First, here’s Mark Levin, discussing the New York Times’ framing of the strained decision. Writes Levin:
It seems to me that since the ACLU  the mother ship for the NYCLU and other affiliates  was one of the plaintiffs in the case, it would be nice if the Times would disclose this connection. But the biggest problem with the Times editorial is that is provides no serious analysis of Taylor’s bogus opinion  from standing, the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, to FISA and Title III. […]
To its credit, the Washington Post has a far more intelligent take on the subject.
The liberals like to talk about judicial review and judicial precedent. Yet, this judge ignored all of it. Over the years federal appellate courts have recognized the president’s inherit constitutional authority to protect our nation from foreign threats against our national security without the requirement of warrants. For those who care, here are some relevant cases:
United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974) (en banc); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973).
Left-wing enterprises like the Times aren’t, as they claim, so interested in judicial review. After all, its editorial page is applauding a judge who rejected appellate court precedent from around the country. No, what the editorial writers really want is government by activist, liberal judges who share their political and policy agendas and are not answerable to anyone.
To be fair, I think that Levin is a bit overbroad in his condemnations here. For instance, I think there are many liberals, most especially classical liberals, who are quite interested in judicial review, judicial precedent, stare decisis, etc.,—and favor the kind of legal conservatism that relies upon strict adherence to the text of the Constitution and its ratified meanings.
The Times editorial board, on the other hand, is far more “progressive” than liberal, and as I’ve often pointed out here, progressivism as it is practiced today is an enemy of the kind of classical liberalism upon which this country’s identity was built.
Philosophically and semantically, the undermining of meaning from a structural standpoint—the embrace of the linguistic turn and misapplied understandings of postmodern observations about the nature of truth in particular—has allowed the progressive movement to gain intellectual traction, proceeding from the academy and insinuating itself into public policy. But progressivism, while ideologically dogmatic, is (somewhat ironically) dependent upon a cynical use of pragmatism that is Machiavellian in its aims and implementations. That is to say, in order to bring about the “correct” social arrangements and policies—decided upon in advance not by the electorate but rather by a fringe of the electorate who have arrogantly elevated themselves, in their minds, to a kind of moral and social protectorate that is so beyond reproach that apostates are regularly purged for breaking the “unified voice”—these ideologues, in the service of utopian fantasies, are willing to use totalitarian means to bring them about, including a completely organic, context-based system of argumentation that gladly trades intellectual consistency for rhetorical efficacy in bringing about the desired outcome.
Such a strategy for pushing an agenda can be very effective—particularly as it grows adept at seizing control of language and using it to great emotional effect. Which is why so much of progressivism seems to be tied to regulating speech in the name of “tolerance,” even as it craftily redefines terms like “torture” and “spying” and “tolerance” by emptying them of their traditional usages and re-inscribing them with new and particularized meanings that fit a specific and pointed philosophical and political agenda. Hence, we have the explosion of, for example, the “diversity” movement—which superficially resonates with many Americans because, on its face, and in it the context it is promoted, diversity as a concept suggests the embrace of a variety of viewpoints, a principle that jibes with our almost iconic respect for the marketplace of ideas.
Yet “diversity”—much like “tolerance”—has in practice come to mean something roughly the opposite of what it used to denote. Viewpoints are conflated with superficial markers (ethnicity /race, sexual orientation, etc), which are then ascribed a singular “group” viewpoint. Those who share the superficial marker but stray from the narrativized viewpoint are considered inauthentic and no longer represent the group. And because “diversity” now relies on having a certain number of representatives from a given superficially-constructed group, what the contemporary diversity movement has given us is ideological rigidity disguised as “diversity”—all while creating the conditions where those who represent truly diverse / minority opinions are marginalized.
But back to Judge Taylor’s ruling and its myriad problems. As Levin sees it:
There are four things that strike me most about Taylor’s opinion. First, she grants standing to such plaintiffs as the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Christopher Hitchens, and others, without a shred of information showing any connection between the plaintiffs’ assertions of constitutional violations and any harm to them. However, Taylor reveals herself in this excerpt from her ruling:
… [T]he court need not speculate upon the kind of activity the Plaintiffs want to engage in – they want to engage in conversations with individuals abroad without fear that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon. Therefore, this court concludes that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement of alleging “actual or threatened injury†as a result of Defendants’ conduct
Taylor writes later:
Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing based on the unsubstantiated minor distinctions drawn by Defendants, the President’s action in warrantless wiretapping, in contravention of FISA, Title III, and the First and Fourth Amendments, would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. …
In other words, if Taylor had ruled properly and found that the Plaintiffs had no standing to bring their lawsuit, she would have denied herself the ability to strike down the NSA intercept program by throwing out the lawsuit.
Second, Taylor fails to address adequately that which has been debated here and elsewhere for months, i.e., the president’s inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, and the long line of court cases (and historical evidence) related to it.
Third, in many places, the opinion reads like a political screed.
Fourth, Taylor insists on the immediate implementation of her decision, meaning that the NSA must stop intercepting enemy communications at this very moment, unless it succeeds in getting judicial relief elsewhere.
As Levin reports in an update, the Justice Department is noting that “The parties have also agreed to a stay of the injunction until the District Court can hear the Department’s motion for a stay pending appeal”—which means that, should this decision be overturned (as it almost certainly will be), then what we have here is a largely symbolic, activist ruling, and one that certainly won’t help progressives sell themselves as strong on national security. After all, this program that they’ve been at pains to shut down was crucial in helping to reveal the al Qaeda plot in Great Britain, and has likely prevented a number of other potential threats about which we aren’t even aware.
But more than that—and revisiting my points about using cynical pragmatism in the service of dogmatism—Andrew McCarthy notes something else about the “standing” in this case that is revelatory:
Remember back when the New York Times first disclosed the existence of the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. A number of us contended that this should be grounds for a prosecution because it alerted the enemy to our signals intelligence efforts in wartime.
“NONSENSE!” replied the Times and its allies. You see, they explained, al Qaeda well knew that we were using every means in our arsenal to penetrate its communications. Telling terrorists about the NSA program didn’t alert them to anything they weren’t already well aware of.
Well, apparently the ACLU, CAIR, Greenpeace and the other “public interest” ogranizations who sued the government did not get the memo.
In order to convince Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to invalidate the NSA program, these plaintiffs had to establish that they had “standing” to sue  meaning that they had suffered some kind of individualized harm, something that was unique because it is not enough for standing purposes to simply claim a general objection to government policies.
So how did these plaintiffs claim to have been harmed? They are journalists, lawyers and scholars who do research and other work in the Middle East. But now, according to Judge Taylor’s opinion, they have sworn in affidavits that “Persons abroad who before the program [became pubic knowledge] spoke with them by telephone or internet no longer do so.” They are, she says, “stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk to clients,” because people suddenly think the U.S. government is listening.
So which is it? Is the TSP leak a big nothing that changed no one’s behavior, or a bombshell that changed everyone’s behavior? Evidently, it depends on which scenario the Left believes will damage the Bush administration more on any given day.
And even more worrisome? This practice is structurally ingrained into the very linguistic assumptions of the progressive world view.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
****
update: Austin Bay wrote a (somewhat) related piece the other day that dealt with Gunther Grass and Paul De Man. I’ve dealt with De Man myself in my notes on intentionalism (in my opinion, he was the most interesting of those who attempted to deconstruct the sign), but Austin adds much to the linguistic notes I’ve often posted here, for those of you who remain interested in such things.
I absolutely, positively refuse to use the word “proggressive,” even in scare quotes, to describe reactionaries like those at the Times.
Even with only one “G.”
Though, with two G’s it would tie in with GiGi and his sock puppet empire.
Hmmmm. I may have to reconsider…
Because They Cair!!!
TW: They wanted it this way!
Jeff,
The saddest part is the only response you will receive from the other side will be to call you stupid, dumb, a nazi, etc, etc. I have been seeing this argument or similar ones popping up more & more & I am beginning to wonder if this is some kind of sub-conscious, pre-action to inevitable “progressive†political & emotional melt-down; whether it be in regards to lost elections or future attacks or wars throughout the world.
I believe the second choice, and long jail sentences need to be handed out to not only the leakers, but the NYTs people involved
Whatever it is has rendered them pointless to talk to, and there never has been much of an upside to listening to them.
For standing, it just needs to change the behavior of your clients. Not ‘everyone.’
Jeff, I largely agree with your post but isn’t it a stretch to say that the disputed NSA program played a part in bringing down the London plot? No one is disputing NSA’s right to conduct purely foreign intelligence gathering are they?
It didn’t change the behavior of their clients. It changed the behavior of their terrorist buddies:
Heh. Even many liberals are gagging over the blatant political nature of the decision. The links aren’t to libs, but certainly blister the stupidity of prostituting the law to political ends. Uncle Jimbo at B5 found this
http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/militarymatters/95379
Patterico has a great post at
http://patterico.com/
Don’t miss it. The whip comes down on a judicial hack.
Yes. Because people swore out affidavits detailing their connections to terrorists.
McGehee,
I like proggressive.
And since they’re so paleo, we can just refer to them as Proggs.
Rewiring your brain for the future, by employing the discredited ideologies of the past.
Seriously, Jeff. Some chlorine in the troll pool would clear this shit right up. Wouldn’t even take much.
They did. From the judge’s “decision”:
This is another one of those cases where you’re arguing passionately about something you’ve not bothered to read about, isn’t it?
noah —
I was under the impression that we had picked up some chatter here that connected back. I could be wrong, though.
Proggs.
Love it!
We are talking about plaintiffs exchanging information with foreign ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES!! And it’s not like the good old days when we knew which countries were friendly, and which countries were enemies. Now the enemy is disbursed throughout the world population, and only tied together by ideology, financing and electronic communication. We have to be able to treat the entire network as an enemy of war, and obtain whatever information that we can to disrupt their plans and safeguard our citizens.
I read here every day, but seldom post, but today I have a question.
Based on what I have read about this, the crux of the complaint is that these foreign, “sources,” no longer talk to the complainants, and therefore the surveillance program is, “making it difficult for them to do their jobs.”
Well, what if they had warrants issued in every case? If the, “sources,” are threatened by their knowledge of, “warrantless,” surveillance, can we not presume that they have, “something to hide?” And if they indeed have something to hide, wouldn’t that provide cause for the issuance of a warrant?
In which case, they still wouldn’t be talking to these poor, put-upon journalists.
Does this make any sense to anyone?
I haven’t read the opinion. But I do know standing, and that Jeff’s dichotomy was incorrect.
But then it sounds like someone made a mistake. Because if the US govt thinks these people are terrorists, then the US govt can get FISA warrants. Which would make the suit moot.
Maybe they fear the US govt wrongly believes their clients are terrorists. Or would suspect it without enough basis for a warrant.
But be careful with the wording: the opinion said ‘people the US govt believes to be terrorists.’ Thats not the same as ‘terrorists.’
To clarify what I just so poorly articulated:
If they got warrants, then that would ensure that these people still wouldn’t talk to these journo and professors, therefore, they would have the same complaint about the program.
Will they then sue to stop the surveillance altogether?
OMG. Get the smelling salts. Actus just said something that made sense!
The problem is the “clients” in this scenario are the ones charged w/ actually providing protection & from preventing further attacks. This program & its newly defined illegality will have lasting repercussions in how the US can defend itself & ferret out its self-proclaimed enemies & it shouldn’t ever have been used as a club to garner political points or to thrust a political view-point – especially one that has consistently been rejected at the polls.
Funny, Actus, that your side has used Lamouth’s 52-48% victory as proof of a authenticity, but has completely disregarded & ignored the almost same margin in the last Presidential Election. Why is one proof of a political reality & the other solely the result of theft or corruption – within the confines of the “progressive†or Democratic side?
I had lunch yesterday with a friend and a couple of his co-workers. One co-worker assumed (wrongly) that he was in safe political company and started railing on Republicans and the great victory over Bush concerning wire-tapping.
I casually asked him whether he thought the recent British terrorist foil would have occurred if the U.S. government had not been wire-tapping?
“No. That has nothing to do with the subject.”
I then informed him that the British government recieved facts pertinent to that foil by the U.S.
“This isn’t about terrorism. It’s about a President abusing his power and not following a proceedure of simply asking to tap an individual. It’s not like they would deny any of his requests. Just follow the procedure.”
I then asked if lawful or unlawful if he thought that the techniques were valuable to thwarting terrorism. Then the goal post moving began.
“I, I, worked for Senator Byrd as a staffer, and it is about the erosion of civil liberties, and an abusive administration trying to avoid checks and balances. We wouldn’t have these terrorists if he didn’t wage an illegal preemptive war on Iraq.” ect. ect. ect.
Indeed.
It’s all about semantics with these idiots. So willing to sacrifice a nation for a defeat over one individual.
We’ve come a long way baybee! That cumbersome antiquated Constitution of bygone years supported and authorized traitors(those who give aid and comfort to the enemy) to be caught and hung. Now traitors have exercised their “living-constitutional” rights to sell out their country without fear of interference from those busybodies who swore an oath to “protect and defend” that old outdated document.
Oh if Benedict Arnold only lived in this Brave New World. He would have been enshrined as a champion of free and open descent instead of a traitor.
A Progg before his time!
Just had to use the new word. It’s waaaaaaaay kewl!
They clearly do not fear it; they wanted to continue the conversations. Read the bits I’ve quoted you—the plaintiffs had no problem continuing their conversations; it was the people outside the US who didn’t want to continue the conversations.
In other words, it wasn’t the plaintiffs who changed their behavior—which was the qualification you placed on their having standing.
Good enough. Clearly the people overseas think their ties are strong enough.
Besides, one of the plaintiffs who suddenly had people stop talking to them was CAIR. The odds of someone they talk to overseas NOT being a terrorist are pretty slim.
He is, but he changed his name to John Murtha. Oh wait, Arnold was a decorated American General.
AFAIK, people are using hte lamont victory as a bellwether, as a predictor for the midterms. We could just look at how polls are doing, at how even Ken Mehlman is distancing himself from ‘stay the course’ if we wanted to read about approval for this war. What lesson would you like to draw from bush’s victory in 04?
natesnake, you missed an opportunity:
This guy worked for a Klansman. Obviously he’s against surveillaince of terrorists and their associates; he’s one of their associates!
US govt suspicion of those ties. You’re still moving from alleging that the US govt believes something to making it true.
I see. I mistook who the plaintiffs were. Then you still don’t have to allege everyone changed their behavior. Just that your plaintiffs were hurt—ie, that some of the people they talk to no longer talk.
Boy, nate, it’s a good thing actus wasn’t at lunch with you. He would have, like, totally gone off on you and wicked told you off.
Robert,
I did broach that in a tactful way. He stated (out of the middle of fucking nowhere) that Republicans are racists. I stated that some prominent Democrats had some skeletons in their closets.
He quickly cut me off by saying,” What that Byrd was a Klansman? He renounced his ties and still regretts it.”
I said, “No, that he lead the fillibuster to denounce Civil Rights. But yeah, I guess he was also a Klansman. Only a few years ago he dropped the N-bomb in a media interview. I guess old habits die hard.”
His face turned a little red.
actus: Get a job. Please.
Wanna bet she will grant intervenor funding to the ACLU? Wanna bet they will be lots more than any of them could make in private practice?
I have one. But it starts after labor day.
I gotta say…
I love this ruling! Here we have a Carter appointee (minority woman, no less) who in ONE MINUTE has opened the eyes of who-knows-how- many people, to the fact that the left does not give a shit what happens to this country. In fact, Judge Anna Diggs Cox ( that’s from another thread) has shown that she prefers an IslamoNazi state (please don’t call them fascists, because they are not fascists) to a democracy.
“Oh my God!!!! What if the government is listening to my conversations with Al Qeda????”
I think this is one of the best things to happen for us on the “right” (which I read as JFK Democrats) since Carter fucked every inch of the United States Of America.
AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH! Jimmy F’ing Carter! A whole ‘nother thread! Carter has to be the biggest asshole that ever held the reins of power in the US. He is uniquely responsible for what is going on today. I have no link (because I read it in a newspaper), but check out Ayatollah Khoneni’s son’s book.
Carter made them laugh their asses off. They were expecting Armageddon, and instead, got an apology!!!! How could they concluded anything other than “the US can do nothing”? And it even became one of their “talking points” (i.e. – propaganda). Carter managed to make the whole Mid-East laugh at us. “Paper Tiger”! This man should be brought up on charges of treason.
He is one useless piece of horseshit, and anyone who thinks differently is trying to kill all of us.
The US policy over the years might have been flawed (actually – has been flawed), but are we supposed to give the Chinese and the Russians control over (app.) half the worlds oil?
I know that the leftist reactionaries (thank you McGehee, for telling it like it is) think they have the momentum, but every time they open their illiterate mouths, they are converting hundreds, if not thousands, of rational people to the “right” side.
These people scare the shit out of me. My life is no bowl of cherries, but I know that my
decisions have led me to where I am. There are too many asshoiles that think the government is responsible for their problems – and that’s where the Progressives (read: Marxists) get their power.
Fuck ‘em. Bring it on, dDavid…
TW: Jimmy Carter is thinking of his legacy, not ours.
Puleeeze! Logic and common sense are not allowed on the left side of the blogosphere. BDS only!
TW: It doesn’t matter. But I love it when the word goes beyond my computer’s ability to mimic it. I had to go two spaces back to fit it in…
How funny! I live in CT (unfortunately), and LaMont is going to get his ASS kicked. In one of the bluest states in the country!
Keep dreaming, asshole. Lamont will be lucky to get 35% of the state vote. We are not all suicidal.
In light of the fact that the Bush administration seems to be vigorously pursuing leaks, especially with respect to the NSA surveillance programs that the NYT exposed last winter and the possible ramifications for prosecution of those institutions within the MSM who exposed it, this might be rearguard cover to prevent successful prosecution. Afterall, a federal judge found the program illegal.
That, not the GWOT would be the democrat’s angle.
It hamstrings Bush and gets them off any potential hook.
Just a thought.
My,my, my!
I am a busy little bee, aren’t I?
Well, lieberman is still bluer than the GOP, so he does have that going for him.
What do the 3-way polls look like?
Thanks for the pointer to Austin’s post.
Congruent with my experience: the anecdote where his Adorno/Nietzsche-ish (and (therefore) “deconstructive”) reading of de Man et al as fascist-symptomatic gets him derisorily tagged a “conservative” by the professor, doubtless a self-described radical (because what conservative bureaucrat isn’t).
That happened to me enough times that I started laughing at it. Glad I wasn’t the only one.
This clearly, unambiguously articluates that the greatest danger to our liberty is, and has always been, from the Left.
I like how a system of argumentation is ‘totalitarian.’
It’s the ends not the means that are dangerous.
Really? Because I think Jeff has argued that the means are dangerous too. At least to him.
Because if the US govt thinks these people are terrorists, then the US govt can get FISA warrants. Which would make the suit moot.
Last I checked, FISA doesn’t apply outside of the US. Nor does it apply when the devices are not on US soil, nor when the target is not on US soil.
But hey, let’s keep pretending…
actus –
Keep dreaming. LaMont is an idiot who was out of his league running for state senator. Sorry to pop your bubble, but he is going to get creamed.
He got 52% of of 60% of activist Dem voters. I am being kind to say he will get 35%.
TW: Ned Lamont is merely an eightth grader with a lot of daddy’s money.
What do the 3-way polls look like?
Like Lamont is going to lose:
But the calls are coming into the US right? This is calls to the plaintiffs which are ending.
A system of argumentation that denies one side of an argument both the intent of their speech and the very definitions of their words?
Yeah, that’s totalitarian.
But the calls are coming into the US right? This is calls to the plaintiffs which are ending.
I bolded the word target for you, yet you don’t seem to get it.
Let’s do hope you perform better than this at your new job…
“Electronic surveillance” means –
What if Bush issued an executivr order banning trans-border communications for the duration?
So what? One end is overseas; the communication crosses the border, and is no longer covered by FISA.
We’ve been over this all before; the TTP simple won’t get it.
Like a two-way race between Lieberman and Ned
FlandersLamont.If you were hoping Lieberman would split the non-moonbat vote with a viable Republican (in Connecticut!!?), you’re even funnier than Lamont.
Taylor writes later:
Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing…
Am I incorrect in suggesting that the plaintiffs must do more than merely allege injury. Mustn’t they, in fact, show injury? As it is written, I think that this is a fundamental misstatement of the law. As Levin points out in the Post article, this should have stopped Judge Taylor before she availed herself of the opportunity to embarrass herself further.
Has anyone seen this about the large scale miltary exercise Iran is beginning this weekend?
“The maneuver is aimed at introducing our new defensive doctrine,” Ashtiani said, adding that 12 infantry regiments would participate in the upcoming exercise dubbed “The Blow of Zolfaghar.”
Zolfaghar is the sword used by Imam Ali, one of the most revered figures for Shiite Muslims.
Brace yourselves.
Actually, it could quite easily be affirmed on appeal, but clearly not for the reasons stated by the trial judge. These issues of law are reviewed without regard to the trial court’s holding and the appellate court can affirm if the trial court got the right result, even if it employed faulty logic or law. A good trial court opinion can help or persuade the appellate court on the legal questions, but the appellate court is not bound by them. Because of the crappy trial court ruling here, the appellate court will essentially start over again on appeal. Only the trial court’s fact findings are more or less binding on the appellate court, and I don’t know that there were many significant fact questions at issue here.
In today’s Best of the Web, one of the regular readers noted that
Just thought that was interesting. Of course James has more stuff there, and more info on Catherine Mayo, that Vermont chick who freaked out on the plane.
TW: zipper. Okay, now that really belongs on the pants thread . . . If you didn’t wear button-flies you wouldn’t have these problems! (But zippers aren’t as cool, I know.)
I used to love to hate the Washington Post. What’s up with them lately?
Exactly. Its so clever. so outre. Its like the first time someone taught me about ‘othering.’ I never imagined that word could be used that way. Same with totalitarian. tres hip.
Looks like a decent GOP candidate could save the day.
Not quite. It’s under FISA if one party is in the US and the interception is done in the US. 50 USC 1802(f)(2).
You saw that there were other paragraphs right?
Usually, you have to raise an issue in the courts below before raising it on appeal. What sorts of things is the opinion journal thinking of?
…which means that, should this decision be overturned (as it almost certainly will be), then what we have here is a largely symbolic, activist ruling, and one that certainly won’t help progressives sell themselves as strong on national security.
They don’t want to sell themselves as strong on national security, Jeff. Whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, they either don’t give a shit about national security, or are willing to actively compromise it so that they can indulge their BDS and run around screaming “Oh my God, the very CONSTITUTION is in danger!!! BUSH IS HITLER!!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!” Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to die if they get their way.
Spamword, “after,” as in “The Day After.”
Your first five full paragraphs in this piece, Jeff, are among the finest I’ve seen you write. Thanks.
“Progressivism” was once, not that long ago, nothing more than a surprisingly effective preemptive arrangement of arrogant rhetoric and narrative, and included at least as much raw intimidation against non-PC thinking as it did any substance, to put it mildly. Intolerance is indeed it’s distinguishing characteristic
To see what it’s become today—the sheer, scared mindlessness of inverted principles and their failed outcomes—is a stark testament to the progress tenacious, strategic, measured, and fair-minded reason should always strive to make against lunacy: Truth is indeed lacing its shoes while the Lie has already circled the globe but even that head start can be hunted down.
Good stuff. You have it (and them) clearly in your sights. Progressivism isn’t a valid dialog horizontally opposed to conservativism on a finite continuum of co-equal debate. Progressivism is nearer the cold, hard vacuum of moral void on the bottom end of the vertical scale of principle. A little lower and it’ll reach absolute zero.
I have to say, though, that actus has gotten a little better at staying on point lately. And he’s unfailingly polite. I think we should start calling him Eddie Haskell.
As trolls go, he deserves a pat on the head. Like, say, Pat Travers on 11. His amps go to 11, you know.
Boom, boom, out go the lights.
Actually heard a short bit on NPR that was interesting. Two talking heads, one frothing moonbat from Washington and a guy from Pepperdine—and they mentioned that there were two halves to the decision, statutory and constitutional (Fourth and First Amendment).
The Pepperdine guy noted that the statutory decision against the program was potentially debatable—but that the judge, by making the constitutional argument also, was effectively ruling not only that the Administration couldn’t pursue such a program, but also that Congress couldn’t enact it either.
At that point, the moderator cut him off and the segment ended.
Not quite. It’s under FISA if one party is in the US and the interception is done in the US. 50 USC 1802(f)(2).
Um, do satellites in space qualify as “in the US”?
Even you know the answer to that…
You saw that there were other paragraphs right?
The two others don’t apply and the fouth is just the same.
In short:
You don’t have a leg to stand on.
But we knew that already.
sir ss, but won’t the circuit court have to find some other way to grant the plaintiffs standing other than the bizarre reasoning in this opinion? If they can’t find that reasoning, then the Plaintiffs are no longer even part of the case! In other words, moot.
Well we know the first doesn’t apply because its for US persons. We don’t know whether the second applies because we don’t know where the interception takes place, or if interception in a satellite while a person listens in the US counts. The fourth one is not the same, it covers the installation of devices, not actual interception, and is for things other than wire or radio communication.
/We don’t know whether the second applies because we don’t know where the interception takes place, or if interception in a satellite while a person listens in the US counts.
Say it with me:
TARGET
And:
We don’t know
Oh, we do.
You just don’t like the answer…
We do? where is the answer?
The second definition doesn’t mention target. The fourth is not ‘the same’ as the others. Its different. We also don’t know where the installation of devices is. Or where the ‘use’ is, say, if someone is listening in the US.
We do? where is the answer?
Hilarious.
I guess your “winning” strategy is to plead ignorance when the facts aren’t on your side.
Good luck with that in your new job.
The second definition doesn’t mention target
Why should it?
The first part defined it already.
Obtuse.
The fourth is not ‘the same’ as the others. Its different.
Irrelevant as it doesn’t apply to the program.
I remember back in my college days in the mid to late 60s that the New Left reserved all their hate for liberals who then controlled the Democrats. LBJ and Humphrey in particular. Between ‘68 and ‘72 the New Left took effective control of the Democrats and they then put on the mask of being the “Liberals” all the while working to destroy everything associated with the original meaning of liberal. The burden of pretending to be that which you hate must be immense. The rise of alternative media and their losing power in ‘94 has caused the mask to slip more and more. The term liberal became associated in a negative way with the political policies of what was once called the New Left. So now they have renamed themselves again as “Progressives”, perhaps trying to cloak themselves in the mantle of TR and Wilson now that the FDR,JFK mask is in tatters. When you live always behind a mask you become constantly concerned with perception not reality. Words matter more than the substance the words represent. In fact words are reality to the left. This is why our host is so hated and reviled by the progressives. He is pulling off their mask. That cannot be tolerated by those who worship “tolerance”.
Neither does the first, which requires the target to be a US person. But we still discussed it.
Winning? I’m asking you for the answers. Or are you here just to win or lose?
Its 4 definitions of what counts as ‘electronic surveillance.’ Other definitions could also depend on the targetting, but they dont. You keep bringing up target as that is everything, but its not. Its one of 4.
And im really curious as to why you always reply to my posts with two posts. Are you just spurty skeety with your thinking like that?
Maybe he’s just not here to waste his time.
Are we looking for bellwethers, Mr. Luthor?
Let’s see, to date, one special election and two Dem primaries:
In California, the GOP easily holds on to Randy Cunningham’s seat.
In the Dem primaries, Cynthia McKinney is out, and in CT the ‘netroots’ mustered their forces for the apolcalypse and managed to defeat… a Democrat, who is now leading their chosen candidate in the polls for the general election.
So far, the Democratic sweep is running, what, 2.5:.5 in favor of the Republican Party?
Interesting note: At the Friday rally, the MoveOnBots had NOTHING to say about the NSA ruling. Guess losing Townhouse really slowed them down…
I don’t know about you, but most people i know are happy mckinney is out. As for cunningham, was that even a challenged seat? it thought it was a GOP gerrymander. As for CT, I don’t see the problem so much. worse comes to worse we keep lieberman, and thats because there’s no good GOP candidate in teh race.
Actus, yeah, the Cunningham seat was challenged, and it was supposed to be a big, sure Democratic win that would send a message to the GOP, and then it was supposed to be a great moral victory that the Donk candidate got one whole percentage point more of the vote, and now it seems y’all have moved on to the denial part of the fantasy… ‘Oh, was there an election?’
TW ‘early’, as in ‘It’s never too early for the Democrats to start explaining why they lost…’
I don’t know who is supposing these things. But it was a GOP seat before, its one after. From what little I know about house seats, they don’t switch very often.
Neither does the first, which requires the target to be a US person
Huh?
Um, I guess then all these arguments over the program are now moot since US citizens (or “persons”) aren’t being targeted.
Thanks for the clarification.
You keep bringing up target as that is everything, but its not. Its one of 4.
Actually, I’m bringing it up because that is what the Taylor opinion (which you of course did not bother to read) touches on.
But hey, as I said, you clarified everything.
You, someone who has zero knowledge about signals intel set us straight.
Thanks.
And im really curious as to why you always reply to my posts with two posts. Are you just spurty skeety with your thinking like that?
Because I like to make concise posts.
And, upon re-reading what you type the stunning amout of intellectual vacuity usually sets in.
Again:
Neither does the first, which requires the target to be a US person. But we still discussed it.
I suggest you read this and let it sink in a bit:
Which of course is why I’m continuously bringing it up.
You’re now on record saying the NSA program doesn’t violate FISA, which is refreshing.
You still haven’t caught on that there are 4 alternative definitions, and if one of them doesn’t fit, that doesn’t resolve the issue? Ok. TTYL then.
The parts that dont occur in the US or target US persons don’t. But I dont think thats quite what the program is.
You still haven’t caught on that there are 4 alternative definitions, and if one of them doesn’t fit, that doesn’t resolve the issue?
You still haven’t caught on that:
THE OTHER DEFINITIONS ARE IRRELEVANT AS THEY ARE IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE PROGRAM, THE ISSUE, OR THE CLAIMS MADE IN COURT.
Again, obtuse.
You just can’t grasp this.
Literally amazing.
You still haven’t caught on that there are 4 alternative definitions, and if one of them doesn’t fit, that doesn’t resolve the issue?
And:
Neither does the first, which requires the target to be a US person. But we still discussed it
I repeat:
I guess then all these arguments over the program are now moot since US citizens (or “persons”) aren’t being targeted as they claimed.
TW: trying
Actus is actually trying to look stupid here.
I have no other explaination for this.
Legal Services INC. needs employees too….
Well, they are in the general sense of whether the program falls under FISA. You have to make sure all the definitions don’t apply. You have concluded they don’t. I haven’t.
I don’t think the phrase “US person” means a US citizen. But I don’t know if the claim is that the people abroad are being targetted. I think the claim is jus that they’re being surveilled.
I suppose the solution for this standing paradox is that some of these people making the calls to the US would not need to be surveilled under FISA warrants if they were targets. But the people they are calling would need to be surveilled under FISA. And now they fear that there is more surveillance than they though before, and this has chilled their calls.
I don’t think the phrase “US person†means a US citizen
Here is what it means:
Then:
Well, they are in the general sense of whether the program falls under FISA. You have to make sure all the definitions don’t apply. You have concluded they don’t. I haven’t.
Because you’re rather ignorant on the topic and not very bright.
What I do find amusing is that you must hold that belief becuase you’ve already concluded Bush “broke the law.”
I know. I looked it up.
Its also that not too far away, in MD, is the NSA. So I’m not so sure as you that all surveillance done by the US is done outside the US. But its true that I am ignorant of what goes on in there. I would love to find out though.
Its also that not too far away, in MD, is the NSA. So I’m not so sure as you that all surveillance done by the US is done outside the US. But its true that I am ignorant of what goes on in there. I would love to find out though.
They probobly are being done right here. Much like FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, etc did. What’s your point?
I don’t know if you’ve been following, but the applicability of FISA may depend on where the surveillance is done.
Once your communication winds up roaming the aether pretty much anybody can pluck it out and use it.
Physically, certainly. But as far as the laws are concerned it matters who does it where and to whom.
Jeff:
“..should this decision be overturned (as it almost certainly will be),..”
Yeah, that’s what I said about McCain-Feingold, too.