Once again, a high-ranking member of the administration is insisting that the NSA surveillance program, as it has been authorized, is both Constitutionally and legally permissable. From today’s Vice Presidential address to the Heritage Foundation:
Wartime conditions are, in every case, a test of military skill and national resolve. But this is especially true in the war on terror. Four years ago, President Bush told Congress and the country that the path ahead would be difficult, that we were heading into a long struggle, unlike any we have ever known. All this has come to pass. We have faced, and are facing today, enemies who hate us, who hate our country, and who hate the liberties for which we stand. They dwell in the shadows, wear no uniform, and have no regard for the laws of warfare, and feel unconstrained by any standard of morality. We’ve never had a fight like this—and those of us in positions of responsibility have a duty to wage a broad-scale effort for the sake of the nation’s freedom and our security.
That effort includes a home front, with a great deal of urgent and difficult work and needed to persevere. In his speech to Congress after 9/11, President Bush said that the United States would, and I quote, “direct every resource at our command—every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war—to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.” The Congress of the United States backed him up in full, authorizing the President to defeat an enemy that had already slipped into our country and waged a horrific attack that killed 3,000 innocent, unsuspecting men, women, and children on 9/11.
The President also signed the Patriot Act, which removed the artificial barrier that used to exist between law enforcement and intelligence, and gave federal officials the ability to pursue terrorists with the tools they already use against drug traffickers and other kinds of criminals. There was no need for a tie-breaking vote on the Patriot Act, because the Senate passed it 98 to one. (Applause.)
That law has helped us to disrupt terrorist activity, to break up terror cells within the United States, and to protect the lives of Americans. We look forward to a renewal of the Patriot Act in 2006, because that law has done exactly what it was intended to do, and this country cannot afford to be without its protections.
Another vital step the President took in the days following 9/11 was to authorize the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications. There are no communications more important to the safety of the United States than those related to al Qaeda that have one end in the United States. If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two hijackers who subsequently flew a jet into the Pentagon. They were in the United States, communicating with al Qaeda associates overseas. But we did not know they were here plotting until it was too late.
If you recall, the report of the 9/11 Commission focused criticism on our inability to cover links between terrorists at home and terrorists abroad. The authorization the President made after September 11th helped address that problem in a manner that is fully consistent with the constitutional responsibilities and legal authority of the President and with the civil liberties of the American people. The activities conducted under this authorization have helped to detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks against the American people. As such, this program is critical to the national security of the United States.
It’s important to note that leaders of Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on the President’s authorization, and on activities conducted under it. I have personally presided over most of those briefings. In addition, the entire program undergoes a thorough review within the executive branch approximately every 45 days. After each review, the President determines whether to reauthorize the program. He has done so more than 30 times since September 11th—and he has indicated his intent to do so as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and similar organizations.
The existence of this program was highly classified, and information about it was improperly provided to the news media, to the clear detriment of our national security. There will now be a spirited debate about whether this program is necessary and appropriate, and the position of our administration will remain clear and consistent. Number one, these actions taken are necessary. Number two, these actions are totally appropriate and within the President’s authority under the Constitution and laws of the country. Number three, this wartime measure is limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists; it is carefully conducted; and the information obtained is used strictly for national security purposes. And number four, the civil liberties of the American people are unimpeded by these actions.
Let me dwell on that last point for a minute. I was in Washington in the 1970s, at a time when there was great and legitimate concern about civil liberties and about potential abuses within the executive branch. I had the honor of serving as White House Chief of Staff to President Ford, and that experience shapes my own outlook to this very day.
Serving immediately after a period of turmoil, all of us in the Ford administration worked hard to restore people’s confidence in the government. We were adamant about following the law and protecting civil liberties of all Americans, and we did so. Three decades later, I work for a President who shares those same values. He has made clear from the outset, both publicly and privately, that our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime. The President himself put it best: He said, “We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.”
The American people can be certain that we are upholding those principles. They can be equally certain that our administration will continue to defend this nation to the very best of our ability. As we get farther away from September 11th, some in Washington are yielding to the temptation to downplay the ongoing threat to our country, and to back away from the business at hand. This is perhaps a natural impulse, as time passes and alarms don’t sound. All of us are grateful that our nation has gone four years and four months without another 9/11. Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won’t be hit again. But neither should anyone say that the relative safety of the last four years was an accident. America has been protected not by luck but by sensible policy decisions, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security.
[My emphasis].
Senator Russ Feingold, for his part, continues to argue that if one end of the conversation between an al Qaeda member or other overseas target takes place in the US, our signals intel gatherers are required by law to acquire a warrant—an agrument that is not only absurd on its face, but is a politically tone deaf suggestion, and one that I believe will hurt those Democrats who continue to push the point.
Feingold characterized Cheney’s argument as “the kind people like to make sometimes when they’re trying to cover their tracks”—a suggestion that the administration is acting in bad faith and trying to hide what they know to be an intentional violation of statute and/or the President’s constitutional authority during war. But as Cheney points out, the program is continually reviewed, and Congressional leaders briefed—and the President will continue to authorize the program as he does after each review.
Which hardly seems indicative of an administration trying to hide something. In fact, I sense that what they are doing is spoiling for a fight over the issue—and letting Congressional Democrats and many in the media take the bait and accuse the administration of lawbreaking and overreach that has yet to be proven, and, from what’s been revealed to this point, hasn’t taken place, at least, not outside of hypotheticals posited by the President’s legal critics.
This says it all for me. Why shouldn’t I believe him?
(Pornographically speaking) Dick Cheney’s c**k has pieces of Russ Feingold in his pre-c*m.
Feingold’s remarks are the kind the ignorant like to make sometimes when they feel that truth isn’t as important as smear.
Sigh, Where are the righteous Conservatives of the not-distant past who were worried about big-brother invading their lives? Now they completely trust the Government to only spy on evil doers, and squeal about anyone who would want any kind of check on Executive authority.
Pretty funny to follow up Bobby Baker’s thoughtful comment an accusation of Feingold indulging in a -gasp- smear.
Ris~
The unanswered question is “Which Principles?”
Jim, the president is not spying on you. You’re too boring—as your neighbors could tell you, if you could corner one long enough to ask him.
I guess you didn’t read the part of the post (and many other posts) where this program was reviewed and reauthorized every 45 days and that part that said congressional leaders were briefed over a dozen times. Jeez, even the NYT doesn’t say the program was illegal.
There are some things during a War that the public not only has no need to know, they have no right to know. Things like how enemy intel is gathered and used. That is why those things are classified.
You don’t know anymore than I do about the program, the mechanics, who is targeted, how they are targeted and what happens re further surveilance. You are judging that this is “unchecked Executive Authority” based on incomplete knowledge. Why are you prejudging?
Tell me, Jim if you walked into a room and saw a man standing on the middle rung of a ladder could you tell me whether he was climbing the ladder or descending?
Okay, quick, before PIATOR shows up, these are the rules:
Ignore the trolls.
Guys, I’m just trying to point out some common ground! I don’t think I would get much argument by stating: Conservatives don’t like Big-Brother Government snooping around in their private lives. Conservatives want less Government, period, and certainly less Government control over their lives. Conservatives want to limit Government power to that which is spelled out in the Constitution. Conservatives don’t like moral relativism. According to the last election, Conservatives don’t like nuanced, flip-flopping rationales for their leader’s behaviour.
Jeff insists he would be supporting President Kerry’s right to spy on Americans if the election had gone the other way. I hope not.
Ah, yes. The old “If Dick Cheney says it, it must be true” line of argumentation.
Thank you, Jeff, for this wonderful addition to blogosphere discourse on the NSA story.
Oh, and this:
First, I think instead of “between” you meant “involving,” but really, for all your talk of “intentionally misrepresenting” arguments, this is rich.
The whole point is that if the person on one end of the line in the US is a known, targeted US citizen, then you do need a warrant if you’re going to tap that specific US citizen’s phone. Again, no warrant needed if you’re surveilling all calls coming from a terrorist’s phone in Iran, even if some of those calls go to US citizens. But if the target of the surveillance is a US citizen, then the US government needs a warrant, even if the US citizen is a suspected terrorist, even if the calls are international ones, and even if there are terrorists on the other end. And the FISA regulations would easily provide for such warrants, even retroactively if there’s an emergency that requires an immediate tap.
And as far as the politics go, I think you all need to take stock of how truly unpopular Bush has become and how a large chunk of important opinion leaders and intellectuals from both sides of the aisle have come to realize that he truly believes there are no legal limits on his wartime powers, and are not amused. His signing statement on the torture ban is exhibit A-Z in the macro-argument against Bush in this regard. So I wouldn’t be so sure that merely throwing around platitudes about “strength” and “weakness” when it comes to terrorism and national security is going to win you guys elections from now on.
Which is why we support this program because we are convinced by the huge amount of oversight on this program that this program is acted out in a good faith attempt to spy on those who would seek to harm us. Conservatives also favor confrontation and engagement of our enemies, and tapping their communications is a good way to do it.
If President Kerry showed a good faith interest in fighting terrorists to win, I would support the program.
Conservatives also favor fiscal conservatism, but, meh, we have to swallow the bad with the good.
I find MF to be funny.
That’s right. So I hereby propose that we disband the military, the NSA, and the police. All intelligence gathering capabilities: kaput. Who knows, they might overhear an innocent cell phone call or read someone’s innocent email to Pakistan! It’s a slippery slope, all right. Better dead than read!
Conservatives hating Big Brother? Well, when it comes to the NY Times Newspeak I have no doubt.
Re Feingold et al:
Remember the climactic scene at the end of the movie “The Mummy” where the ancient city is swallowed by the desert?
Every time a prominent democrat appears in the rotation to take a shot at the president and the war we are trying to win, I see a herd of donkeys being sucked down into the sand.
Go figure. Those folks are clinical.
TW = bed. “They are making their bed, and will have to lie in it soon.”
Straw man AND a “No True Scotsman” fallacy! A Donk Two-fer!
I invite you to come up with ANYONE who was:
1) an American citizen
2) making a purely domestic communication that was
3) actually monitored by the NSA
4) without a warrant.
Because if you cannot, then everyone else either falls under statutory FISA exceptions or are not covered by the Fourth Amendment in the first place.
And while the resulting hypothetical discussion might be an interesting legal exercise in moot court, anyone actually disclosing the fact is a revelation of “sources and methods” in intelligence gathering, and not subject to any kind of “whistleblower” protection.
I hope they like the winters in Leavenworth…
tw: and justice for all
Neocon nonsense, Goldstein, put out by the VP, on behalf of an unpopular president in a vain attempt to justify unlimited presidential power.
And it’s got as much chance of succeeding as did the president’s social security privatization (abolition) campaign…..
shorter MF: If George Bush were more popular, this NSA program would be legal.
Shorter Jim: I thought conservatives, like anarchists, wanted no government at all.
shorter Feingold: Huffington Post and Daily Kos have me believing I really could be President someday. And if I am elected, I would make all of my decision out in the OPEN, on live tv.
Carl,
I was hoping you would show up. Tell me should Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons?
It is a flat out lie that the President believes, as MF and Goss continue to assert, that the President believes his powers are unlimited.
MF refers to the supposed unpopularity of President Bush but doesn’t admit to any responsibility for the continual false attacks made on the president of the very sort we see above.
The attacks are made by continuously misrepresenting the issues. Misrepresenting the events of the lead up to the Iraq invasion. Misrepresenting the debate on the boundaries of torture within the administration itself; and misrepresenting the scope, justification and congressional oversight of the NSA program.
This administration has been working within only a fraction of the historical war powers of US presidents and yet we get this continuous horseshit about the President and Vice President being dictators on the par of Josef Stalin. Pure dishonesty that ought to make any rational human ashamed.
Unlimited presidential power? If it’s so unlimited why are you and your ilk still allowed to badmouth him? What kind of “unlimited power” is that?
Robin,
We’ve established the left is shameless. Right now I’m trying to figure out if they’re suicidal. Carl, MF, what do you think, should Iran have nuclear weapons?
To recap:
1. All leftards believe the President to be EVILE and ordering the NSA to snoop on their phone sex sessions with that one girl they managed to hit on that one time in that one bar that one night. Remember?
2. MF’s whining is at a pitch that can only be heard by a particular species of shrimp living in Baffin Bay.
3. God, that attempted lateral by Reggie Bush in the Rose Bowl was stupid. Carl W. Goss stupid.
4. Need more nachos.
And HALLIBURTON!!!
Or whoever supplies the NSA with all that scary phone-sex-listening-techie shit…
Nachos I got. It’s dip I’m running short of. Touchdown USC.
I think we’ve hit on the Left’s biggest boogey men here. Cheney, Bush, Haliburton, NSA. On Iran they are terribly silent. On Saddam Hussien, wqell if Michael Moore is to be believed they are sort of luke warm on him. It really does seem that the left is screaming for the death penalty for folks that might have hypothetically commmitted a misdemeanor, and at the same time feeling no partciular animus at all for monsters of the worst sort.
Jim:
First – Dick Cheney is God.
Second – Moral Equivalency :
Bush Presidency (after 3000 died on 9/11) wiretaps on Al Qaeda to American citizen. = Clinton Presidency IRS audit and FBI files on political opponents.
Do you think anyone here takes your opinion’s seriously?
Two questions:
First, is this how you summarize Feingold’s position or is there somewhere that he has stated this?
Second, assuming that it is a correct reading, then under conditions that allow for 72 hours of wiretapping approved by the AG before any warrant is obtained, under what conditions is it at all likely that conversations to which known Al Qaeda members are a party should have any problem getting a warrant, and easily within that time frame.
The argument remains that it is precisely the more controversial practices, endorsed here at this website by either Jeff Goldstein or others but never used as illustrative examples of where FISA would be broken—like data mining ALL international calls, or spying on Greenpeace and Raging Grannies—that would be restricted by legal oversight of the executive.
No one has yet put forward a persuasive example or where any attempt to get approval of a wiretap of Al Qaeda or of anyone conversing with even strongly suspected Al Qaeda folk have not or could not quickly have warrants approved. The issue is whether and to what extent these are ‘bait and switch’ examples.
Just today, another shameless Commie socialist had the audacity to attack our powerless Dear Leader’s policy of spying on Americans: Tucker Carlson.
Maxwell: A donk two fer? You do want the Government snooping around in your private life? No, I can’t give you names because the spying was carried out with no oversite. No one outside the Executive knows whose privacy was invaded. Can you tell me one “terrorist” who was caught? (Spare me the canard about the bridge-burners. I want names!) How do you know that Bush was confronting “our” enemies and not “his” enemies? Blind trust in the Government is not a Libertarian or Conservative or even a moderate principle: it’s rationalization for panic. “Save us from the miniscule possiblity of a terrorist attack! We don’t care how you do it!”
jdm: It is certainly true that Bush doesn’t have the power that Hussein had. If he did, you guys would argue that it was necessary to protect us from evil doers. “I hope they like winters in Leavenworth” indeed.
Patricia and Maybee: Are you distancing yourself from the Conservative Principles I laid out? I didn’t think they were that controversial. I’ve heard various Republican blowhards spout them for the last thirty years. Stand up for something! FISA was the only safeguard we had to make sure that President Bush (or Clinton) wasn’t spying on the wrong people. Those of us who remember Nixon don’t trust the Government to be benign. That isn’t ideology; it’s common sense.
TW=it wasn’t clever two years ago.
Jim, Cloudy glad you showed up. Do you guys think that Iran should have nuclear weapons?
Jim? Cloudy?
Carl W. Gross—I disagree with your optimism. First, Bush will keep on spying whether Congress makes it legal by statute or not, and
second, Congress, including after 2006, isn’t going to do squat (really effective) to stop any defiance from Bush in this area, IMHO.
Note that 44 Democrats in the House crossed over on what the RW casts as a party partisan issue, to support an awful version of the Patriot Act, the one that really dominated at conference, as opposed to the showcase version supported by a UNANIMOUS Senate that got short shrift. That really shows what kind of will there is to protect civil liberties.
—
Moe—check out McGehee’s comment on Jim, above.
—
BTW, another canard argument is “show us the specific examples of NSA spying”. This is quite a load—coming from the same people outraged that the existence of the program and its general parameters were reported at all. The New York Times has stated that they withheld many specifics even after the year+’s delay(from an election year), so it is really a catch-22 standard that is applied (in a repeatedly made argument).
Again, we don’t KNOW exactly who was wiretapped in this (secret, remember) program, only many of its general outlines, including data mining and wholesale ignoring of even the incredibly generous wiretap provisions and practices of FISA.
Examples of tapping Al Qaeda without any evidence that such warrants posed the least problem to acquire under FISA if sought have been raised here, but no one has produced a concrete example of that! Bottom line, these arguments are necessarily based on a high degree of speculation, since it is accountability that is being avoided.
Cloudy,
There about a billion posts regarding every angle of this issue. Page down and read ‘em. The thoughtful ones from Jeff do not make light-year wide leaps of logic about Russ Feingold in the way that your questions about hypothetical surveillance on Greenpeace do. (I’d think that the French DGSE would have something to say about them, but not the NSA).
Jim,
In the immortal words of Junior Soprano: Go shit in your hat. Loon.
Jim, Cloudy, we’ve established that you support an Al Qaeda member’s wishing to make calls to terror cells in this country unfettered by government observation. Do you also support Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons?
Oops should be wish to make calls. Sorry, I’ve got one eye on the football game. BTW win lose or draw, this Vince Young guy can play.
Of course so can Reggie Bush. Touchdwon USC.
Jim? Cloudy?
It’s beginning to look like three straight for the Trojans.
Jim- The government must act first to provide for its citizens those functions we are least able to provide for ourselves. Foreign policy and defense are at the top of this list. Economic opportunity is somewhere at the top. After that, I believe every government struggles to find the proper balance between security (protection from government, protection from fellow citizens, protection from outside actors) and liberty.
So no, your list doesn’t really describe my principles at all. I do hate moral equivalency, though.
Oh! And I also hate to hear Kerry’s positions described as ‘nuanced’. Although I do love me some nuance!!
There is only ONE play that can save TX now… the FLEAFLICKER!
Like I said this Vince Young guy can play. Touchdown Texas. BTW according to the poeple that have read the book this “Spying” program looks more like a pen-register sort of a thing than anything else. Pen-registers are used all the time in American law enforcement. they don’t require a warrant. If you don’t believe me take a look at Volokh’s blog.
<blockquote>Conservatives don’t like Big-Brother Government snooping around in their private lives.
Conservatives understand the clear and simple distinction between Crime fighting and <i>War fighting. The FISA act of getting a warrant 72 hours after the fact is a canard. the act is for the purposes of expediting criminal prosecution of spies. however at the 72 hour point the government must show probable cause for the wiretap. this presupposes a criminal investigation and prosecution. the government is trying to prevent or disrupt <i>enemy actions. could it be that the communist excuse me democrats, don’t believe we at war or they just on the other side?
Everybody makes assumptions, it’s a necessary function of life. Fair enough. But it’s the assumptions you make that matter.
And right now, the American Left is making assumptions about the political leadership in this country that make the worst of the 90s black-helicopter/tinfoil hat crowd look positively Stepford.
Frankly, as far as I can tell, a lot of people are beginning to get the impression that Democrats as a whole put sour grapes somewhere in front of life & liberty on the priority scale.
That and the “Cry Wolf” phenomenon are working against any gains the Dems would normally gain by being a strong opposition.
I’m a Libertarian. I only look like a Republican because the Democrats have gone so far off the board it throws the whole scheme off.
I think this is the kind of policy that needs to be reviewed after it’s done, not blown in the middle of a frickin’ war.
Yeah, I know, Dems don’t believe we’re at war. WTFEver, dudes. We just signed back up in a 1400-year war we’ve been on the sidelines of since the Barbary Pirates.
Just because I’m a Libertarian doesn’t mean I suffer from the Utopian blindness that has infected Lew Rockwell and my other former buddies in that crowd (I used to write for Lew, Long Time Ago) and assume that everyone else wants to think like me.
I believe in my principles, but I don’t assume the rest of the world does or wants to. You want to make it in the real world, ya gotta have real-world moves.
And dicking around with people who want you dead, or more specifically pretending that the ultimate imperialists who are trying to rule every soul in the Middle East don’t have any other ambitions, ain’t real-world moves.
TW: Full, too easy…
I’m sure most here have seen this by now, but at Drudge…
Gertz: NSA whistleblower asks to testify; Vows to describe illegal intelligence operations… DEVELOPING…
This should be entertaining. A (presumably) no-name bureaucrat vs the best and brightest Constitutional scholars that White House money can buy.
It looks like someone is looking for 15 minutes of DU fame and a book deal. I suppose if you’ve blatantly revealed highly classified anti-terrorism programs, your only chance of surviving the ordeal is to come out swinging and make any prosecutorial efforts by the administration appear to be politically motivated.
The Gertz story is actually posted. This ass-clown who leaked is actually claiming that he wants to testify with the FISA whistleblower protections after having leaked the program to the media.
What a complete idiot! I hope he isn’t characteristic of our intelligence gathering community.
Go Longhorns!!!
just saying
MF, you keep saying these things as facts that I just don’t think are supportable. Like:
But that just doesn’t appear to be the case. USA v UBL held that you couldn’t admit evidence collected that way, but that the right of the government to collect foreign intelligence went almost without saying. And USSID 18 says in so many words that Fi information isn’t supposed to be collected UNLESS (a) there’s a FISA warrant, OR (b) with the AG’s approval so long as
(1)(a) the US PERSON is outside the US,
(b) they’re international communications, or
(c) the communications are ABOUT US PERSONS anywwhere,
OR (2) the person is an agent of a foreign power,
OR (3) the purpose of the collection is to colelct significant FI information.
Now, the point here is that USSID18 is the regulation that implements the restrictions and constraints of the same old sections we’ve been talking about. God knows it could be a mistaken reading, but it is the implementing regulation. And note that it’s dated 27 JUL 1993, so this isn’t some Republican rewrite … and in fact it’s not significantly different from the USSID18 of 1980.
So somehow, for at least 25 years, the implementing regulations have been saying one thing, and and have apparently been understood to say that by administrations of both parties, and by the courts, and you’re declaring that the law clearly and unquestionably says the opposite.
Maybe, in some abstract sense, you’re correct. But, you know, the arguments that there is no legal US currency since they eliminated Silver Certificates can sound awfully convincing too. Tax protestors using that explanation aren’t having a lot of luck in the courts, though.
Basically, it’s a crackpot interpretation. Probably good for a law review article.
(I’ll note in passing, somewhat smugly, that the SID18 reading of the statute appears to correspond pretty well exactly with mine.)
If you think Tucker Carlson is such a big authority, why was he unconvincing during the Clinton impeachment?
(Thanks for settting up another example of the ad hom circumstantial. Stilll, could you guys try to broaden your range? How about an amphiboly? You hardly ever see a good amphiboly.)
corvan
I applaud your perserverance in asking that question of Cloudy, Carl, jim, et al.
IMO they won’t anwer because they can’t
MF has been ignoring my direct question to him about the FBI warrantless monitoring on my neighbors.
Typical schtick.
Jim, I understand your point, but you seem to be forgetting that the government isn’t snooping around in my private life or controlling it. You are speculating that the government’s policy could lead to that, and there’s nothing wrong with speculation, but speculation is not logical deduction. There’s no reason why I have to concede that Bush is going to be snooping on us so long as you haven’t provided any evidence of that happening.
And this shouldn’t come as a surprise to you. The NSA and the WOT are obviously analogous to the police and crimefighting, and conservatives are not famous for demanding limits on policemen.
Not all conservatives live in armed compounds in Idaho.
I’m still trying to figure out why anyone believes that any phone conversation they have is private. I have never operated under that assumption.
Do you realize that if you have a high security clearance or a job in defense, or if one of your neighbors has a high security clearance or a defense job, your phone conversations are likely to be monitored periodically?
In the age of cell phones, when any traffic can be intercepted by anyone else who has the right equipment, this is even more true. You can be monitored by anyone, any time.
The gov’t people are only looking for information related to security or terrorist issues. Without a proper warrant, none of the information they gather could be used against you. This is true whether there’s a democrat or a republican in the white house.
If you’re concerned, don’t talk about illegal acts over the phone. That’s just foolish in any case.
Jim: Guys, I’m just trying to point out some common ground! I don’t think I would get much argument by stating: Conservatives don’t like Big-Brother Government snooping around in their private lives.
You are missing a very basic fact involved in this case.
The database being used for this is not some magic or super-secret technology that only the NSA possesses. What we are discussing is a method of building a database that anyone with a decent grasp of any of several computer languages could build.
So there is absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that the NSA database is being used to spy on innocent US civilians or politicians.
A politician who wants to do political spying could have one of these databases built himself by a neighborhood geek and do what he wants with it. If Bush wanted to do political spying he could have one built just for that purpose; there’s no logical reason to bother the NSA about it.
The notion that the NSA would be used for political spying is ludicrous. The NSA already has a full plate dealing with terrorists. Using them for political spying would be like calling in the Marines to bust a minor league pot-pusher.
This entire farce about political spying with the NSA’s database is the most ridiculously overblown paranoia I’ve ever seen.
Don’t be afraid of the NSA. They’re too busy to worry about small-timers like politicians.
If you’re worried about political spying through this method, be MORE afraid of the backroom geek. But don’t spend your life looking over your shoulder… that kind of negativity is more hazardous to your health than smoking.
Jeff and all his Protien Wisdom readers,
We at the BBC are firm believers in the power of unlimited freedom of expression and through our World and Internet services, we believe we are playing a constructive role in supporting democratic voices and engendering a spirit of openness and tolerance around the globe. As such, we wholeheartedly support the blogosphere and recognise that enthusiastically subscribed comments spaces such as yours play a vital part in the civilising process. We invite your many readers to join our petition here to bring an end to media censorship. Those in any doubt as to our sincerity may care to take the time to browse our equal opportunities and anti-racism policy statement.
Thank you for your time and please keep up the good work!
Regards,
Michal
Mishal Hussain- loved her on BBCi during the Iraq war when she stated the information coming from Bagdhad Bob was more forthcoming than the information from the Americans.
Robert/a Swipe- I think you may be a tad insane. Am I right?
Is it just me, or is “Roberta Swipe” an asshole of a particularly noxious sort?
Like I said this Vince Young guy can play. Touchdown Texas.
Rovian mind-rays scramble the brains of the USC defensive backfield while Young sweeps in for the score and the win. Bush McHitlerburton, Laura, and the Evil Twins gyrate in the White House operations room, hoisting the bifingered Sign of Satan toward the ceiling.
He’s coming for you Douchebag in a Time of Pampers. He’s coming…for you.
So the d’Emocrats were grandstanding when they demanded an extension of debate?
I’m not sure how to answer that; is there a way to do so in which I don’t somehow call you an asshole of a particularly noxious sort?
Well, I have to point out that Orin Kerr, he’s the fellow writing over at Volokh’s hasn’t read every word of the book on the NSA deal yet. He’s just saying that what he’s read so far makes it look like a pen register to him. But unlike MF and Carl and the rest he will change his mind if facts warrant it. Still, his point is well taken. If this is a pen-register then its something the FBI (and local law enforcement as well)has been doing to American citizens without benefit of warrant for years, without peeep one from the left. It’s only when its use might incovenience AL Qeada that they get upset. I find that pretty unsettling. And fellas I’m still wondering. You think the Iranains should have nuclear weapons? I gotta admit the Iranians with nukes and Al Qeada getting easy un-survieled calls into the United States sort of makes me nervous. Does it you? If not why not?
Just say you agree with my description of Swipe.
Or, hell, go ahead and call me a noxious asshole.
I think you’ll find it’s the height of Political Incorrectness to label someone “a tad insane” just because they choose to cross dress, Maybee. Aladdin Sane – sure – but let’s keep the insults down to a minimum when it comes to blokes who like to do themselves up like a tart’s nightmare. It never did Mick Ronson any harm, God rest his soul. Besides, I’ve made a bloody career out of it!
As for Robert Crawford – if I was you I’d be trembling like a flower!
Dave
You’re not. I’m not.
Robert Crawford,
do you have any idea how attractive a pointless show of machismo from a great hunky slab of all-American beefcake is to an aggressively unfunny, gender confused, noxious asshole blog comedienne?
Love and sloppy kisses on ya, y’old hound dog you!
Roberta
p.s. Does Cindy know about us?
Charlie (CO):
Go read the document you linked to again.
You’re interpretation…
…can’t be right, because it would directly contradict the clear language of FISA.
First, the crossed out section under section 4.1(b)(1)(b) is all-important to your interpretation, because (b)(1)(a) clearly states that collection is only ok with AG approval if the US Person is not in the US. And then (b)(1)(b) says it ok to collect “international communications,” but the important qualifiers are all crossed out! And then (b)(1)(c) says clearly that collection is ok if the communication is ”not to or from but merely about a US Person” (emphasis added). So under subsections (b)(1)(a) and (b)(1)(c), your argument fails. Only (b)(1)(b) might save it, but since its half crossed out, I can’t know if you’re right or not. Do you have an unredacted link?
So, in sum, unless you know what’s behind the redacted parts of (b)(1)(b), and it says something to the effect of “[to, from,] or about a US person in the US,” your point is invalid, as far as I can tell.
Charlie (CO):
Sorry for the double post, but I should also point out that the “OR[s]” you have in front of subsections (2) and (3) in your interpretation of the USSID18 are not correct and don’t save your argument; they should be “AND[s]” (see the last word of subsection (2)).
Jeff, you’re added emphasis quote of Cheney could be restated as “I am not a crook” and it would be about as truthful.
Jake
Can somebody make Jake an emoticon of a Smiley pickin’ it’s nose?
Jeff, Jake likes to make sure his name is included in posts.
Wishbone
P.S.: Apparently so do I.
Next up, MF’s appintment to the Supreme Galactic Uber-Tribunal Court Thingie that will decide this whole thing. I hear the chicks dig the robes.
Pelosi is in trouble, she knew about this program and did not demand the entire committe be briefed!
We’ve been force-fed “hypotheticals posited by the President’s legal critics.” I totally agree, Jeff.
But aren’t these the same “legal critics” that Clinton put in oversight of our nation’s defense prior to 9/11?
Only they are couched now as “unnamed sources” so they can damage the pres with anonymous leaks in an eager media.
-Steve
This place is still one huge stable!
It’s a trap!
Corvan receives 50 Points for his unflinching persistence.
Cloudy, Jim, and Carl receive 0 Points for spineless dodging of a simple yes or no question.
Corvan also receives an Engraved Elvis Dinner Plate for his diligent play-by-play commentary.
Admirable Ackbar receives 25 Points for his correct analysis of the situation, but is docked 5 points for not stating so in the form a question and excessive spittle.
Darleen, Corvan, the question should be
Why does;
Pakistan
India
North Korea
Russia
China
Israel
Ukraine
-Get to keep their Nuclear Weapons?
What guarantees they will never fall out of favor with the United States?
Who will tell them otherwise?
You?
My question is, do liberals think this is actually objectable or are they more worried about the slippery slope type argument ?
Denni,
Ukraine doesn’t have nukes any longer. Pakistan and India were not signatories of the NPT. Iran is.
North Korea abrogated its obligations under the NPT. Iran has not. North Korea also does not have a population of 68 million with huge oil reserves (it’s called “critical mass” in power terms). Iran does.
Israel has not threatened to wipe Iran from the face of the earth. The reverse is true.
Russia and China are succesor states to the NPT recognized powers. The US arsenal exists to deter them.
What is your next stupid question?
Hmmm.
<objectable or are they more worried about the slippery slope type argument ?</blockquote>
Well if you look at the liberal arguments on gun control you’ll find that they’ve already debunked the entire premise of “slippery slope”. I.e. there’s no such thing as each and every single bit of legislation or court rulings are isolated and independent of one another.
What an amazingly bizzaro world.
Just think if there was a Bizzaro America the Democrats would be for free markets, immigration control, gun ownership, strict constitutional textualism, etc etc etc.
It’s a curious thing that sometimes you can get a clearer view of something by identifying what it isn’t than by what it is.
Rather odd that.
WB, how does Pakistan NOT signing the NPT make them somehow less of a threat? I don’t get that one. In fact, it is the Pakistani’s who gave the technology to Iran.
As for treaties and not abiding by them, uhhh, I don’t think we are doing so well ourselves. I think we currently have going a trade dispute with Canada, one of our buddies, wherein we have been found to not be in compliance with the provisions of a treaty – yet we aren’t making it right. It’s about softwood lumber, and it would be inconvenient for Bush to piss of some of HIS buddies, vs adhering to a treaty. And this is with one of our state FRIENDS. We lost, but we didn’t return the money. We’re kind of that way, aren’t we? Here’s the link –
http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/wto/ds236/ds236r1e.asp#ii
Sigh. The sheer unmitigated venality of this crew we elected is bizarre.
Jake
Denni,
I take your reply to mean you think Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons. If I’m wrong please correct me. Jim, Cloudy, etc. Do you agree or disagree with Denni? And do you think Iran having nuclear weapons and Al Qeada memebers being allowed to call into America unfettered makes America safer?
Jake, can I take your reply to mean that you believe Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons as well?
And can I assume your postion is based upon the fact that America is having a trade dispute with Canada?
Jake? Denni? Carl? Any of you?
Jake,
I’ll write S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Pakistan and India were not signatories to the NPT, so their actions were not a violation of said agreement.
Iran still professes only peaceful intent in compliance with the NPT, despite numerous steps to circumvent the inspection/validation process. However, enrichment on the scale and kind on which they are embarking is only seen in weapons programs. The Pakistani program has one stated purpose–deterrence against India (and both have pledged no first use). Last I checked, Musharaff had not threatened any UN member states with annihilation.
I defy you to characterize Iran’s program in the same light. And just for kicks, please note that the kind of spade-heavy spy work that you on the left find so objectionable is what dismantled the A.Q. Khan network.
I find it the height of rhetorical contortion to place run-of-the-mill trade disputes on the level of nuclear proliferation. You’ll hyperextend something doing that.
About freakin’ time – that Leia chick hands out decorations like effing water, even the friggin’ Wookie got one, but yours truly? Ha! I mean – HEY! THAT’S NO MOON!
Denni,
Let me ask you this – does the inherent and obvious difficulties in getting an established nuclear power to give up it’s weapons, mean that we should not try to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons?
Thx
Jaysus on a snowboard Corvan!
I don’t think Larry, Curly or Moe are going to give you an answer to your question. But you’ve worked so hard at it that I’ll give you one.
I think Iran should have nuclear weapons but with some basic stipulations.
1. Delivery systems must be limited to 10 yards or less.
2. All bombs must remain chained to Hamanahamanahamanhaman Ahmadinejad’s presidential tent.
3. President Cat Stevens Ahmadinejad agrees to have a homing device, connected to our biggest bunker buster, injected into his arse cheek.
My Terro-meter has detected a Brown-Swarty type within a 2 mile radius, help daddy Bush I’m scared! I know they are going to nuke Des Moines any second from now.
Liberals only approve of wiretapping Americans w/o a warrant when it’s Newt Gingrich’s cell phone they’re listening in on.
I want to see Jim McDermott out in front on this issue. The sort of laughs you get when Teddy Kennedy’s calling Bush a liar and stuff. High comedy.
You bozos are going to just love it when Queen Hillary assumes power and starts raiding gun shows and monitoring conservative churches. It cuts both ways chumps.
This is what passes for consideration of a topic on the left. Funny. Let me guess, the 9/11 ‘jackers were just misunderstood neurotics, right?
Well, at least you didn’t claim Ukraine has nukes.
Da King,
You’ve touched on the part that does confound me. I’m not aware that the parallel activity implied in your statement is going on right now. Could you please elaborate?
Thanks,
BRD
BRD,
Members of the tinfoil hat brigade take it as an article of faith that the NSA considers them important enough to surveil.
Wonder if King has checked out a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book lately? Maybe that would help his need for attention.
BRD,
It doesn’t have to be happening now for her to do it in the future. All that is necessary is that she be given the power. You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get from Bush that makes you feel like he’d never abuse this power and would only use against our enemies? Well let me ask you this: Do you get that feeling thinking about Hillary with the power?
wishbone,
I don’t need attention, I just need to live in a free society. You obviously don’t share that concern.
Hillary will never be the President. The NSA has hours and hours of her private conversations and they would make Camille Paglia toss her vermicelli.
Next question?
When has Bush—or anyone defending the NSA program—said the president has the listen to domestic communications without a warrant? The issue is international communications, not domestic.
Can you see the distinction?
Hmmm,
Here we are. Haven’t heard Himmler’s boys running up the steps with weapons drawn. Even when Bubba was in charge and his Veep invented this whole thing.
MOOOOONBAT ALERT!!!
Oh, and another distinction is gathering intelligence for national security and doing it for politics. When the Clintons rifled through the FBI files of their political enemies and ordered IRS audits of critics, I don’t recall this much outrage. It makes the current crop seem a bit, well, feigned.
King,
Ok, I just wanted to make sure I was on the same page. With respect to the scenario you are describing, it is very much my impression that the boat has sailed on that one long, long, long ago. Systems that are part of the Echelon family, including Magnum, Ryolite, Jumpseat, Orion, Chalet, Aquacade, Vortex, Raptor, Carnivor, and the like didn’t just pop up since 2000. They (and their ancestors) have been around for an age and a day.
Naturally, with that much raw data, a lot of the surviellance has been automated. Given the sheer volume of information and the automated sifting, I don’t think it’s even possible, at a very basic level, to even discriminate much between individual targets on first pass filtering. I am rather under the impression that it would be like trying to measure the grains of sand used to build a sand castle.
As to the broader point (you and others have made) about the continual erosion of 4th amendment rights, I am quite sympathetic. However, in this particular case, I think that folks are seizing on a red herring. Rather than actually addressing the situation, it seems that this is basically another “Bush Is Super-Extra Evil” rant in privacy drag.
What are your thoughts?