters of far less weight.”
The EFF contends that AT&T’s customers have had their privacy rights violated by AT&T when it engaged in warrantless wiretapping and data-mining of its customers’ communications. As an AT&T customer myself, I can tell you that I, personally, want to trust AT&T to protect my privacy rights from all inquisitors, including government ones, unless or until said investigators can present a valid warrant. If AT&T has violated that trust, I think I deserve to know it, and I think I deserve to know why they did it.
Now, does the above count as standing? I guess we’ll find out. If it doesn’t, there’s no doubt that the judge (a Bush 41 appointee) will throw the EFF out on its ear (perhaps on the basis of those “Federal Rules of Civil Prodecure” you cite).
So far, of course, he has done no such thing.
Let’s let a court decide. That’s what it’s there for.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Well, I’d say the wolf pack attack on our two guests goes a long way to proving Jeff G was right: there’s no admonition toward groupthink here. It already existed without his persuasion.
As to RTO’s John Yoo argument, can you just summarize like Yoo, RTO? “Is it okay for a government agent to crush the testicles of a child on the President’s order?”
John Yoo/RTO/Unitary Executive/Article Two war powers trump statute/bullshit answer: Well, it depends why the President ordered that.
You want to be with those guys, 28% fringe lunatics? Be my guest, but this freakin’ site gets more crazy and more entertaining everyday. Remember, you don’t all think alike because your Lord and Master said so up above! The hours of chorus-like defense, witty asides, profane observations, and kindergarten taunts prove nothing.
maggie, and happyfeet,
The point is, an unchecked executive will abuse its power.
As an American citizen, I’m much more comfortable knowing that it takes two branches of government to impinge upon my liberty, not just one. And it’s got nothing to do with whether or not there’s elaborate moldings on the courtroom ceiling.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Erm. By ANY administration. And rightly so. There’s supposed to be a tension there. That’s the Administration acting as a check on Congress which often oversteps its bounds in asking for more than it has a right to.
You presume that Congress’ motives and actions are pure? I certainly don’t see the belief in checks and balances here.
yaddayadda. If you’re going to take this route, you’d better spell it out. Which times and agains are you refering to. (This should be good.)
I’m just trying to figure out how breaking into the Watergate was a matter of national security and/or somehow defensible.
“Patrick – Thanks for stopping by. Your attitude on suing the bastards because they can afford it…”
I don’t know how many times I can say that I don’t believe in “suing the bastards because they can afford it.”
I believe in suing the bastards because they violated the law and the privacy of their customers.
There are plenty of large corporations and rich individuals who “can afford it” but whom I have no particular desire to be sued.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
you have proof of this?
“I’m just trying to figure out how breaking into the Watergate was a matter of national security and/or somehow defensible.”
It was neither. It was just an example of what an unchecked executive branch will do.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
or just your random criminal. whatevs.
maggie,
No, I don’t have proof of this. But EFF does… or at least they have enough evidence to prevent the case from being summarily dismissed by Judge Vaughn Walker (Bush 41). They have evidence of an NSA-controlled room in the Folsom Street AT&T facilities in San Francisco. And they have evidence that AT&T diverted copies of their customers’ internet traffic into that NSA-controlled room.
As an AT&T customer with an expectation of privacy in my personal communications in the absence of a valid warrant (and, furthermore, a legal right to said privacy as guaranteed by FISA), I deserve to know what (if anything) the NSA was doing with my emails in that room, and if they had a legal basis for doing it (whatever it was).
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
John, you foind me a real situation to discuss and we’ll talk. There was no such order, no such father, not such child…it’s a hypothetical and a strawman. You simply appear to wish to be offended by this subject so you deliberaly reinterpret my statements. Yoo appears to be a poor lawyer–he gave an incorrect answer regarding the existance of a law that would prohibit the deliberatly formulated, inflamatory order and he allowed himself to be baited into answering a question that was falacious on its face.
Unitary Executive: it’s a red herring.
Constitutional supremacy: This is a basic rule of US jurisprudence. All federal laws must conform to the Consitution. If you want to change the Constitution it takes an amendment. A simple act of Congress is insufficent. Congress cannot rescind the President’s authority as Commander in Chief nor as the Executive of the United States. If you have an argument to make on the merits, I’d be happy to listen, but please quit pestering people with simple refutation.
what (if anything) the NSA was doing with my emails in that room. I had breakfast with liberals Sunday. I had this fried tuna salad thinger with eggs and swiss cheese. The liberal jewish one across from me had the same. The gay one had banana pancakes, and the really pretty but really really thin waitress/actress one had some kind of omelette. We didn’t get coffee cause there was a twenty minute wait so we had walked over to Starbucks. It was the first time where I remember not thinking why am I hanging out with liberals but more why am I hanging out with stupid people? Then we all went to Target.
It’s just I don’t say enough I think how much I appreciate all you guys is all. 28% is a lot an optimistic estimate of you guys’s prevalence I think. Also it was frustrating cause the banana pancakes looked really really good but I already lost 5 pound last week and I didn’t want to screw it up.
“or just your random criminal. whatevs.”
Laws, not men, maggie. I don’t believe in giving this administration (or any future administration) unchecked power in the hope that prior abuses of unchecked power were simply carried out by “just your random criminal,” and that this administration (or future administrations) are more worthy of my trust.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
It was just an example of what an unchecked executive branch will do.
Fuckin’ A! You should need Congressional approval before breaking and entering private business!
Moron.
*pounds* … we’re still doing that weigh-in thing at work but I was alone in the office on Friday so I had to weigh and write down the number on the sheet Other Guy made that hangs in the kitchen and I overshot my target by three pounds so if I gain before I weigh again it’ll look really sketchy I think.
That should be for an investigation to determine and presented for an indictment. That’s how our system is supposed to work. Then if someone has reason (that is standing) to beleive that thy have been injured by this then can bring a civil suit.
Until someone makes some finding of facts, you need to stop phrasing your allegations as statements.
“Constitutional supremacy: This is a basic rule of US jurisprudence. All federal laws must conform to the Consitution. If you want to change the Constitution it takes an amendment. A simple act of Congress is insufficent. Congress cannot rescind the President’s authority as Commander in Chief nor as the Executive of the United States.”
If this is meant to pertain to the current subject (the warrantless eavesdropping, in evident violation of federal law), this, again, would be an interesting argument for the Bush Administration to present to a court of law. Why do you suppose the Bush Administration has, to this point, steadfastly refused to lay out this case in a court of law? Wouldn’t it be a slam dunk?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
*sigh* going back to your comment…..
you do know that the Watergate break in was related to Nixon’s re-election campaign? sure, sure, he tried to cover it up, but really it had nothing to do with Executive power or government business. under those circumstances it wouldn’t be legal for ANYONE, EVER to break in. much less for civilians to somehow obtain court permission to do it.
If there never were any of your e-mails in that room?
BTW, EFF doesn’t give a damn about the cost they’ll pay. They aren’t spending their own money, jsu thte money of the poor suckers that decide to contribute to this brand of legal hooliganism. They have no stake in this fight whatsover.
Doubtless, neither do you.
Why do you suppose the Bush Administration has, to this point, steadfastly refused to lay out this case in a court of law? Wouldn’t it be a slam dunk?
What part of secret do these drooling imbeciles not understand? I swear to God I believe this country is doomed, there are just too many suicidally ignorant voters to survive.
“Fuckin’ A! You should need Congressional approval before breaking and entering private business! Moron.”
Actually, you should need a warrant from a judge before breaking and entering a private business on the order of the President of the United States.
The reason that it is now a law that you need a warrant from a judge before doing such things as breaking and entering a private business on the order of the President of the United States is that, in the absence of such a law, previous presidents did such things as ordering break-ins of hotel rooms, and psychiatrists’ offices, and private residences of political rivals.
As an aside, y’all do a fair bit of namecalling in this place.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
That’s what I mean about the stupid.
Patrick, not one of the arguments I’ve presented are my own original thinking. They come from various government briefs and documetns on this particular subject. I found them on the internet in researching these questions for myself.
Perpahs you aren’t sa well informed on all of this as you’d like to think?
Oh. That was at #202, not #203. I would never call you stupid Patrick. Never ever.
The reason that it is now a law that you need a warrant from a judge before doing such things as breaking and entering a private business on the order of the President of the United States is that, in the absence of such a law, previous presidents did such things as ordering break-ins of hotel rooms, and psychiatrists’ offices, and private residences of political rivals.
The reason it is now a law? It wasn’t a law under Nixon? What The Fuck?
Is this dude serious?
As an aside, y’all do a fair bit of namecalling in this place.
Only when it is appropriate. In your case I am all out.
“What part of secret do these drooling imbeciles not understand? I swear to God I believe this country is doomed, there are just too many suicidally ignorant voters to survive.”
Again with the namecalling. That’s not typically a sign of a watertight argument.
That said, I commend you on your credulous and innocent trust of the government. Our leaders must be so gratified to know that their dominion contains a loyal subject such as yourself who won’t question them and will accept, on blind faith, their every assurance, without subjecting said assurances to critical thought or any form of independent verification. You’re their favorite! Their absolute favorite!
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Depends on under what authority the President issues that order. As a Soldier, I can be ordered to kick in doors of all manner of private property, and to kill and destroy whatever is inside to boot and it’s all legal.
Perhaps you’d like to plead gross oversimplification and revise and extend that remark?
Patrick is a free thinker, you see.
Our enemies must be so gratified to know that their dominion contains a loyal subject such as yourself who won’t question them and will accept, on blind faith, their every assurance, without subjecting said assurances to critical thought or any form of independent verification. You’re their favorite! Their absolute favorite!
See how it works?
Very free, HF.
well of course. who would pay good money for that?
and it’s nice to see someone else that doubts Congress’ competence. I guess.
Patrick, I commend you on your credulous and innocent trust of Congress. The House and Senate must be so gratified to know that their dominion contains a loyal subject such as yourself who won’t question them and will accept, on blind faith, their every utterance, without subjecting said utterances to critical thought or any form of independent verification. You’re their favorite! Their absolute favorite!
“The reason it is now a law? It wasn’t a law under Nixon? What The Fuck? Is this dude serious?”
Listen, clearly Watergate was a bad example. Let me retract it, with my apologies.
Better examples of unchecked executive abuse include LBJ’s surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr. (and the FBI’s attempt to instigate his suicide), Truman’s surveillance of a former FDR advisor that Truman personally despised, and Nixon’s ordering of the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in pursuit of information with which to smear Ellsberg.
None of the above happened because Truman, Johnson or Nixon were uniquely corrupt individuals. They happened because those three men had a great deal of power and no legal apparatus to restrain them. FISA is intended to be the modern day restrain upon the above sorts of abuses.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
um, are you sure it wasn’t something more like this?
no, no, I’m sure it’s obviously for nefarious purposes.
What, we neocons now find that the Faux Liberal Cult members are possibly even more deranged than “normal” due to the fact of the Bush Adm.’s perfect record in preventing further 911-like attacks upon America – as a result of changing the perfectly unsuccessful Clinton+Gorelick Policy to the manifestly enlightened Bush Policy which has probably obtained since very shortly after 9/11?
Sorry, Flibs, your Progressive worsening BDS and phobic fear of reality and life is not much of a surprise.
“Patrick, I commend you on your credulous and innocent trust of Congress. The House and Senate must be so gratified to know that their dominion contains a loyal subject such as yourself who won’t question them and will accept, on blind faith, their every utterance, without subjecting said utterances to critical thought or any form of independent verification. You’re their favorite! Their absolute favorite!”
In what world am I some blind follower of Congress?
Upthread I’m called a fringe crank with beliefs way out of line with Congress’s bipartisan consensus, and now all of the sudden I’m Congress’s water-carrier?
You guys are gonna have to confer amongst yourselves and choose one consistent story.
In any event, let me say here and now that I don’t want an unchecked legislative branch any more than I want an unchecked executive one. Do you see me here arguing for unrestrained surveillance powers for congressional agents? Am I saying that the dictates of Congress should escape judicial scrutiny whenever Congress declares said privilege?
No, and no.
Back to the drawing board with this one.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“um, are you sure it wasn’t something more like this?… no, no, I’m sure it’s obviously for nefarious purposes.”
You know what, maggie? It could very well be something more like that.
Let AT&T declare as much in a court of law. If they have evidence proving as much, let them present it to the judge, if not publicly, then in camera, or ex parte.
Let the judicial process determine the truth of the matter. Fair?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
You still haven’t addressed 210, Patrick, why are you more afraid of an Executive who can be voted out in 4 years, and has to leave in 8, than an enemy sworn to try to destroy us until the end of time?
I’m just sayin’ one room does not a court case make. nobody has any evidence they’ve been harmed by this. it’s all, please show us you’ve been spying on us, cause we just know you have. I know, I know, Congress hasn’t seen fit to demand charges be brought or that there be an investigation, but we know stuff they don’t get in classified briefings. so please waste some time and money so we can hamper some intelligence gathering.
The ACLU/EFF is not about fair. That’s really kind of naive.
“Depends on under what authority the President issues that order. As a Soldier, I can be ordered to kick in doors of all manner of private property, and to kill and destroy whatever is inside to boot and it’s all legal.”
There is, of course, a law restraining the executive branch from unchecked exercise of that power as well, thank God in heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
You don’t want President Obama with the unchecked power to order soldiers to kick down *your* doors in ’09, right?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
unless there’s hurricane recovery work to be done!
sorry, havin’ a flashback there.
Patrick doesn’t get that the fact that the House passed a bill w/o immunity is not the same as showing that a bill with immunity would not have passed the House with an equal or larger majority — which is why Pelosi barred any vote on a bill w/ immunity. He has fallen for the old bait-and-switch. So gullible.
He also doesn’t get that any of the “Big Eight” could have amended FISA in the ways that it has since been amended and in ways currently under discussion to eliminate any doubt as to the TSP’s legality — that they did not suggests acquiescence in the operation of the program. Or they could have stuck a rider in the black budget defunding the program. They had options; they did no more thansend a CYA letter to Dick Cheney.
So we add political science to the list of things Patrick is not too sharp on.
Patrick later writes;
So we can add law to the list of things Patrick does not know much about. Surviving a motion to dismiss does not involve the consideration, let alone weighing of evidence; it is merely a review of the allegations which are assumed to be true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss.
As for the “evidence” Partick cites, I will refer Patrick to Strata’s analysis. Which adds telecom tech to the list of things Patrick does not know much about.
It is of course typical of the crank fringe to not really have much idea of what they are talking about. I am not a fan of baseless name-calling, but sometimes a label is accurate. This is one of the latter cases.
Congressional agents? Now that would be an userpation of the Executive that even you should be able to spot.
Kennedy/Johnson had (unnecessary, Katz, and subsequent legislation, wouldn’t be decided until 1967) warrants to surveil King. Nixon was simply unrestrained by the laws that existed, not left to his own devices and would surely have skirted any other barrier erected. Truman’s surveillance of Corcoran resulted in no legislative changes (nor do your other examples), so doesn’t seem to be illustrative of your point.
You’ll have to try again.
ha, I beat you, Karl! thought I had to hunt and hunt and ask RTO a stupid question just so I could hear it out loud and think of the right words to search under.
for the Strata thing, I mean.
“You still haven’t addressed 210, Patrick, why are you more afraid of an Executive who can be voted out in 4 years, and has to leave in 8, than an enemy sworn to try to destroy us until the end of time?”
Because the executive branch has more power to permanently damage this republic than any external enemy.
OBL can take down a building or maybe set off a dirty bomb on my front yard, but he can’t permanently change the very fabric of our republic by sweeping away checks and balances that prevent inordinate power from accruing in two very powerful hands. Only a presidential administration can do that, and only if it’s abetted by a supine Congress, a solicitous judiciary, a somnambulant media, and a voting public that couldn’t be bothered to give a damn.
Given the choice of that front yard dirty bomb or an end to our republican government, I, personally, will take the bomb.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
A neighbor of yours visits your home and thinks he saw methamphetamine equipment stashed in a room there. Instead of going to the police, files a class action suit against you alledging that if your are producing methin the neighborhood, that action will lower the property values and attract a criminal element. Fair?
I’ll appologize now for the flaw in my example–the neighbor has at least some semblance of standing and a credible theory of damage.
We get similar snark here all the time. And the invariable response is that we don’t live our lives under the paranoid delusion that our political opponents are going to turn the US into a police state. That’s your gig.
Also he bowls like a girl. He’s just not fearsome like that.
So glad Patrick has finally come all the way out of the closet on this. He fears his fellow citizens far more than he fears the head-hackers. I thank him for clearing that up. And I wish him every success in putting that in the Democratic platform. I hope Obama makes it the main theme of his campaign.
There is, of course, a law restraining the executive branch from unchecked exercise of that power as well, thank God in heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
You don’t want President Obama with the unchecked power to order soldiers to kick down *your* doors in ‘09, right?
—————–
I don’t have to worry about an Obama administration. Even if he were elected, the major characteistic will be paralysis by analysis. He’d simply never get around to issing the order, even if it were the right thing to do.
Posse Comitatus was passed to prevent County Sheriffs and other local officers from deputizing the military. The military (National Guard/militia specifically) may be used (that pesky Constitution again) to enforce the law. And we do.
Patrick also assumes America’s invincibility, which I pointed out to him a couple of years ago at Shrink Wrapped.
This is exactly the crank thinking I noted back in comment 62, btw. And the paranoid style mentioned in the main post. Only teh Gleen(s) and his sycophants are True Patriots — impugning the patriotism of the entire government, the media and their fellow citizens, even as they demand that no one question theirs.
You’d already made that abundantly clear, but thanks for being up front about it.
And no, the Presidnet can’t sweep away checks and balances. Since your altenative is a paranoid fantasy, that makes your choice the more damning.
…invincibility to foreign threat
“He also doesn’t get that any of the “Big Eight†could have amended FISA in the ways that it has since been amended and in ways currently under discussion to eliminate any doubt as to the TSP’s legality  that they did not suggests acquiescence in the operation of the program.”
a) No one on the Gang of 8 had (or has) the power to unilaterally amend FISA. That takes a piece of legislation passed by Congress (and signed by the president), which would’ve been quite a feat for one of the Gang of 8 to muster, given the fact that the Gang of 8 were proscribed from mentioning this program to their colleagues in Congress.
b) The Gang of 8 were unable to effectively verify the NSA program’s legality, given that all they knew about it was what they were told in briefings (which, per some of them, did not include key details that would’ve cost it their support), and that they were unable to consult with staff as to the program’s legality.
c)I don’t give two poops about whether or not the Gang of 8 were a-okay with the program. FISA requires a warrant from a judge to spy on Americans. It’s federal law. Support (or lack there-of) from 8 handpicked congressman does not confer legality on domestic wiretapping in the absence of a judge’s warrant.
“Or they could have stuck a rider in the black budget defunding the program. They had options; they did no more thansend a CYA letter to Dick Cheney.”
Again, Congress’s failure to defund the NSA program does not make it legal for the executive to have engaged in domestic wiretapping without a warrant. If that’s what the executive did, then it appears that the executive violated federal law, and it doesn’t matter if the Gang of 8, or all of Congress, cheered it on, or protested vociferously, or stood around with its thumb up its collective legislative ass.
And the third thing, clearly, is what it did, making Congress (in my mind) partly responsible for any laws which may or may not have been violated in this whole affair.
Now tell me again what a blind and unwavering supporter of Congress I am.
“As for the “evidence†Partick cites, I will refer Patrick to Strata’s analysis. Which adds telecom tech to the list of things Patrick does not know much about.”
I read it. It’s highly speculative, and does not directly pertain to the NSA’s room on Folsom street, and does not explain why AT&T’s customers’ emails would be diverted into that sequestered space. Still, if it’s all as innocent as Strata theorizes, AT&T should be able to clear this thing up with Judge Walker (Bush 41) in all of 10 minutes.
So have no fear, AT&T will be proven totally innocent on Day 1 and we’ll all still have time for lunch.
Right?
Right?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
The operative words: “To spy on Americans.” Can’t show that that has happened, no case.
“A neighbor of yours visits your home and thinks he saw methamphetamine equipment stashed in a room there. Instead of going to the police, files a class action suit against you alledging that if your are producing methin the neighborhood, that action will lower the property values and attract a criminal element. Fair?
I’ll appologize now for the flaw in my example–the neighbor has at least some semblance of standing and a credible theory of damage.”
Let him or her file. That’s what the court system exists for. I may not be thrilled to be sued, but I’d much rather face the suit than see our system of judicial redress be unraveled on my behalf, simply because I’m more powerful than the plantiff and have been able to bribe lawmakers into retroactively immunizing me.
Let the judicial system do its work.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
You don’t want President Obama with the unchecked power to order soldiers to kick down *your* doors in ‘09, right?
I think he would send the Nation of Islam’s bowtie brigade.
Yeah, in the wake of 9/11, if members of the Big 8 had proposed amendments to FISA, no one could have figured out what was going on. And the black budget point still stands. You now want to drag Congress into it? No surprise, given your paranoia, as mentioned above.
FISA does not require a warrant to spy on Americans. It requires it if you are targeting a US person or collecting the intell on US soil. Try reading the statute.
And Strata is referring to the expert affidavit purporting to explain the very room in question. Reading is a skill you might want to acquire. And I daresay his speculation is more informed than yours. And not driven by distrust of the entire government, media, and electorate.
But you’re content to let the system of redress be unravelled on your neighbor’s behalf instead? Incredible.
It’s backward and you can’t see it. Just amazing.
“We get similar snark here all the time. And the invariable response is that we don’t live our lives under the paranoid delusion that our political opponents are going to turn the US into a police state. That’s your gig.”
I live my life under the delusion that our government should be one of laws, not men. That’s my gig. It was John Adams’s gig, too.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
He doesn’t want the judicial system undone by the legislative process. So much for that whole “check-and-balance” thing his ilk claims to revere.
now, Karl, he does seem to trust him some judges.
I didn’t know lunch was in question. That’s messed up.
“So glad Patrick has finally come all the way out of the closet on this. He fears his fellow citizens far more than he fears the head-hackers. I thank him for clearing that up. And I wish him every success in putting that in the Democratic platform. I hope Obama makes it the main theme of his campaign.”
Karl, FWIW, I’m not a Democrat. Barack Obama does not represent the issues that are important to me, and I won’t be voting for him. My beliefs are of no consequence to him.
And I fear the very, very powerful more than I fear the much less powerful. Our government is very, very powerful. It has abused its power before. It will again.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
John Adams? You must be kidding. I’ll add US history to your list of deficiencies.
Wow. Culver City’s suddenly in play.
I smell NOR LAUP.
John Adams wouldn’t be able to recognize you.
You aren’t advocating government of law. You’re advocating ad hoc amendment of the civil justice system and layman (ill-informed layman at that) understanding of law and a dismissal of teh entire investigative process of the criminal justice system.
Patrick – So far you don’t know whether AT&T has got your emails in that locked room, you are not claiming any damages, but are in favor of a massive and expensive lawsuit that is really a fishing expedition to see in fact if they have in fact been following the law.
Is that really the way our judicial system is supposed to function? Isn’t somebody supposed to claim they were damaged by the actions of someone else and then seek redress (in this case)? Are the descriptions that Bush provided of the program in public really enough for people to claim that they were victims of surveillance without any more burden of proof on their part? It really does sound like one giant potential payday for the plaintiff’s bar if they succeed, with nothing much to lose if they don’t, plus they get to embarrass Bush in the process while going fishing.
Personally, I thought you had to have the semblance of a case before filing suit.
“The operative words: “To spy on Americans.†Can’t show that that has happened, no case.”
Assuming that’s true, AT&T has absolutely nothing to fear.
So why are you bothering to argue for the case’s dismissal?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
…he can’t permanently change the very fabric of our republic by sweeping away checks and balances…
Checks and balances were swept away with the direct election of Senators. I am going to retire now and see if Patrick has figured that one out by morning.
Karl, FWIW, I’m not a Democrat.
We have heard these words before. Perhaps he is a vegetarian.
It has abused its power before. It will again.
These amy be the only two sentences I’ve been able to agree with you on all night.
Thing is that despite knowing this to be true, I also have a grasp of history and know that redress (by proper methods) has been the rule.
And I’m only considering actual abuses, not boogy-men under the bed on Folsom Street.
I mean, if you’re not doing anything wrong why worry about being spied on?
“And no, the Presidnet can’t sweep away checks and balances. Since your altenative is a paranoid fantasy, that makes your choice the more damning.”
Well, just as a hypothetical, can the President unilaterally declare an American citizen to be an enemy combatant and then hold said American citizen indefinitely without trial? Or would such a thing be a paranoid fantasy that only crank thinkers could envision?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Because a hearing represents a danger of exposing means and methods. That you think in camera, ex parte testimony is sufficient guard is indication that we can add intelligence collection and counter-intelligence to Karl’s list of yoru deficinecies.
Assuming that’s true, AT&T has absolutely nothing to fear.
So why are you bothering to argue for the case’s dismissal?
The bastards can afford to defend it, after all they make billions!
“I mean, if you’re not doing anything wrong why worry about being spied on?”
Assuming you’re not simply being snarky, the answer is that I have a legal right to be secure in my person, house, papers and effects and that right may not be legally abrogated without an individualized warrant.
AT&T has no legal right to not be sued, or to be protected from having to pay legal fees.
I guess that would be the main difference.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Well, just as a hypothetical, can the President unilaterally declare an American citizen to be an enemy combatant and then hold said American citizen indefinitely without trial? Or would such a thing be a paranoid fantasy that only crank thinkers could envision.
Patrick – Absolutely, straight out of Greenwald. Are we not a nation of laws!
I won’t discuss hypotheticals (read; strawman) with you. Give me a real example and we’ll talk.
but I thought corporations were, to an extent, legal entities. don’t they have rights?
The government has a legal right to protect it’s intelligence collection. AT&T should not be punished for doing what was legally asked of it.
Here’s a non-hypothetical:
Does AT&T, on behalf of its millions of owners, have a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?
(hint: this is a legal question that has been answered by the US Supreme Court)
maggie – Corporations are eeevulll!!!11!!eleventy!1
Corporations are, under law, individuals, just like Mr. Patrick here and have the same rights as any other individual. (That’s the purpose, in fact, of the word, “incorporate.”)
Given the choice of that front yard dirty bomb or an end to our republican government, I, personally, will take the bomb.
Obviously you still don’t recognize that your “taking the bomb” policy, vs preventing the bomb as the Bush policy has successfully pursued, will result in an inexorable loss of your republican government and your liberty, bringing about exactly that which you claim to fear.
That’s another same-old same-old example of the deranged, denialistic Faux Liberal thought process, the recognition and analysis of which your fellow Cult member, Doyle, sees as “groupthink”, when it is instead your own thought process which is so rotely groupist and idiotic that it’s simply just not that much of a surprise.
It also smacks of the usual Ghandian deathworship.
History?
Here’s Patrick’s take on Patrick Henry:
Which of the following did Patrick Henry fear more: a) the loss of his liberty, or, b) foreigners who wanted to kill him?
Hint, the answer is *not* a).
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Posted by: Patrick Meighan | May 13, 2006 at 12:39 AM at Shrink Wrapped
oh, I forgot. you got me daleyrocks!
and also Kyoto.
“Because a hearing represents a danger of exposing means and methods. That you think in camera, ex parte testimony is sufficient guard is indication that we can add intelligence collection and counter-intelligence to Karl’s list of yoru deficinecies.”
For a bunch of tough-talking macho folk, you people sure do scare good and hard. We can’t let the judicial system play out because there’s a chance that the terrorists could somehow glean a piece of information from in camera testimony that they would then use to kills us all!
I’m a military brat, and it really meant something to me that my dad took an oath to protect and defend the *Constitution* of the United States of America. He didn’t take an oath to protect and defend the people of the United States of America. I always took that to mean that our republican form of government and our liberties are more important, and more worthy of defense, than any of our individual lives. I always took that to mean that our liberty is more important than our personal security. I don’t think I was wrong.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
“I won’t discuss hypotheticals (read; strawman) with you. Give me a real example and we’ll talk.”
Okay, here’s a real example:
Can the President unilaterally declare an American citizen to be an enemy combatant and then hold said American citizen indefinitely without trial?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1068651194311
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
except, he, um, got a trial.
Still not answering whether that Constitution allows people represented by a corporate board to petition the government?
well, there’s a bit of hyperbole there, but does the name Lynn Stewart ring any bells?
Also he was al-Qaida. I hate those fuckers.
I don’t know why, it’s not like they can kill ALL OF US!!!eleventhousand hundred!!1!!!
“Patrick – So far you don’t know whether AT&T has got your emails in that locked room, you are not claiming any damages, but are in favor of a massive and expensive lawsuit that is really a fishing expedition to see in fact if they have in fact been following the law. Is that really the way our judicial system is supposed to function? Isn’t somebody supposed to claim they were damaged by the actions of someone else and then seek redress (in this case)?”
I am an AT&T customer and I am, in fact, claiming damages by the actions of someone else (that someone else being AT&T). And the EFF (on behalf of AT&T customers, of which I am one) is seeking redress.
As an AT&T customer, I have reason to believe that my private communications were tapped by AT&T without a warrant as required by federal law. That’s just as illegal as if my neighbor were grabbing all the letters out of my mailbox each day and reading them without my knowledge. If I had evidence that that were the case, I would be within my rights to file suit against my neighbor, and if the court agreed that my evidence was solid and that I could demonstrate damages, it would likely rule in my favor, against my neighbor. If the court considered my evidence to be flimsy, it would likely rule against me. By the same token, EFF believes that it has evidence proving that AT&T tapped its customers private communications without those customers’ consent, and in violation of federal law. The customers are within their rights to file suit and bring the evidence to trial. If the court agrees that the evidence is solid and that the EFF can show damages, it will likely rule in favor of the EFF (and the customers they represent). If the considers the evidence to be flimsy, it will likely rule against the EFF (and the customers they represent).
Let the legal system play out.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
And again not answering my question. Guess his Constitution is missing a First Amendment.
Oddly enough, Patrick’s fear of the police state is so great that he has spent most of the evening attacking the coming Reich with his full name and city. Plus the attendant IP address, etc.
Dude. What you do is you get a disposable cell phone. You must be a nervous wreck.
what, are you spying on him, Karl?
As if I’d learn anything from it.
maybe he’s really some hot chick or something. one never knows, it doesn’t always have to be edumacational.
IME, stoopid is not hawt.
We don’t count sins of the fathers against the sons. In that vein, I’m not inclined to count the virtues the same way either. You’ll have to display your own laurels.
You don’t get any for logic either. You accuse os of being afraid, yet you’re the one who’s in fear that his e-mail might have been read. And you’re willing to punish others to find out. Not a glowing character reference.
You’ll have to try again on this set of examples too. As Maggie already pointed out, Padilla got a trial (5 of them in fact). In addition there was nothing unilateral about him being named an enemy combatant. Even if the substantial precedent from ex parte Quirin is discounted, there was at minimum the Congress (Authorization for Force and Detention Act) and ultimately New York District Court, 2nd and 4th Circuit Courts and the Supreme COurt involved in the decision.
As an AT&T customer, you fear that your private communications were tapped by AT&T without a warrant as would be required by federal law under usual peacetime circumstances.
Your neighbor is not bound in duty by the Constitution to protect the Constitution, rebublican government, and, ultimately therefore, you.
If I had evidence that that were the case, I would be within my rights to file suit against my neighbor, and if you had some eggs you could also have breakfast. You don’t have evidence, neither does EFF, instead allegation and supposition is being substituted.
I am an AT&T customer and I am restrained from keeping EFF from representing me until after the fact.
Patrick – What are your damages and what is your proof?
He’s hoping the civil suit will serve as discovery for evidence to use in criminal prosecution.
Therefore, it can be assumed he has no proof.
Damages – imagined. Proof – assertion. As is, it is simply paranoid BDS run amok.
Unchecked? Nixon wasn’t impeached for having done that? To me, that’s a check.
Diverting information isn’t a violation of the law. Diverting copies of information isn’t a violation of the law, unless someone sees said copies. I mean, I could divert copies of conversations into the bit bucket (otherwise known as Write Only Memory, or where the lowest bit goes when you do a shift register right with no carry) and no law would be violated. I can divert information into a circular buffer that constantly overwrites itself, and no violation of the law would occur. There’s no inherent violation of the law in a telecom complying with a government request. A violation of the law might possibly result from a telecom’s compliance, but I don’t think you’ve shown that to be the case.
We could go around and around on this for a while, but all of this could be boiled down to: does the federal government have a right to packet-sniff all conversations going through a given communications node without a warrant? Does the sniffing of packets, itself, require a warrant for each and every packet (or, alternatively, each and every party of origin/destination of a conversation) that passes through that node, that’s sniffed? Or do you just need a warrant for the ones that you record and reconstruct, as a result of sniffing?
I’d guess that this is the big question the government has been wrestling with, and that the government elected to, instead, punt and invoke war powers.
Probably this question has already been addressed in one form or another, but it’s taking me a while to wade down this far.
Checks and balances were swept away with the direct election of Senators. I am going to retire now and see if Patrick has figured that one out by morning.
Nope. Apparently has no concept of checks and balances. I did like these bits:
I’m a military brat, and it really meant something to me that my dad took an oath to protect and defend the *Constitution* of the United States of America. He didn’t take an oath to protect and defend the people of the United States of America.
The President takes that oath too, you know. As well as most other government officials. They are also easily replaceable if you are unhappy with their behavior. On the other hand:
For a bunch of tough-talking macho folk, you people sure do scare good and hard. We can’t let the judicial system play out because there’s a chance that the terrorists could somehow glean a piece of information from in camera testimony that they would then use to kills us all!
We can’t let the intelligence community do their job because there’s a chance that our fellow citizens could somehow glean a piece of information from listening to our conversations with terrorists that they would then use to enslave us all!
It isn’t a discussion of fear, Patrick, it is what you fear and how you react to it. Is your greater fear of avowed enemies restrained by nothing? Or from your own countrymen, who only ask the already sizable restraints be loosened a bit to protect your ignorant ass?
Sounds as if your gig is more a government of lawsuits, not men.
This is really, really bizarre. The outrage is, what? That you think that a violation of your rights may have occurred?
Or perhaps you have evidence. I’d like to see that evidence.
I actually rather think Nixon was unbalanced, rather than unchecked.
Jeff told you to beat it. Take a hint, or Jeff will have to actually ban your IP. -K
…the arguments that the Executive might abuse power it is given by the people held weight with the Founders…
Google: Jefferson Islam Marines Libya
And take your dick out of that chicken.
Did IJS actually have a question, or was it more of the usual ad hom?
If IJS’ IP resolves to DC or Maryland, it’s probably our old friend Guy Cabot.
probably more ranting about Bob.
Who’s Bob?
Bob’s yer uncle.
Or in IJS’s case, Boob.
Dang. Always just a few hours too late to the thread to get any frickin’ answers.
Please detail that reason to believe. I’m guessing that you have no such thing, only a reason to believe that it is possible, not that it happened. Reason to believe that it happened would include a reason to believe that AT&T or the government was interested in your private communications.
You don’t have a reason to believe. What you want is a fishing expedition to find one.
…under the guise of seeeing damages that you couldn’t possibly prove without the fishing expedition, and it’s highly unlikely you’d be able to prove them with it.
seeking*
Slart,
In truth, I don’t recall exactly what IJS wrote. It was, iirc, more of the same. But Jeff overwrote one of his comments and told him to leave yesterday. Inasmuch as Jeff rarely does that, I took Jeff to be serious about it.
Looking back on my last comment, it could be seen as a complaint against Karl, when in fact it was wondering aloud if Mr. Meighan had shot his rhetorical wad, here, and wouldn’t be coming back.
Did IJS actually have a question, or was it more of the usual ad hom?
My post was a response to his, which was someting about the founding fathers intentions toward the Executive. Rather idiotic considering Jefferson’s adventures against Islamic barbarism, hence my reply.