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

 
The Usual from Cole
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 28, 2007

Imagine my amusement when alleged analyst John Cole gets it wrong again. Commenting on the "Cigarette Police" post yesterday, Cole says:
I don’t understand why this is such a big deal- after all, you guys allow the state to do anything when they are trying to protect us, and the guy clearly says he is doing just that.
Really? Huh, who was it that posted this just yesterday and prior to the "Cigarette Police" post?
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Obviously the court feels that way as well. That's a good thing and demonstrates that at least in this case, the checks on the various branches of government are still working.
Gasp!

That was me.

Cole, never one to let facts stand in the way of a good mischaracterization, apparently couldn't be bothered to check that out.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I don’t understand why this is such a big deal- after all, you guys allow the state to do anything when they are trying to protect us, and the guy clearly says he is doing just that.
Perhaps by "you guys", he meant people who support Bush’s desire to undermine those 4th Amendment checks on government power.

If so, he should have been more specific, but also, it would have been an appropriate comment.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Click through, Cap - click through.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Over the last year or so John has become very, very unhappy.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
John Cole’s mind rotted to the same degree that his comments section has. Nowadays, it is full of truther retreads and BDS infected whatevers.

It is about time that O-dub (Willis) offered him a job at media matters. He has built up the right amount for froth in his posting to qualify.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Really? Huh, who was it that posted this just yesterday and prior to the "Cigarette Police" post?
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Obviously the court feels that way as well. That’s a good thing and demonstrates that at least in this case, the checks on the various branches of government are still working.
Gasp!

That was me.
Proud of that, huh? So I suppose you’ll be posting criticisms of the White House for attempting to use the law as it did. I guess you’ll write that the Justice Department shouldn’t appeal the district judge’s decision. I’m sure you’ll be stating clearly that the Bush Administration should stop its efforts to avoid judicial review on the NSA cases, on the GITMO cases, etc. No doubt you’ll state unequivocally and unambiguously that secret and unreviewed actions by the President are anti-democratic. . . . No? Then Cole is absolutely correct. If it comes with the GWOT™ label, it’s all good. No matter the cost in lives, money, restrictions on liberty, as long as Big Daddy Bush says Jump! It’s a terrorist!, all the authoritarians say How high?.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Well Shag, your side may soon have the responcibility of dealing with terrorism on your shoulders. Bush has done it his way and there hasn’t been a repeat since 9/11. Yea the terrorists have had a rough time of it and that tiny fraction of American citizens that cavort with them. We’ll see how you guys handle it and I bet it won’t be much different.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
Click through, Cap - click through.
I did, too late, and saw this...
Imagine how amused I am watching Captain Ed and alleged libertarian McQ get upset about this story:
Making this...
Perhaps by "you guys", he meant people who support Bush’s desire to undermine those 4th Amendment checks on government power.
Pretty stupid, since by "you guys", he was very specific, and wrong.

I’ll just shut up now

(Don’t get excited Beck, you were still wrong about it being the Shah’s father who oversaw nationalization of oil in Iran in 1951, while you attacked me for having my facts wrong)

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
That’s very adorable, Private Craptastic. I just went and looked.

Did your 24/7 help-desk tutor tell you when it was that the first oil rights contracts were unilaterally abrogated by the Iranian government?

You need to cancel that credit-card invoice, son.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
McQ from September: "Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional."

Meet McQ from August: "Am I against warrantless attempts to intercept communication by the bad guys. Not necessarily."

You might also like to let your co-blogger Mr. Franks know that all the "AUMF justifies everything" arguments he made (back before Bush decided he was just kidding about that) were unconstitutional too.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
McQ from September: "Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional."

Meet McQ from August: "Am I against warrantless attempts to intercept communication by the bad guys. Not necessarily."
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. One deals with issuing warrants, the other with searches (communications intercepts).

While the Constitution is clear on the issuance of warrants, it does not say that all searches must be made with warrants. Common sense and the Supreme Court have recognized that some warrantless searches are reasonable and allowable.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Meet McQ from August: "Am I against warrantless attempts to intercept communication by the bad guys. Not necessarily."
That’s the best you have?

Any idea of what "not necessarily" might mean?

Think "foreign intercepts".

Ah, there you go.

Back to the minors with you, Retief.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Steverino, Is McQ talking about the same program both times? Of course he is. But maybe your right and not requiring warrants is a great way to ensure that searches and seizures are not unreasonable.

Or you can just ask McQ from February who doesn’t make such a distinction and just argues that Congress can’t limit the president’s "Inherent Powers".
If we grant that the inherent powers exist (which seems to be the case and thus the reason for the FISA law, i.e. to limit them), how does limiting those powers outside the constitutionally specified procedure for doing so grant FISA supremacy as law over the unmodified (unamended) constitutionally implied inherent powers?
Of course that was before the Whitehouse decided that even it didn’t really mean the "FISA is unconstitutional" argument. Perhaps McQ’s thoughts on it have evolved. Anyway, McQ is certainly not as bad on this as many of his contemporaries in the bedwetter caucus who demand to know how the NSA can keep us safe from the bogeyman when treasonous democrats keep trying to get them to obey the law.

McQ,
Any idea of what "not necessarily" might mean?
It doesn’t mean yes.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Steverino, Is McQ talking about the same program both times? Of course he is. But maybe your right and not requiring warrants is a great way to ensure that searches and seizures are not unreasonable.
Two different parts of the same program. Again, his statements are not incompatible.

Also, I did NOT say "not requiring warrants is a great way to ensure that searches and seizures are not unreasonable". I said that the US Supreme Court has held that some warrantless searches are allowable. Argue your point honestly, if you are capable of it. From what I’ve seen, you aren’t.


 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
It doesn’t mean yes.
It may, but that would depend on context wouldn’t it? I would be situation dependent ... but you had no idea under what auspices that may be the case, did you? Or why. "Not necessarily" can cover a huge array of situations and choices, can’t it? And many of them wouldn’t violate the rights of a single, solitary person here.

But understanding that requires one to think something through rather than reacting with your normal half-cocked "gotchya" attitude you and others consistently display (and then eat). If you want to see another example of it, go watch David S. squirm in the Beauchamp thread. Or go to any thread and watch Erb.





 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Meet McQ from August: "Am I against warrantless attempts to intercept communication by the bad guys. Not necessarily."
Warrantless interceptions of communications are not necessarily contrary to the 4th amendment, especially in the context of the prosecution of a war. Read some history on it before you hit your keyboard.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Did your 24/7 help-desk tutor tell you when it was that the first oil rights contracts were unilaterally abrogated by the Iranian government?
The oil contracts were not unilaterally and officially abrogated until the industry was nationalized, though there were numerous prior renegotiations that were not very cordial.

In any case, I never set myself up as an expert on Iranian history, as you had
"...not to anyone who knows the history, which none of you do, but it doesn’t keep you from running your yaps. Take a good long look at this discussion. You will find that the word "Shah" appears first over the name of that bloody twit "Captain Sarcastic". He’s referring to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. (Naturally, The Maine Mosquito just comes buzzing along in trail without a clue in the world.) It was his father who nationalized all oil concessions in Iran. If you want to learn something — anything — about any of this..."
My only suggestion, other than getting over yourself, is that when you claim others are factually incorrect, and then insult them, it’s terribly unimpressive to follow that up with FACTUALLY INCORRECT ASSERTIONS.

I have a pretty good understanding of Iranian history, but by no means comprehensive, but to suggest that Ayn Rand’s simplistic comments that Iranians did not own their oil because it was in the ground for centuries and they did nothing with it, is rationalizing theft, IMHO, and a complete reversal of her Objectivist philosophy, for reasons I suspect, having to with her opinion that since rights mean nothing to Iranians, and I extend this to suggest she may have wondered why should we respect theirs.

Don’t teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, son.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I think you missed the point of Juan’s post. He was being humorous. If you read the whole post he is saying that these guys are upset about getting stopped due to the "cigarette surveillance program" yet they don’t complain about our basic civil liberties being infringed upon with things like The Patriot Act, etc. I think Juan finds it ironic.
 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://rashomon.blogspot.com
"Expert". That’s your word, Private. Not mine.

Now: I don’t have time to deal with you tonight. But you should go back to that post and drag the link off to your desktop, because before next week is over, I’ll be setting all of this straight, even if you don’t manage to get straight behind it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Must be me -
gathering information about hostile internationals plotting to blow up buildings to thwart their plans
vs
gathering information on citizens buying cigarettes and punishing them for smuggling them across the state line (when no mechanism for collecting any ’import’ tax has been provided or even created).

What was I thinking?
Clearly, they’re the same and require the same approach from a principles of freedom standpoint.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
go watch David S. squirm in the Beauchamp thread
Squirm? Because people who deny global warming and pretend to be libertarians but are really Republicans don’t want to admit that Rush Limbaugh insulted soldiers who disagree with Bush? No, McQ, I am most certainly not squirming. Squirming is what you do when you are a fundamentally honorable person and you sacrifice your integrity to become a member of the George Bush Fan Club.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
If you read the whole post he is saying that these guys are upset about getting stopped due to the "cigarette surveillance program" yet they don’t complain about our basic civil liberties being infringed upon with things like The Patriot Act, etc. I think Juan finds it ironic.
Oh I read the whole post. That’s why I posted my comments concerning the recent court ruling about the Patriot Act as a counterpoint to what "Juan" finds "ironic". It would have been nice if he’d have managed that himself instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Kind of shoot his ’ironic’ right in the @ss, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Not necessarily" can cover a huge array of situations and choices, can’t it?
Sure, but in most of those situations nobody would expect you to get a warrant, so the comment would be a non-sequitur. Pardon me for assuming that the opinions you offered would be cogent to the topic you broached.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Pardon me for assuming that the opinions you offered would be cogent to the topic you broached.
Cogent?

And it wasn’t an opinion, it was a statement in question and answer form.

Lastly, you’ve hit upon your major problem ... you assume way too much and consistently get it wrong when you do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
you assume way too much and consistently get it wrong when you do.
Thanks for that tip. So, have your opinions evolved since February?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Now: I don’t have time to deal with you tonight. But you should go back to that post and drag the link off to your desktop, because before next week is over, I’ll be setting all of this straight, even if you don’t manage to get straight behind it.
Okay, I’ll look forward to your "I was wrong but right" response.

It will be fun to see you jump on the boat with those who you always accuse of doing just that.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
First, I am not a lawyer, this is my opinion of the difference.
It seems to me there’s a huge difference between warrantless wiretaps and not-very-good warranted wire-taps. In the case of the warrantless types, you’re gathering information from suspected terrorists for use in thwarting their plans and could not be used in a civilian court, if you have a warrant, that’s admissable in civilian court.
That’s the difference.
If a detective wiretaps you without probable cause and hears about stolen property and busts you for possessing stolen property, he’s wrong.
If, on the other hand, he listens in to some terrorist going to blow up a building, goes there and catches the guy with the bombs, that’s a different story. He’s not arresting the guy for what he heard, he’s arresting the guy for carrying a bomb on a public street. The warrantless wiretap is not admissable in civilian court (I have no idea how military courts handle this)

That’s the difference.
 
Written By: Veeshir
URL: http://
There’s no need to quibble over details and quotes. No one here thinks you’ve really cared about warrantless wiretapping. You voiced a mild approval of a this district court decision a few days ago, and I’m glad you did and all, seriously. You also cited it as evidence that "the system works", six years later, thus demonstrating that your real interest is in picking fights with pro-civil-liberties leftists who claim it isn’t working. Meanwhile, you pay little attention when pro-wiretapping judges rule in favor of the Bush Admin on this, such as NSA vs. ACLU, which is apparently evidence that the system does not, in fact, work. The Bush admin’s one consistent rule for nominating judges is that they have the widest possible view on executive power imaginable, - the US attorney for DC is refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas in a manner that basically eliminates the existence of the subpoena for all practical purposes, for example - and that bores you as well.

There was a serious, concerned debate when the FISA update was passed by Democrats a few months ago. A lot of people are seriously worried that the language authorizes skipping the warrants on a lot of domestic-domestic communications. Do a search on Balkinzation for the issues. As I recall, your take on that whole issues was to write about enjoying the Democrats squirm and get blasted by their base. The government monitoring your phone calls? Sorry, check back later. Maybe I misremember that: not going to bother to check it.

Anyone who watches this place for even a month would find your crusade against, for example, simply making government-run health care available to poor people, outdecibeling your alledged dislike of warrantless wiretapping by about 1000 to 1.

Even if one was to pretend to agree for a minute that the availability of government health-care impinges on your liberties in some abstract manner,
Warantless wiretapping is secret, individually targeted, consistently abused where implemented, including in the US, and a genuinely classic example of police-state behavior, whereas many genuinely free democracies have government health-care programs.

Your priorities are out of whack for a ’libertarian’. John Cole thinks so, and he’s not very nice about it. I agree with him. Dale and Henke don’t seem to care much either, but they’re only indifferent as part of their general personal style. They’re not fervently engaged simultaneously in crusades against much less offensive targets. That compounds the aggravation.

I’m sure you’re happy with your priorities. But if you actually did think civil liberties were genuinely threatened by the government logging your phone calls, sending gag-order national security letters for your library checkouts, requiring your ISP’s to hold server logs and hand them over on request, and on and on and on, there’s a lot you could do to clarify that. Heck, even a prominent net-neutrality sticker on your blog would go quite a ways.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
No one here thinks you’ve really cared about warrantless wiretapping.
Oh, well that settles it, ’nost. Now that we have the benefit of your mindreading ability, we’ll just cease discussion.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So, John Cole is now setting the standards for what ’libertarian’ means and what people using must be thinking and doing? How nice. May I be the first to claim the right to define and set standards for ’liberal’ and ’Progressive’ and claim what people using them *should* be saying and thinking? Sweet! Wait til I get my set of priorities up for them.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
"Okay, I’ll look forward to your ’I was wrong but right’ response."
Well, okay then: tell me one good reason why I should bother with you.
"It will be fun to see you jump on the boat with those who you always accuse of doing just that."
Really? Is that your idea of "fun"?

You’re the one who very recently made a plea from the value of a concept. Now, get this: I don’t know what you make of Scott Erb, but he is outright lying when he comes on with his nonsense about my not being able to stand debate with him. You can take it as you will: it is the fact that his anti-value to debate was conclusively demonstrated to me many years ago, and nothing about his behavior or thinking has ever given me cause to reconsider the conclusion.

There are some people to whom "the concept" matters not at all, and I do not waste my time with them.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Well, okay then: tell me one good reason why I should bother with you.
I never suggested you should, you volunteered...
Now: I don’t have time to deal with you tonight. But you should go back to that post and drag the link off to your desktop, because before next week is over, I’ll be setting all of this straight, even if you don’t manage to get straight behind it.
I’d say that this is a dead horse.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
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