Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Argument by Quotation
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, January 02, 2006

Finding the Center finds this wonderful pair of quotes...
  • "Liberals and Democrats are only opposed to this because they don't want anyone finding out what they've been up to...What have you folks been doing that you so desperately want to keep hidden?"
    —Rush Limbaugh


  • "If Rush Limbaugh has nothing to hide and has done nothing wrong, what's the problem with letting the prosecutor speak to the doctors and go through all the records?"
    — Wolf Blitzer, to Rush's attorney Roy Black

It seems Alicublog had it right when he wrote:
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 1994: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

HAW HAW HAW! AW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Thassa good one! Yee-haaa!

SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 2005: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to spy on you and perhaps indefinitely detain you without charges."

That sounds reasonable.
UPDATE:

Ezra Klein borrows Rush Limbaugh's argument...
"if Bush did nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about. So why's he so afraid of [an investigation]?"
Yes, why?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
You know, Jon, your arguments might actually make some sense, if the people that the government has been reportedly spying on were actual citizens as opposed to sworn enemies of America, trying to blow us up.

And we can pretty much figure that’s all they’ve been doing, because even the wack-job Democrats Like Rockefeller haven’t said word one about anything further, despite being breifed about all our ativities at least a year prior to the Times leaking such information.

Your fighting the good fight to keep Islamo-facists free, is noted.(Shake of the head)



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
1) And you know that we’re only monitoring terrorists and not actual citizens how, exactly?

2) And this monitoring couldn’t be authorized by warrant why, exactly?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
WaPo:
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States
Since they were spying on US citizens, I presume you’ll concede that the argument makes sense.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon,
And you know that we’re only monitoring terrorists and not actual citizens how, exactly?
The Democrats, who as I’ve said, have been breifed on all of this repeatedly, have broken every rule in the book to get information out about what’s been going on. Tell me; do you honestly think that if they managed to get something further to feed their Bush derangement syndrome, they’d not bust a gut getting THAT leaked, as well? Such is their derangement that I thikn we can take their silence on the matter as a pretty fair indicator.
Since they were spying on US citizens, I presume you’ll concede that the argument makes sense.
Which is an order that every President since FDR has signed, Jon. Every single one. The activity has been declared legal in ever case it’s been challanged.

Explain to me exactly where you noticed the sky falling.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
And this monitoring couldn’t be authorized by warrant why, exactly?
Didn’t need to be. More people you tell, the harder it is to keep things secret... as you may have noted, the Democrats have a rather nasty habit of leaking like the back window of my old Firebird.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

If a US citizen is talking to an Al-Queda operative, I believe that warrants monitoring.

I believe the program has been reviewed by some members of congress. I don’t know the depth of that review, but I don’t believe the program has been intentionally abused upto this point. I will concede the possibility exists.

However, if you held a vote today to have the monitoring or not have the monitoring, the have side would win such a vote. People who are agast with the situation should be suggesting how the monitoring can be overseen, ensure that the material can’t be used for criminal prosecution of US citizens, and its focus kept on terrorist activities. Installing safeguards into the current practices is probably warranted and would have had popular support. But ending the program is just not going to happen.

Not only is ending the program not going to fly, I believe Bush’s increase at the polls is in part due to publicizing this effort. If the democrats wanted to score points, they could have called for revision of the program with safeguards. Instead they had to go for the conspiracy theory/impeachment angle and lost.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
"The Democrats didn’t fuss about it" is not a defense. I won’t dignify it further.
Which is an order that every President since FDR has signed, Jon. Every single one. The activity has been declared legal in ever case it’s been challanged.
Which Presidents have legally authorized warrantless domestic spying on US citizens?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
If a US citizen is talking to an Al-Queda operative, I believe that warrants monitoring.
Well, no f*ing kidding. Who doesn’t?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Which Presidents have legally authorized warrantless domestic spying on US citizens?
What part about "Every single one since FDR" do you not understand?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Well, no f*ing kidding. Who doesn’t?
You, apparently.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Give citations, please. "Trust me, they have" is not an argument.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, no f*ing kidding. Who doesn’t?

You, apparently.
Reading comprehension has never been a strong suit with you, has it? I’m very much in favor of monitoring terrorists’ conversations with US citizens. I’m also in favor of raiding the homes of suspected murderers, and gaining access to the phone records of suspected kidnappers.

With warrants and proper judicial oversight.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Your problem, is, John, which are unwilling to allow that the definition of "proper oversight" changes in wartime situation.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
There is a difference between tarring someone with BDS as a routine part of an all-out attack and noting symptoms in a person who has seemed to be relatively uninfected. If your argument is to be believed, we should have full-scale investigations of everyone is a responsible government position – after all, they have nothing to fear, right?
Even the most innocent has plenty to fear, given the nature and often bizarre results of these “investigations”. If nothing else, there is the old: “how come this person looks to be so innocent? How come their co-conspirators have absolutely nothing negative to say about them? Sounds like a cover-up to me!”
And freedom from unwarranted investigations is one of the basic civil rights that we should all be protecting.
"if Bush did nothing wrong, he’s got nothing to worry about. So why’s he so afraid of [an investigation]?"
“Yes, why?
This type of argument is dangerously close to: “If you are innocent, why do you claim your rights under the Fifth Amendment?”
How about: “Hey, if they are not doing anything wrong, why do they object to having police burst into their house and search it at will?”

Re-examine your argument, Jon. I won’t diagnose BDS, but your article clearly needs to be sent to the lab for further analysis.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
This type of argument is dangerously close to: “If you are innocent, why do you claim your rights under the Fifth Amendment?”
It was defenders of Bush who introduced that argument. Ask them.
Your problem, is, John, which are unwilling to allow that the definition of "proper oversight" changes in wartime situation.
Fantastic. And since you recently pointed out that we’ve been in a "state of war since December the 8th,1941", then "proper oversight" is effectively meaningless, since we’ve always been at war.

In any event, you’ve managed to go from arguing that my point would make sense "if the people that the government has been reportedly spying on were actual citizens" to avoiding that subject entirely and arguing that the rules are what you say they are.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Speaking of poor arguments, what a lousy choice of a word was this:
“And freedom from unwarranted investigations is one of the basic civil rights that we should all be protecting.”
Geez.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Give citations, please. "Trust me, they have" is not an argument.
Intelligence: A presidential executive order reads: "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence without a court order." So wrote Jimmy Carter.

That’s right: Warrantless surveillance is neither unprecedented nor illegal. Carter, a president not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, signed Executive Order 12139 on May 23, 1979. Even he recognized that in his role of commander in chief he had extraordinary responsibilities that might require extraordinary tools.

The civil liberties police were largely silent when Carter authorized essentially what President Bush has authorized, which is a far cry from Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s decision to wiretap the phone of Martin Luther King.

During the Clinton administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

The home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames was searched without a warrant. Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." So when The New York Times claims the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American-intelligence gathering practices," it is dead wrong.

Matter of fact, Jon, I do stand corrected on one small point. To my understanding the only president since FDR NOT to make use of such authority was President Ford, though I’ve been unable to confirm that, either way.

Now, and you can argue if you like, that all these actions were illegal too.
However I think you’ve got a long row in front of you to hoe, with that one, given the amount of case law.. all of which has been consistantly supporting the right of the President to order such surveillance.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Reading comprehension has never been a strong suit with you, has it? I’m very much in favor of monitoring terrorists’ conversations with US citizens. I’m also in favor of raiding the homes of suspected murderers, and gaining access to the phone records of suspected kidnappers.

With warrants and proper judicial oversight.
In the day & age of disposable cell phones, leaks, and the internet, you can’t always wait for the bureacracy to move quickly enough. I have yet to see a clear picture outlining the time it takes for a warrant, but I know that the total time if often misrepresented by the time it takes to review the application. Meanwhile the time for the application to begin to be reviewed is neglected. In special cases a warrant can be pulled ahead of the list, but when you need to review as many potential leads as possible, they all become special and you’re back to the mercy of bureacracy.

Anyway in this age, a phone number found on someone’s laptop can go cold in a day or hours. The process needs some retrospective review or we piss away the few opportunities we do get.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
"if Bush did nothing wrong, he’s got nothing to worry about. So why’s he so afraid of [an investigation]?"

He may not be "afraid" of an investigation, per se.

He may, however, depending on the scope of the investigation, fear the revelation of secret techniques which may benefit the enemy we’re trying to monitor.

If I were he, I’d be concerned with that scope and certainly be concerned enough to try to ensure that any investigation was narrowly conducted in that regard.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
What Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
What Carter signed:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
That "Clinton and Carter did it, too" line has been repeatedly shown to be misleading and false. If you don’t know that, shame on you.

If you don’t trust the copy and paste function of a liberal think-tank, here’s Byron York:
In the argument that has emerged over warrantless surveillance, there have been a number of overstatements. Some people, for example, have said that Bill Clinton signed an executive order authorizing such surveillance; he did not.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
He may, however, depending on the scope of the investigation, fear the revelation of secret techniques which may benefit the enemy we’re trying to monitor.
That’s a good point and a very legitimate concern. There’s plenty of precedent, though, for secret investigations on classified material.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
The process needs some retrospective review or we piss away the few opportunities we do get.
FISA incorporates retrospective review. It shouldn’t be a problem to get suspected terrorist agents covered under FISA.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
There’s plenty of precedent, though, for secret investigations on classified material.

And, as the very existence of this story shows, there’s plenty of precedent for those secrets to end up in the NY Times.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
And, as the very existence of this story shows, there’s plenty of precedent for those secrets to end up in the NY Times.
That’s true. Under an investigation of this sort, the disclosure would, presumably, be tighly controlled and monitored. "We don’t trust the other branches of government" is not a good rationale for lack of oversight or investigation. That kind of precedent would effectively shut down checks and balances. It’s a blanket get out of jail free card.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
That "Clinton and Carter did it, too" line has been repeatedly shown to be misleading and false.
Ah. And to parrot you, how do you know what they did and didn’t do? You seem awfully trusting of unsupported data when it support your argument. You also seem rather trusting of Democrats... the same Democrats who were, as Simberg said the other day...
"...attacking churches with tanks, and snatching kids at gunpoint, the administration was collecting FBI files and leaking data against its political enemies, trumping up charges against innocent people so they could replace them with cronies, destroying evidence of wrongdoing in emails, threatening and libeling inconvenient women, etc."
At the very least Jon, your memory seems very selective, indeed.

In any event you seem to gloss over the specifics of what was said in the case of the Clinton justice department... Look at the quote again :
"that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Gee, I don’t see Any limitation there regards citizenship, do you?
He may, however, depending on the scope of the investigation, fear the revelation of secret techniques which may benefit the enemy we’re trying to monitor.
Correct, McQ; Given the BDS in play here, I expect that’s precisely the concern; He’d be a damn fool if he wasn’t worried about it, particularly given the leaks of already come out.
If I were he, I’d be concerned with that scope and certainly be concerned enough to try to ensure that any investigation was narrowly conducted in that regard.
Quite so, McQ, and I expect he already is.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Under an investigation of this sort, the disclosure would, presumably, be tighly controlled and monitored. "We don’t trust the other branches of government" is not a good rationale for lack of oversight or investigation.

True, but in the extremely partisan political atmosphere I have little confidence that somehow something damaging to the security of the US wouldn’t be leaked. I have a feeling that has some bearing on the leak of the present story.

That’s not not excuse anyone for doing anything which is indeed illegal (should that be the case), or to say it shouldn’t be investigated, but instead to say that today’s political climate gives me no confidence that secrets revealed in any investigation will remain secret.

I’d also add there should be some pretty hefty penalites involved if that should indeed become the case.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
At the risk of sidetracking a bit, I would add, McQ, that for all the smoke and fire we’ve seen as regards proper procedure for warrants etc. we’ve not seen any as regards the leaks that have come out about all of this, and got printed in the Times.

I would point out that there is a proper procedure for being a whistleblower, and the route as I recall runs through the office of the inspector general. The process provides protection for such whistleblowers. I know nothing that suggests those procedures should have been followed incidental to that particular leak.

So why is the dedication to "proper procedure" going lacking here?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Ah. And to parrot you, how do you know what they did and didn’t do? You seem awfully trusting of unsupported data when it support your argument.
The links I provided demonstrate that what Clinton/Carter signed were not what they’ve been represented to be. If you’ve got additional legislation they’ve signed, bring it.
At the very least Jon, your memory seems very selective, indeed.
Huh. In that long list, I see not one example of warrantless domestic surveillance of US Citizens.
Gee, I don’t see Any limitation there regards citizenship, do you?
No. In fact, I don’t see any mention of it at all, except from you.
True, but in the extremely partisan political atmosphere I have little confidence that somehow something damaging to the security of the US wouldn’t be leaked.
Should that happen, we ought to prosecute it. (and if the DoJ determines the current leak is illegal...let’s prosecute that, too) In the meantime, that’s no excuse for essentially repealing Congressional and Judicial oversight of the Executive branch.

Even if we grant that these searches are in murky, unprecedented legal territory -- and there is at least a plausible argument to be made in each direction -- forclosing on an investigation is a dangerous path. Quite apart from whether it’s a good idea to give the Executive Branch effectively unlimited power whenever troops are deployed, there’s the very real probability that Congress will swing hard in reasserting their control and skew things even further. (see the War Powers Act for precedent)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
No. In fact, I don’t see any mention of it at all, except from you.
Only because you’re not looking... apparently for fear you’ll find it.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"if Bush did nothing wrong, he’s got nothing to worry about. So why’s he so afraid of [an investigation]?"

The investigation doesn’t pose a threat....the biased investigators however, are another story
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Again, Bithead, the warrantless searches that were discussed during that period revolved around foreigners.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I would add that in 1994, FISA did not cover physical searches. It did cover wiretaps.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
“It was defenders of Bush [my emphasis] who introduced that argument. Ask them.”
So... anyone who argues that an investigation of a president in these circumstances is improper is “a defender of Bush”? Duly noted in your BDS diagnostic file (under “Us vs. Them” section).

 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
So... anyone who argues that an investigation of a president in these circumstances is improper is “a defender of Bush”?
It was not "all" defenders of Bush. I specifically cited Rush Limbaugh as an example at the top of the post. Don’t be an idiot.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon;

So do these taps, on one end. Or hadn’t you noticed?
We’re not talking about your call to your aunt Tilly being monitored by the NSA. we’re not talking about calls between now-ex-president Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky being monitored. we’re not talking about tapes of Newt Gingrich and the republican committee’s being monitored taped and then distributed by the news media. We’re talking about calls being made from here to areas dominated by AlQuieda.

You remember them, don’t you?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
So do these taps, on one end. Or hadn’t you noticed?
And they, at least in some cases, involved US citizens on the othe end.

Look, you fuckwit, nobody is arguing that it’s illegal to conduct warrantless surveillance of non-US citizens. That’s why intelligence agencies exist. Please stop conflating surveillance of foreigners with surveillance of US citizens.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ah…. I believe that this is where I give the jury a knowing look, allow a very long pause while they contemplate the witness’s last comment, walk slowly to my seat and, at the last moment state: “No further questions, your Honor.”
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Too bad, the delay spoiled that one. However, when someone intimates that you may be an idiot, it is best to delay your response a bit while you contemplate. Carry on.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
From Jon:
What Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
You must have taken "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person" from 1822 (or the older similar 1802).

From what I’ve seen, those references arguing that Clinton didn’t authorize searches of US citizens are only quoting part of the legislation.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html
a) Presidential authorization

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if—
(A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and
(iii) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) [1] of section 1821 (4) of this title;
If you go to section 1821, you get
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001821----000-.html

...
(4) “Minimization procedures” with respect to physical search, means—
(A) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purposes and technique of the particular physical search, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(B) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in section 1801 (e)(1) of this title, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand such foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(C) notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(D) notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), with respect to any physical search approved pursuant to section 1822 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no information, material, or property of a United States person shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1824 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t play one in blogs either, but there appears that under 1822 a)(1)(A)(iii) which relies on the ’minimization procedure’ from 1821 some wiggle room when a US citizen is involved. It doesn’t make sense that this section would exist if section (ii) which says it can’t be conducted if US citizens are involved overrides it.

Section 1802 (electronic surveillance) has a similar minimization procedure and relies on 1801
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
which has even more wiggle room.
“Agent of a foreign power” means—
...
(2) any person who—
...
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
I’m not a lawyer, but I think there’s enough doubt for me to still believe Clinton did authorize such surveillance and searches. When you tunnel down a bit there are allowances for US citizens and then Clinton’s exective order allows those to be warrantless.

I guess you could file this under the "Devil quoting scripture for his own purposes". If its me, which it might because I’m not a lawyer and could be mistaken, so be it and its not intentional. But the “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” that’s been tosses around to me seems as equal a candidate if not more so.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
Please stop conflating surveillance of foreigners with surveillance of US citizens.

Once again, surveillance for what purpose? Without the FISA warrant, they won’t be able to use the information in a court of law. They probably won’t be able to use anything derived from that information in a court of law.

If you’re going to bring up the possibility of blackmail from the information, why I believe that’s considered illegal.

And even more to the point, a good amount of this surveillance has been and will be via intercepting internet traffic. How do you map an IP address to a physical location? Even if the physical location is in the US, that doesn’t mean that someone is sitting behind the keyboard writing the message. I can SSH into a company server in China and crank out an e-mail while sitting behind my desk at home. About all you can do is scan for content, and when you do that you’ll be scanning some US citizen’s data.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Jon;
Look, you fuckwit, nobody is arguing that it’s illegal to conduct warrantless surveillance of non-US citizens. That’s why intelligence agencies exist. Please stop conflating surveillance of foreigners with surveillance of US citizens.
Amazing what one has to do to get you to admit soemthing. Now that’s done, pay attention:

All the calls deliberately targeted by this program under discussion, are ones to and from abroad, not domestic ones.

Yet YOU play it as "Domestic Spying... a move worthy of the DNC.

Mark:
Once again, surveillance for what purpose? Without the FISA warrant, they won’t be able to use the information in a court of law. They probably won’t be able to use anything derived from that information in a court of law.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Whoops. Forgot to shift control modes.

Mark, as Jon has pointed out the administration in defending its actions has not put it all to Fisa. Clearly they are considering their moves to be legally rooted in other legislation.



That said, I must commend John for pointing up that there is a clear path through the existing fights of legislation which allows for the president to do precisely what he did. once again, Henke can argue that what the president did was illegal, but my read is that argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on .
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Jon,
Don’t you realize. This is a WoT… waronterrorwaronterrorwaronterror … sorry, I drifted for a minute, And this allows Our President to do whatever he wants,… geesh, man.

Re-examine your argument, Jon. I won’t diagnose BDS, but your article clearly needs to be sent to the lab for further analysis.


Ahhh, that’s it. You’re sick, you understand.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
As Sowell puts it:
Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal.
So, the brutal reality; how many civilian lives are we willing to sacrafice, here to keep those sufferiung with BDS happy?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Bithead, you must understand. We can sacrifice a million lives (dirty nuclear device) for the sake of defending perfect civil rights protection. Pursuing the WOT? We cannot even risk the lives of our professional troops for an endeavor of that sort, much less a civil right or two.*
I believe that I have the Democrats position right.

* While a Republican is president
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I’m not a lawyer, but I think there’s enough doubt for me to still believe Clinton did authorize such surveillance and searches. When you tunnel down a bit there are allowances for US citizens and then Clinton’s exective order allows those to be warrantless.
No, because you tunnelled too far based on the limitations within the executive order and the specific part of FISA quoted. The searches were limited to the definition of "a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3))." Clinton’s executive order was confined to that definition. You cannot extend the definition beyond what Clinton and FISA authorized in order to claim Clinton authorized warrentless searches on Americans. He didn’t.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Notherbob;

Precisely so. Again in the words of Sowell:

However the fine legal points are resolved, the current tenor of debate seems out of tune with events. In theory, I don’t want to be wiretapped without due process, no matter how unlikely it is that anyone would want to know the shade of my highlights.

But in practice, the task of getting scores or hundreds of warrants to wiretap terrorism suspects mid-conversation seems impossible to imprudent.

More to the point, I want the government to connect all the little dots it can in order to prevent another slaughter on American soil. How rich that Bush should be treated as a criminal for trying to prevent another 9/11 attack, while a known al-Qaida terrorist could be set free on a technicality.

Our decency may kill us yet.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Arrgh. Correction; the latter quote is Kathleen Parker. My error.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
from JWG:
I’m not a lawyer, but I think there’s enough doubt for me to still believe Clinton did authorize such surveillance and searches. When you tunnel down a bit there are allowances for US citizens and then Clinton’s exective order allows those to be warrantless.
No, because you tunnelled too far based on the limitations within the executive order and the specific part of FISA quoted. The searches were limited to the definition of "a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3))." Clinton’s executive order was confined to that definition. You cannot extend the definition beyond what Clinton and FISA authorized in order to claim Clinton authorized warrentless searches on Americans. He didn’t.
I did quote from 1801 (a)(2)(C) which gives a pretty darn broad umbrella saying anyone involved in terrorism is covered.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
I did quote from 1801 (a)(2)(C) which gives a pretty darn broad umbrella saying anyone involved in terrorism is covered.
Nope. Look again at 1801 a(1), (2), (3) which was the limitation specified by Clinton’s executive order for FISA section 1822.
“Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
Period.


You can’t use terrorism or "agents of a foreign power" when discussing Clinton’s order because they are specifically not a part of the FISA law enacted. Clinton DID NOT authorize warentless searches against Americans within the executive order being discussed within the blogisphere.


By the way, there is no 1801 (a)(2)(C). I think you are quoting 1801 (b)(2)(C) which is not covered in the FISA section enacted.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider