Though I am not necessarily in favor of all that the Democrats bring to the table. I have to be happy about this one. Perhaps this is but a small victory, but damn, at the very least it is a step in right direction.
"If you can’t lend a hand then get out of the way....cuz the times they are a changin". |
| |
Written By:
darohu
URL:
http://
|
After what we actually know to be true, if anybody with any phone thinks they any semblance or expectation or privacy using such device....
They are total fools!
But for sure, if you happpen to place calls to nations where known terrorist activities are plotted and contact can be made with such.... Your ass is tapped!
Leagle or not, I will add a question, how many Americans have been killed via a direct terrorist attack since 9/11/01 on US soil?
I really would love to argue another point about this item, but this point is in reality so moot it does not even deserve discussion.
I used to not have to obtain a SS # until I entered the work force. Today your parents are required to get one the day you come into existence! I can only assume such would be post live birth!
|
| |
Written By:
TC
URL:
http://
|
If I was truly cynical I might say that this might be a consequence of the attitude described by the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim." If they think a Democrat will take the presidency in 2008 would they want them to claim the sweeping powers formerly claimed by the current administration?
Oh, I’ve said it. I really am getting jaded about politics. |
| |
Written By:
Kav
URL:
http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
|
The NSA Wiretaps aren’t going away. What’s changed is FISA’s involvement.
FISA has agreed in writing to live up to the reputation for being prompt and bureaucracy free that Bush critics claimed.
Bush is avoiding a fight over this issue, not conceding it. He can now point to FISA as being responsible for any missed opportunities. So Bush is saving big fights with congress for ’bigger’ issues. And by bigger issues, I mean ones that have a bigger immediate impact on the economy and the War in Iraq and not morally bigger. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
Prediction:
We were doing some wiretapping that wasn’t up to pre 9/11 FISA rules, and now FISA courts agree that its okie dokie, so we "back down."
But its big news that Bushco was WRONG.
|
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
So, why didn’t they just do that in 2001 in the first place? Maybe, just maybe, there were high-value intercepts in 2001 that aren’t present today.
Maybe, just maybe, after all the stink and noise in the past 5 years, the important targets don’t rely on open communications that can be wire-tapped.
So the Bush administration backs down on something that doesn’t make a rat’s behind any more. |
| |
Written By:
Mark A. Flacy
URL:
http://
|
So, why didn’t they just do that in 2001 in the first place? Orin Kerr makes the reasonable suggestion that they are now using a method that wasn’t approved by the Supreme Court until 2006.
http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_14-2007_01_20.shtml#1169093067 |
| |
Written By:
Sean
URL:
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
|
Leagle or not, I will add a question, how many Americans have been killed via a direct terrorist attack since 9/11/01 on US soil? You mean other than by that whole anthrax thing? |
| |
Written By:
Ugh
URL:
http://
|
The Fisa Court of Review already approved the NSA program. If anyone will review their report, they will be surprised to find that they ruled in favor of Bush. What the White house can’t and shouldn’t let on, is this is the formal approval, under seal, that has been totally misrepresented by the MSM. And that is good in this case, because it only "sounds" like a loss. In fact, the program continues. |
| |
Written By:
d
URL:
http://
|
Not to put to fine a point on it, this story indicates that the Bush Administration was lying through its teeth about the NSA program, its necessity, and the unsuitability of FISA for overseeing it. Balderdash. Utterly conclusory bullsh!t on your part, Dale.In the spring of 2005 — well before the first press account disclosing the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program — the Administration began exploring options for seeking FISA Court approval. Which solely claims what was done, and says nothing of motivations.
They only thing that can be said is that the political costs of maintaining the program (a circumstance that can be planned for without it’s being a thing thought valid, merely it’s liklihood conceded) were thought to be higher than the benfits. This says nothing about the argument re the AUMF and what it authorizes, it solely implies that cooperating with the FISA court is good politics when it can be cooperated with.Glenn Greenwald was right. A stunningly rare event and not true in this case.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp |
| |
Written By:
Tom Perkins
URL:
http://
|
THE COURT OF REVIEW STATED THE FISA COURT COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRESIDENTS "INHERENT AUTHORITY". SO IF ANY OF YOU ARE DISAPOINTED, HERES A GAME: 1. NAME THE MONTH AND YEAR THE COURT OF REVIEW DID THIS
2. DEFINE COURT OF REVIEW
3. WHO CREATED THE COURT OF REVIEW AND IN WHAT YEAR.
4. WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL TITLE OF THE COURT OF REVIEW.
BYE |
| |
Written By:
d
URL:
http://
|
|
I must admit that your parody of leftist spin had me going. Right up until you said that Greenwald was right. That, I presume, was your signal that your tongue was firmly in cheek, right? |
| |
Written By:
notherbob2/robert fulton
URL:
http://
|