House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying

Tuesday's Washington Post reports that House Democrats are close to granting all of President Bush's demands for more domestic spying powers and telecommunications amnesty, in exchange for, well, nothing:

House and Senate Democratic leaders [say they are close to a bill giving the President] more domestic surveillance powers and grant[ing] phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program...

Unlike the Senate leadership, senior House Democrats have been fighting Bush's demand that telecommunications companies receive blanket amnesty for warrantless surveillance. Even when Bush refused to sign an extension of the surveillance bill without amnesty, the Democrats held firm and let the measure expire, drawing attack ads and fear-mongering from the G.O.P. By surrendering now, Democrats would not only ratify the administration's assault on the rule of law. They would also be practicing a self-destructive brand of political cannibalism that thins their ranks and enervates their base. Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains it in crushing detail, which I think is worth quoting at length:

The signs are unmistakably clear that what was always inevitable -- full compliance by the House Democratic leadership with Bush's demands on warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- is now imminent... There's very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented....But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do -- just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They're going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

The Post even floats one Democratic ploy to hide the ball: a "procedural move would allow many Democrats to vote against immunity but still make its approval all but certain." I don't think Democratic voters will be fooled by that "move." Even if you don't follow the floor rules closely -- and Speaker Pelosi can prevent most of Bush's demands from coming to a vote at all -- it's obvious when the Democratic Congress caves. It's especially striking on issues like Constitutional rights and Iraq, where Democrats cave after loudly declaring their commitment to fight. Back in October, I wrote about this tendency to "Rage and Cave":

If you believe the papers, Congressional Democrats have spent the better part of the past seven years vacillating between shock and outrage. They are thunderstruck by every White House scandal, stunned to discover another lie from the Bush Administration and positively livid each time they realize Bush is negotiating in bad faith. That is, of course, until they cave again. The Democrats' current rush to pass the President's intelligence bill repeats this sorry pattern. After roughly three years of outrage over illegal domestic spying--complete with [Sen. Pat Leahy's] roars of "Shame on us!"--Democrats are now pushing legislation to validate more warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

It's only gotten worse since October. Just this week, Bush's attorney general flatly refused to enforce contempt citations issued by Congress to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by White House officials. House Democrats say they are outraged and they will fight the attorney general. But the spying bill grants the attorney general new powers to prevent courts from reviewing the administration's conduct.

In the end, the Democrats have not offered a coherent explanation for this policy or their political surrender. After following this issue closely, I can't explain it either. As Greenwald writes, even on the most cynical terms, this was the worst possible route. And on principle, of course, there is no defense for retoractive amnesty, which stymies court oversight and undermines the rule of law.

Comments (80)

1. Why can I summon no outrage? Where is my disgust? Where is even my surprise? I am thinking the majority of Dems are requiring the Donna Edwards treatent and soon. We need to wash out the Blue Dogs, the moderates, and get a majority that can actually stand for what the Democratic Party pretended to espouse.

   Posted by yutsano at 03/04/2008 @ 12:32am

2. And which of the 2 Dem presidential candidates is more likely to make a real difference, carrying more Dems into Congress on coattails in Nov, inspiring them in '09 to start unraveling the disasters inflicted on us by CheneyBush & the GOP with Dem conivance?

   Which candidate?

   Neither?

   Then it's kaput for the Republic & hello corporatism & the imperial project's wars until we sink. Yes, this is the most important election in US history since 1932 ... but will the Nov result change much of anything?

   Posted by sloper at 03/04/2008 @ 12:44am

3. There is only one explanation that might redeem them, remote though I think the possibility of their actually doing this is: conditional immunity. If the immunity provisions are coupled with a full disclosure clause, so that the telcos must confess all their surveillance illegalities to Congress before they can receive the immunity provided, then we might have something that could be a clever and backhanded stroke at BushCo that would nevertheless hit home with great effect. Either Bush vetoes it and thus proves himself a scoundrel only interested in keeping illegal conduct from being exposed, or he signs it and then Congress gets the real goods on exactly what BushCo has been up to, with resulting outrage and reaction against not only BushCo but the entire apparatus that allowed this. Who knows where they might be able to take it from there, especially if they got a "twisting slowly in the wind" moment from the testimony.

   Of course, this all assumes that the Democratic leadership has at least a couple of braincells to rub together. At this point, that's the one thing I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on.

   Posted by Stwriley at 03/04/2008 @ 01:16am

4. Splendid idea "conditional immunity" ... especially if the telecoms companies reps must testify before Congress publicly & under oath.

   Thus, most unlikely. Do certain Dem reps want it known that they themselves were tapped? and what was heard?

   Tapping the phones of the House & Senate was how J Edgar Hoover stayed in power for almost a half century, unthreatened, immune, flagrant.

   Posted by sloper at 03/04/2008 @ 04:12am

5. Yes, thats right MBB, The Terrorists win again if the US courts get to have oversight of the presidents wiretaps and apply US law. They win yet again when those that broke US laws get immunity from laws that are set up to protect American citizens from their own guvt.

   Here is Chimpies position:

   "We need to listen to terrorists. Trust us . We do not need independent courts reviewing our deeds. We have never lied before. We have never broken any laws. We can't tell you who may or may not have been wiretapped, so therefore nobody can sue for damages. Its a secret. That is what America is about, secrecy in guvt. It does not matter that 99.9% of wiretaps get approved, you need to live in fear".

   The dem position:

   " We are the opposition party. But, You do what you want Mr. McFlightsuit, because you got the Mission Accomplished!"

   Bush legacy:

   updated 1:35 p.m. PT, Thurs., July. 20, 2006 SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Thursday refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terror.

   and

   In a "major setback" to President Bush's terrorism detention policies, a federal appeals court ruled today that the administration "cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an al-Qaida sleeper agent without charging him."

   and

   Justice Stevens wrote for the 5-3 majority, "We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the [Uniform Code of Military Justice] and the Geneva Conventions." Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Kennedy joined Stevens in the majority opinion.

   and

   Tuesday, 21 February 2006

   Americans United for Separation of Church and State lauded Tuesday's, February 21, U.S. Supreme Court decision barring the federal government from interfering with religious freedom.

   The high court ruled unanimously that the government "failed to demonstrate" that it had a "compelling interest in barring" the sacramental use of a tea containing a hallucinogen regulated by federal drug laws.

   and

   November 15, 2007

   Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a huge victory for the Sierra Club, several other environmental groups, and several states by voiding the Bush administration's fuel economy standards for light trucks. The case was filed May 23, 2006 in response to light truck fuel economy standards finalized by the administration in April 2006. The suit alleged that the standards failed to follow the process prescribed by law and that the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the light truck standards for 2008-2011.

   and

   Published: September 9, 2005 The Bush administration lost a last-minute bid on Thursday to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene and protect a federal panel's recommendations for the closing and realignment of military bases.

   Judges in Connecticut and Tennessee had blocked the panel from recommending changes at local Air National Guard bases, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday rejected the administration's request for intervention.

   and

   The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of Congress."

   and

   President Bush said the area must be used for training for national security purposes and had exempted the Navy from the ruling, originally handed down by a lower court in January. A federal judge quickly rejected that argument, but the Navy appealed.

   A three-man panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling that denied the Navy exemption from the restrictions.

   and

   In a decision that ignores both science and the law, the EPA rejected California's request to allow its ground-breaking Clean Cars law to go forward., but...In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the gases that cause global warming are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court also found that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases.

   and

   February 9, 2008 WASHINGTON -- New coal-fired power plants could have to include strict controls to keep mercury out of the air in the wake of a federal court ruling Friday. A three-judge appeals panel struck down a market-based effort by the Bush administration that would have allowed some generators of electricity to buy their way out of meeting their pollution-reduction targets.

   and

   A federal appellate panel found last week that the Bush Administration's policy on relaxing controls on power companies would cause neurological injuries in 60,000 newborns a year. The unanimous panel (including Republican appointees) took the relatively rare step to strke down the EPA plan on mercury pollution as inimical to public health. The ruling also shows the real consequences to citizens in the Bush policies that consistently favor industry interests over public health interests.

   So, as we can see, Herr Bush really knows the laws of the land over which he rules with fear and an iron fist.

   We can see why he is afraid of the United states judicial system. Because the terrorists (er "people") win.

   HEY DARIN! BOO! watch out for those wmd's!!! Careful of those activist judges, 70% of whom were appointed by terrorist loving republicans

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 07:50am

6. Here is a short list of reasons why chimpCo needs oversight, and not by the frickin wimps in congress:

   Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002

   "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

   Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003

   We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

   George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003

   "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

   George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003

   "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

   Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003

   "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."

   Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003

   "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

   George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003

   "I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program."

   Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003

   "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 07:59am

7. Why we can't trust democrats to do the right thing:

   "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

   "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

   "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

   what we need are more dems with spines, like Feingold and Kucincih, and more indies in office, like..... Ralph Nader. (GASP!)

   It's time to let some grownups have a chance running this great land.

   Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 08:03am

8. Lemming spin notwithstanding, this Democratic Congress is even more disappointing than the Bush administration, because the Congress has no excuse for acting like morons, while the President isn't acting.

   Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant is unconstitutional, at least until the Supreme Court (sponsored by Bush) overturns at least some major court decisions clearly establishing judicial oversight over wiretapping (US v US District Court, in which the Supreme Court unanimously denied Nixon the ability to apply executive privilege when using wiretaps without warrants in the name of national security - sound familiar?).

   For Congress to bend over again for the Decider is disgusting, dismaying, and disloyal to the basic concepts of American liberty.

   "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

   Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 08:07am

9. How are you going to win the support of 51% of Americans on an issue that only affects a tiny sliver of 10%?

   Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 07:18am

   You're willing to surrender the Constitutionally-protected right to privacy of 30 million people? How American of you! Even if the number of people who this affects was 30,000, or 30, the fact is that wiretapping without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional.

   "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H. L. Mencken

   "The freedom of all is essential to my freedom." Mikhail Bakunin

   "I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul." George W. Bush (has he met himself lately?)

   "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison

   "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Ronald Reagan

   Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 08:22am

10. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

    Ari,

    You hit the nail on the head. Between Bush and Co. lying to us at every turn, and the democrat lead senate and house doing whatever Bush and Cheney dictate, I have completely lost faith in this joke we call our government. This government has shifted so far to the right that anything aside from knocking peoples' doors down at will to obtain anything they want is fair game and considered in the interests of national security.

    We have become a country of cowards afraid of our own shadow. So afraid it would appear, that we are willing to give up our rights and freedom without even blinking an eye. It used to be give me liberty or death. Now, it's protect me and don't let the boogey man get me. Like I said, we've become a nation of cowards.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 08:50am

11. Life under dic'tatorship cannot be more obvious. Perhaps the dem ploy is yet another obvious example for the hapless and flagrantly controlled media to once again espouse their own ignorance of what is.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/04/2008 @ 08:53am

12. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 07:11am

    Uh, Darin, I know this might surprise you but....you DO realize that the Government might decide that somebody you're talking to is a "terrorist" and therefore they should listen in....and turns out that...

    they're not a terrorists and the Government is wrong.

    But thanks to folks like you, no harm no foul and they get to keep doing it.

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 09:24am

13. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 07:11am

    I guess I can't blame you for being frightened, in as much as you seem to be willing to take the administration at its word.

    But the warmth you feel as you apologize for their illegal acts is actually your own urine running down your leg...

    ...and puddling up on the document that was written to protect your rights.

    Stop being a pussy.

    Posted by bwindrip at 03/04/2008 @ 09:25am

14. There is one candidate for President who has pledged to repeal the Patriot Act.

    It should not be necessary to point out that he is not running as Democrat.

    Posted by john.halle at 03/04/2008 @ 09:25am

15. There is one candidate for President who has pledged to repeal the Patriot Act.

    It should not be necessary to point out that he is not running as Democrat.

    Posted by JOHN.HALLE 03/04/2008 @ 09:25am

    There was another...Kucinich, but he had as much chance as your guy running under the republican side does now. What does he have, about 8% of the republcian voters backing him?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 09:34am

16. This is definitely a non sequitor (but funny as hell!).

    James Bond Films for the George W. Bush Era. BY CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH

    - - - -

    Live in Constant, Irrational Fear of Muslims and Let Die

    Embryo Royale

    A Narrow, Originalist View to a Kill

    You Only Need to Show Your Boarding Pass Twice

    From Gitmo With Love but Not Legal Representation

    Find Osama Another Day. Or Don't. Whatever.

    Dr. No WMD

    $250,000 Campaign Contribution From Reverend Sun Myung Moon–Raker

    Tax Cuts for the Richest 2 Percent Are Forever

    Never Say Nucular Again

    The Spy Who Was Outed by the Administration as Political Payback Who Loved Me

    License to Kill Habeas Corpus

    The Loss of Our Standing in the World Is Not Enough

    The Man With the Golden Gun Who Used It to Shoot His Friend in the Face While Hunting

    For Your Eyes and the Ears of Some Junior FBI Agent Unconstitutionally Wiretapping Your Phone Only

    Ahmadinepussy

    http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/7ChristopherA.Smith.html

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 09:58am

17. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 09:57am

    Just because something is possible doesn't make it legal or constitutional. And if an American is discovered talking with a foreigner through a wiretap, under FISA there is retroactive warrant-ability (?). It is the lack of warrants I (and most rational Americans) have a problem with, not with catching terrorists.

    DUH

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:07am

18. So, If the government is tapping a non-US citizen outside the geographical bounds of the US, and I as a citizen am speaking to them, I can be tapped.

    Duh!

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 09:57am

    Partially true. Yes, they can tap a guy who they have a warrant to tap the line, but anything the other unwarranted person says may or may not be used against them in a court of law.

    I would think that would be a gray area because if you are an innocent American citizen and don't know you are talking on a tapped line, I don't know how far a prosecuter could go against the "innocent" person on a tapped line.

    Just for the sake of arguement, say a political operative decides he wants to out somebody from the opposing party. He gets any line tapped he wants by declaring the other side of the phone line to be that of a terrorist. Then, he can pretty much run a witch hunt from the other end (the terrorist or tapped side) and pretty much trap a person...entrapment I believe is the correct word here. You can guide conversations to get what you want and frame somebody. Throw in some circumstantial evidence and you can have innocent people sent to jail for crimes they didn't commit nor did they even think about committing.

    What Linda Tripp did with the whole Monica Lewinsky phone conversations comes to mind. If that whole thing wasn't a set up, I don't know what is. During all the hearings on that, I kept wondering about Clinton being set up from the get go and it certainly all adds up. Here's a guy with a possible history of not keeping his pants on. Plant a loyal worker near to him, get the evidence, keep it, record the conversations and then, wham, you've just nailed a president, so just imagine what they can do to a lowly citizen with less protections under the law.

    So, you find a guy who can't keep his pants on, hire a hooker or a political operative to entrap the person and then to talk to him on a tapped line, record the conversations of a possible encounter and bingo, you've got said politician by the short hairs.

    What's to stop this from happening under the current laws without the patriot act allowing broad wire tapping? Nothing, so why does the government need the patriot act to do something it could do all along? What W and Cronies want is the ability to tap anybody they damn well please and through private companies no less.

    This is supposed to be a country of laws. The government already has the authority to pretty much tap lines, break into homes and do whatever it needs to do if it has enough information on a suspect. You would remove whatever protections you yourself as a citizen has against a government run awry.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:29am

19. As with other right-wingers, I must say....

    I admire MARYBRET/Darin's bravery.

    Seriously, he's willing to give extra-Constitutional powers to a potential...

    "President Hillary" in 2009.

    I mean, since obviously, he's not going to mind HER having such authority or complain hypocritically if she gets elected and gets those powers that he says are vital for Bush to have....uh.....right?

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 10:30am

20. Posted by MASK 03/04/2008 @ 10:30am

    Ick.

    Somehow the thought of Hillary with these extra-constitutional powers leaves me with the image of Kathy Bates, smiling benignly while wielding a 10 pound sledge hammer...

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 10:40am

21. When did the topic switch to Social Security?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 10:14am

    It didn't. What form of crack are you presently smoking? Or maybe AQ runs social security in the U.S. and therefore all those who pay into social security are enabling AQ which means they are aiding and abbetting the enemy making them subject to phone tapping. LOL Sounds kind of like W's logic for all of the other crap he's rammed through to turn into the laws of the land.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:42am

22. Question 1) I've got my copy of the constitution right here. Can you plese cite the section of the Constitution that guarantees privacy? (Hint; Rov v. Wade is not a constitutional amendment.)

    United States Constitution, Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    AND

    US v US District Court; Katz v US; Berger v NY - Supreme Court precedents are what our country has used as a foundation of constitutional law for 200 years (jurisprudence, anyone?).

    Qestion 2) Did you read above? Or do you think wire tapping is only legal when both of the people in the conversation have wire tapping warrents?

    Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant makes any information gleaned from said wiretapping invalid in a court of law, therefore making it illegal and unconstitutional. Again, if and/or until the current version of the Supreme's continue their assault on the individual and nullify this basic American civil liberty.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 10:13am

    Apparently only one of us is a fan of Constitutional law (hint: it's not you).

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:42am

23. So if the court approves it, the government can force the terrorists to repeat their conversation into the microphone, word for word?

    (sigh) - No, but if the government, acting on a presumption of immediacy, used a wiretap on an American citizen, and in the course of wiretapping they recorded security-related information, they could get a retroactive warrant. Otherwise, that information is invalid in a court of law.

    We need more people like you defending this nation.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Unfortunately, we have too many people like you in charge of defending this nation.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:50am

24. "So if the court approves it, the government can force the terrorists to repeat their conversation into the microphone, word for word?

    We need more people like you defending this nation."

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 10:38am

    Have you been sharing your screen name with someone else?

    Because I don't recall your prior posts being so ill-informed.

    What this nation really needs is for its citizens to retrieve their trousers from their ankles, and expend the energy required to learn how the system actually works.

    Posted by bwindrip at 03/04/2008 @ 10:52am

25. Terrorist concerns are about preventing terrorism, not prosecuting them after they've alread murdered thousands.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 10:41am

    This is where I really find your logic on this whole wire tapping thing hard to believe. Do you think the CIA, FBI or NSA didn't already tap lines and probably without approval?

    My guess is that if they had fairly hard evidence on someone plotting an attack, they'd not only tap their lines, but they'd probably eliminate the people plotting the attack if they thought there was a good probablity of the attack being carried out.

    Don't forget who was on watch when the acts of Sept 11th were carried out. 9/11 was screwed up under your boy W as acting president. He had enough information to act, but promptly told the CIA officials to consider their asses fully covered and sat on his ass and did nothing. And this is the same guy you want to allow to spy on citizens of the U.S. when he didn't even use intelligence he had on foreigners plotting against his own country.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:55am

26. "Have to run."

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 10:42am

    No shit.

    Posted by bwindrip at 03/04/2008 @ 10:58am

27. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 10:50am

    Turk, I believe yours and MaryBret's differing viewpoints crystallize this debate. There are those who are concerned about the ability to prosecute a crime and have usable evidence and those who are concerned about gathering relevant intelligence and preventing the "crime" from happening in the first place.

    For me, an ounce of prevention is worth pound of life sentences.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 11:07am

28. How are you going to win the support of 51% of Americans on an issue that only affects a tiny sliver of 10%? Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 07:18am

    30,000,000 people, a tiny sliver? Now we've heard tiny sliver arguments before & why we shouldn't get upset about how tiny slivers are abused. Hey, it's not us, so who cares.

    Yo, MBB, run don't walk, with your GOP &/or AIPAC checks to the nearest bank before they bounce.

    Re the US Constitution, you are as much an expert as a Feith, Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, i.e. an expert fraud.

    Posted by sloper at 03/04/2008 @ 11:08am

29. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 10:40am |

    Apparently, it is TOTALLY unconcerning for our friends on the Right....to give such broad powers to the Executive, even if Her Majesty were to run it in 2009.

    Odd...given their fear and loathing of the Clintons?!?!!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 11:14am

30. For me, an ounce of prevention is worth pound of life sentences.

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 11:07am

    Actually, the choice is between a nation of laws and a nation ruled by those "who know best what's good for us."

    Apparently I choose America and you chooes - Russia? Send a postcard and say hi to Putin.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 11:25am

31. For me, an ounce of prevention is worth pound of life sentences.

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 11:07am

    And exactly what has W prevented? He didn't even attempt to look into evidence of possible terrorist attacks pre 9/11. If that's your definition of being tough on terror, this country really is in big trouble. So, most of the people responsible for 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, but now we are fighting the "terrorists" in Iraq and tapping phones in the U.S.? Brilliant logic there.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 11:36am

32. I have said it before and let me say it again. The democratic leadership is useless, it does not know what it stands for...it makes a lot silly noise and then cave in....what a gutless bunch.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 03/04/2008 @ 11:48am

33. This is exactly what I was talking about when I was mentioning that the U.S. intelligence will "eliminate" a terrorist target or potential terrorst target instead of trying them (see link below). In this case, this guy was hit with a missile via the U.S. navy.

    There isn't any law I'm aware of saying the U.S. government can't tap phone lines external to the U.S. Why not tap lines in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran etc. The military sends up satellites practically on a daily basis to do this. That's why the patriot act is a joke in the first place. W is just trying to cover his ass and the telecommunications folks' asses for breaking the law and being dumb enough to document the fact that they broke the law.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/04/somalia.us/index.html

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 11:48am

34. "For me, an ounce of prevention is worth pound of life sentences."

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 11:07am

    That's a cute turn of phrase to be sure, but it might be more appropriate to ask how many pounds of your constitutional protections an ounce of prevention is worth.

    Additionally, your constitutional rights are quantifiable; they are articulated (and enumerated) in our nation's most revered historical document. The prevention of terrorism, by its nature, is not quantifiable, (requiring proof of a negative), yet we're expected to trade in these different currencies, based upon assurances from a government with a track record of lying to its citizens.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 11:49am

35. Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/04/2008 @ 11:36am

    Wolf, I made no claims I believed Bush did right or a good job pre or post 9/11. All I indicated was this argument comes down to differing viewpoints, protection for prosecution or prevention. I believe prevention is the best model. I certainly made no argument for whom I thought would execute my belief in the most effective manner. Did I?

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 11:52am

36. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 11:49am

    DR, again, please do not confuse my belief in prevention as an endorsement or repudiation of any individual. If I believe a government entity is not being truthful, I will do what I am able to put pieces in place to act with honesty and integrity consistent with what I believe.

    Whatever any of us believe about Pres. Bush (positive or negative), he is no longer the issue. The country will have to decide on a course of action during this election season and hold the elected officials accountable to it.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 12:00pm

37. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 10:42am

    Thank you.

    Obviously, the fact that the term "wiretapping" does not appear in the document causes confusion for some. Maybe a "Constitution For Dummies" book would help in this regard.

    I am reminded of the video I saw recently in which some creationist was pointing out (to a group of children) that the Bible makes no mention of dinosaurs.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 12:03pm

38. I certainly made no argument for whom I thought would execute my belief in the most effective manner. Did I?

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 11:52am

    No, you didn't come right out and say it, but you implied it. The right wing folks tend to back W's position of tapping anyone and everyone and pretty much say screw the law, and some of the people on the left think the government should at least pretend to follow the laws it expects it's citizens to follow.

    I agree that we should try to stop terrorist activity ahead of time if at all possible. But I don't think making it legal to tap into everyone's phones and computers is the answer. If that's the best the intelligence community can come up with, they suck. The Marx brothers could come up with a better strategic plan of snaring potential threats than that.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 12:07pm

39. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 11:52am

    Your implication was clearly that it is better to trample some civil liberties on the off chance that it might prevent a terrorist attack. My point (and I believe others' as well) is that it is imperative to protect civil liberties while doing as much as possible to prevent an attack. If the "war on terror" is supposed to be about preserving American freedoms (that's what Bush says the terrorists hate about us), then shouldn't we start by protecting those freedoms that make America the greatest nation? Or do you (and Bush) believe that by giving up those freedoms, we will cease to be a target of terrorists?

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

40. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

    I think we're going about this the wrong way.

    Let's ask MARYBRET/Darin about another scenario...where by we get a Democrat in the White House and they decide that ...

    outlawing gun ownership is a necessary precaution to prevent a terrorist attack? (After all, terrorists could come here, buy guns, shoot up a football game, hospital, school, etc.)

    So....any problem, MBB?

    or if the 2nd Amendment is not your thing, how about if they decide that "free speech" and/or "free press" isn't as important as having the ability to issue emergency warnings to the public and therefore, seize control of....AM radio 24/7 for the Emergency Broadcasting System....knocking certain TALK SHOWS off the air to maintain a watch alert?

    Or if Rush getting run off the air is no biggie...got a few more Bill of Rights that we could get rid of "just in case"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 12:22pm

41. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 12:00pm

    I'm not confused. I fully understand the difference between our perspectives, and the difference between prevention and prosecution. No one of sound thought process could reasonably argue that prevention is not the preferable outcome.

    The question lies in how many of our constitutional guarantees we're willing to trade away in the process. Some of us are pretty inflexible about it, feeling a strong need to fall back on the original principles that form the foundation for the document. Others of us, (who may or may not invoke some sort of realism appropriate for our time), process the issue as it relates to them on a personal level, and do a sort of cost/benefit analysis. On the surface, this would seem to be a logical approach...

    ...unless your government is not honest about the costs and benefits.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 12:25pm

42. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

    I believe we will be(and have been for a long time)a target of terrorists for the forseeable future. Any person or group of persons who blindly subscribes to a religious or ideological viewpoint will act in an irrational manner.

    I am really not interested in a Pres. Bush debate, I am interested in the process.

    So in that vein, I would like to ask, are you against video cameras in convenience stores and banks? (No warrant, no probable cause, loss of liberty to walk into a store without everyone seeing you). Are you against a police officer using a radar gun on the highway as you are driving? (Again, no warrant, no probable cause).

    In my understanding of this bill, there is oversight and reporting of the activities (you can certainly make the argument the government will always go too far and I will not disagree with you). In addition, Wolf makes the valid point of targeting the communications in the areas of the world where these individuals are known to operate. I fully support that as well. My point is, reasonable individuals (and I stress reasonable)should be able to work out a feasible and workable solution to the intelligence gathering model without saying it is my way or no way.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

43. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

    I think you're on to something here.

    We have been told repeatedly by those who would keep us "safe" that the terrorists hate us for the freedoms we enjoy.

    So it only follows that if we let our government take our freedoms away, the terrorists will no longer hate us, and we can return to our regularly scheduled programming.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 12:31pm

44. "It's honest people, like Bush..."

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:26pm

    (I just shot a mouthful of Pepsi out of my fucking nose.)

    Posted by bwindrip at 03/04/2008 @ 12:36pm

45. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:22pm

    I think it would be prudent for both of you to do a little research on how FISA works.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 12:42pm

46. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:22pm

    I'll try to respond to your scattershot approach -

    Wiretapping American citizens without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional.

    Wiretapping foreigners without warrant is, as far as I know, premissible.

    According to FISA, in extreme circumstances, government officials may use wiretaps to record conversations involving American citizens and then retroactively seek a warrant. It would then be up to the FISA court whether to grant a retroactive warrant (based on probable cause), and without the retroactive warrant, the information would be inadmissible.

    Your hypotheticals, while amusing, are mostly irrelevant.

    Hypothetically, say you call somebody in Iraq and the guy on the other side says, "My cousin, who lives at 1313 Main street has planted a bomb in the statue of liberty and is going to blow it up at noon."

    Then the feds show up and confiscate the detonator and defuse the bomb.

    The feds did nothing illegal nor unconstitutional.

    Yes, but without a warrant, the feds would have no case against me, as I am an American citizen. Unless the person I called in Iraq was my sister (also a citizen), and there was no warrant in place (prior to or retroactive to the call).

    If, instead of calling Iraq, you call your neighbor, he says the same thing and the feds were listening without a warrant, they are still going to prevent the attack. They might not be able to convict your neighbor, but your neighbor is going to have one hell of a hard time convincing a jury that his constitutional rights were violated.

    In this one, you have admitted that such a wiretap would be illegal and unconstitutional - thank you for your support.

    And, in both cases, it is reasonable to believe that since the feds had a wiretap on my phone, that they considered me a high risk; it is likely to assume, therefore, that they would absolutely have been able to get a warrant prior to my discussion with my sister (or whoever), or that it would have been simple to get a retroactive warrant based on what they heard.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 12:46pm

47. I see a guarantee to be secure in you home and papers and no unreasonable search. I don't see anything about international phone calls to "non-US citizens of interest".

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:38pm

    You may want to read these 2 posts. Feel free to get help with them if necessary.

    Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 10:42am

    Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 12:03pm

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 12:47pm

48. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 12:46pm

    I do not have a logical disagreement with your post. However, it depends on your desired outcome whether the wiretap program was successful or not.

    If your desire is for a successful prosecution, under these assumptions you listed. The government loses.

    If your desire is first and foremost to prevent an attack and loss of citizens lives, the government wins.

    My hope is a law or other solution can be crafted to placate both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, I am not hopeful.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 12:53pm

49. Hey Mask, Her majesty is going to do it to people like me whether I grant her my permission or not. It's honest people, like Bush, who need my permission to go after the terrorists.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:26pm

    Okay plenty of people will go after the "honest people, like Bush" stuff, but...

    As far as Hillary goes, Darin, she won't have any excuses now....thanks to you and guys like you.

    YOU have made it "okay" for her to do whatever she wants to "fight terrorism"...and all she and her cohorts have to do is..

    QUOTE guys like you on how important it is for a President to have such powers.

    Thanks.

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 12:57pm

50. You said wiretapping without a warrent is illegal and unconstitutional. But now you say if there is immediacy they can get a warrant after the fact. So if you are right how is that not illegal?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:22pm

    That is what the FISA court was for until the powers that be circumvented it.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 1:14pm

51. Hey Mask, Her majesty is going to do it to people like me whether I grant her my permission or not. It's honest people, like Bush, who need my permission to go after the terrorists.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 12:26pm

    You've got to be kidding us right?! Honest people like Bush???LOL That's the best damn joke I've heard in a long time.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 1:17pm

52. "My hope is a law or other solution can be crafted to placate both sides of the debate."

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 12:53pm

    There is one, and it's called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is a remarkably flexible bit of legislation. It allows your government to eavesdrop instantly, providing a 72 hour window for the acquisition of a warrant. Since its inception in 1978, nearly twenty thousand applications for warrants have been submitted; five have been rejected.

    I am more than willing to be linked to any source that can provide verifiable examples of the law's interference with our ability to gather intelligence.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 1:23pm

53. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 1:23pm

    DR, I mean this with all respect; if the FISA did placate all sides, this would be a non-issue as the warrantless wiretaps would not exist. However, please do not believe I am not concerned with the abuse of power that inevitably will be part and parcel of the debate on all surveillance activities with regard to terrorism.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 1:40pm

54. Whatever any of us believe about Pres. Bush (positive or negative), he is no longer the issue- THE PENGUIN

    Last I checked, Bush is the one pushing this adjustment of the law, and he has the better part of a year to go in his term.

    I have noticed that many cons around here keep pushing this idea that Bush is no longer in charge, or that he will be gone soon so he does not matter. It is nonsense.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 1:47pm

55. She was rooting around in 800 classified FBI files of her political enemies. You think she needs my permission to listen to my international phone calls?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 1:25pm

    Under the law, yes she does. Under Chimpies law, and yours, no she would not.

    So which do you want?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 1:50pm

56. Please, do a quick search of the number of court cases BushCo has lost.

    than we can talk about why he wants laws changed.

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 1:56pm

57. Posted by CRABWALK 03/04/2008 @ 1:47pm

    Crab, of course Pres. Bush is still in charge and he is pushing this proposal. However, I do not analyze proposals through the prism of what individual or party is in charge. I analyze whether I believe in the principle or not. Therefore, HE is not the issue, the issue is the issue.

    If Pres. Bush, Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton, Rep. Kucinich, Sen. McCain, etc present something I agree with, they get my support, if any of them present something I disagree with, they will not receive my support.

    It is obivious you have significant feelings against Pres. Bush; hopefully you do not subscribe to "if Pres. Bush is for it, I am against it."

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 2:01pm

58. "DR, I mean this with all respect; if the FISA did placate all sides, this would be a non-issue as the warrantless wiretaps would not exist."

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 1:40pm

    How about this?

    "If the current rape statutes did placate both victims and perpetrators, this would be a non-issue as the crime of rape would not exist."

    Granted, that's not my best over-the-top analogy. But don't you see some utility in questioning why the administration would not be happy with a law as flexible as FISA?

    Again, I am open to any citations indicating where the law has failed our intelligence community.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 2:09pm

59. Posted by CRABWALK 03/04/2008 @ 1:47pm

    I think Neil Young's lyrics are instructive.

    "Rust never sleeps."

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 2:11pm

60. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 2:09pm

    DR, good effort on the over the top analogy, but I understand where you are going and I absolutely see the great utility to questioning the administration. Keep on questioning and I will be right beside you doing the same thing.

    It is just on this particular issue, you and I are looking at it differently, and that is ok, if we all thought alike, no progress would be made on anything.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 2:18pm

61. No, I didn't say this was illegal. Juries determine issues of fact. Whether the law was broken is a fact or it isn't. A jury decides that. I pretty much said the jury would determine the law wasn't broken.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 1:22pm

    What you (or a jury for that matter) say about the legality or constitutionality of an act is irrelevant - unless you are one of nine people in America whose job it is to determine the constitutionality of laws?

    There have been plenty of juries (and I mean plenty) who rendered verdicts, not based on proof, but based on prejudice and ignorance. How many KKK members were found guilty in the south (and I mean of those who were actually arrested and put on trial, which cuts down significantly on the prospective numbers)? And more recently, how's O.J. doing in his attempt to find the "real" killers?

    I love how the lemmings will parse and spin the rules of law to protect their own and the devil take the Constitution, but let a Democrat try to debate the definition of the word "is" and you'd think that the demise of the Republic was imminent.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 2:51pm

62. Juries determine guilty or not guilty, not legality. Murder is illegal, but whether or not OJ is guilty is a matter left to 12 people on a jury.

    Wiretapping an American citizen without a warrant is illegal and unconstitutional, whether a jury of lemmings thinks so or not.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 2:53pm

63. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 2:18pm

    The conciliatory verbiage is certainly a nice change of pace from the rancor that permeates this blog lately.

    I would, however, be remiss if I did not point out that I have explained exactly why I am loathe to forfeit my constitutional protections in the cause of "preventing" terrorism.

    So far, you have indicated that you prefer prevention to prosecution, and agreed to disagree.

    You've given me one from column 'A' and one from column 'B', and my stomach is still rumbling...

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 2:57pm

64. I am more than willing to be linked to any source that can provide verifiable examples of the law's interference with our ability to gather intelligence.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 1:23pm

    But that's not good enough for the lemmings, because they don't really care about civil liberties. They want to be able to rule with impunity, and anybody who feels otherwise must be abetting terrorists. They believe in the rule of law, as long as they can circumvent, water down, eliminate, and ignore it when it serves their own purposes. To say that this administration is the most power hungry and amoral bunch to inhabit 1600 Pennsylvania is not a stretch, and I'd like to hear about the administration that has a worse record in this area.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 2:57pm

65. How about this:

    since Bush started the GWOT, acts of violent terrorism are up.

    therefore it would behoove us to question the policies that have failed to curtail those acts. If it can be shown that FISA provisions work, and loosening those provisions has not proven to be effective, then why do we want civil liberties curtailed?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 3:06pm

66. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 2:57pm

    DR, I asked in a previous post regarding cameras at convenience stores and banks, and police officers with speed guns. No one responded to the differences and their level of acceptance of these similar if not identical "infringements" on civil liberties. In fact I would say this scenario is more important than a bank or convenience store due to the scale potential of the "crime."

    I support the measures listed above as prevention devices consistent with my support of the wiretap issues.

    If I believed the terrorist activities were conducted by a band of lawless rebels I would be more inclined to agree with your viewpoint. I, however, believe at this moment in time, we are at war. Maybe not war in the conventional sense (and please, no tripe regarding only Congress can declare war so therefore we are not in one. Reality dictates something different than an arcance argument.), but I believe the rules can and should be different in time of war.

    Hopefully that gave you more of a flavor where I am coming from and I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the scenarios I posted.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 3:15pm

67. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 2:57pm

    While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think we're well served by conflating the "most power hungry and amoral bunch to inhabit 1600 Pennsylvania" with their erstwhile "lemmings".

    At this point I am perfectly comfortable with ascribing the darkest and least democratic motives imaginable to the Bush administration.

    But lemmings just follow without question.

    (Am I being too picky?)

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 3:18pm

68. Mask, your naivete is endearing.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/04/2008 @ 1:28pm

    So, you're willing to invest MASSIVE powers in the Executive Branch....throw caution to the wind that it won't be abused....say "So what? They'd abuse it anyway" if Democrats gain the White House....and sell out your liberties because people who were DEAD WRONG about "WMDs" and "Al Qaeda connections" in Iraq TELL you to....

    and I am naive?!?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/04/2008 @ 3:51pm

69. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 3:15pm

    I missed the comments about cameras and speed guns.

    One difference I see is that those are in the open. I know when I am being targeted by a radar gun, either I can see it or I can buy a radar detector. If I think that the local police are over zealous, I can file a grievance with my local municipality.

    In the case of wiretaps, it is all secret. According to employees of ATT, EVERY call that went through their switching site was monitored by NSA. Some people tried to file a class action suit, but were rebuffed because it is secret.

    what I see here is a power grab. Bush/Hillary/Obama/McCain can tap ANYBODY they want, with zero oversight. That makes me very uncomfortable. It has yet to be proven that this program has found a single terrorist, so why do we need it?

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 3:51pm

70. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 3:15pm

    The officer who points a radar gun at me when I'm obeying the law has invalidated the presumption of innocence, and is actually utilizing a surveillance device against me without probable cause. I have never had to fight one in court, but I guess the bottom line is that I don't rail against radar guns like I do against wiretapping, because I don't foresee ever becoming a political prisoner as a result of being accused of doing "ten over". Still, I distinctly disapprove.

    Banks and convenience stores are private commercial properties, and while I'm completely averse to being publicly monitored by video without my consent, there is an implication, (and usually a legal warning), that when I enter these places, I will be videoed. I have the option of conducting my business elsewhere. I do the bulk of my banking online, and I avoid convenience stores like the plague.

    I will spare you the "tripe" about declared wars, despite the importance our representatives' involvement in such things. I just flat-out reject the assertion that we are at war, and anyone who is willing to accept the notion that we are, and will be for a long time, or ten years, or a hundred years, has surrendered their ability to think for themselves, and become a tool for the propagandists. We've been lucky enough to inhabit a relatively safe corner of a frequently ugly planet for quite some time, and it's made us soft. Now that we get to reap some of the bitter fruit of our arrogant foreign policies, we've become a nation of chickenshit crybabies. I am less afraid of an extremist who would kill me, than one who would rob me of my freedoms and have me spend the balance of my life afraid and subservient.

    But the simplest question I can ask of you at this point is this:

    What factual justification can you provide for the Bush administration's refusal to adhere to FISA?

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 3:59pm

71. A little out of date, but I would think if Chimpy were watching overseas calls, we would have seen a DECREASE in terrorism in this time period, no?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/sharp-rise-in-terror-attacks-worldwide/ 2007/05/01/1177788087952.html

    Posted by crabwalk at 03/04/2008 @ 4:01pm

72. Posted by CRABWALK 03/04/2008 @ 3:51pm

    Crab, not to start a semantical debate, but everyone is aware their international calls can be monitored by the NSA for counter-terrorism surveillance, so it is the same as a radar gun. It is a "secret" that is very much in the open. Hence, the debate.

    Please do not believe I place blind trust in any government agency, but with the increasing frequency of successful missions on top operatives in terrorist organizations and the lack of a successful attack (to date) on critical American elements, I do not know you can fully and definitively say the program has not found a single terrorist.

    In fact, the very existence of the program could be (and yes I know it is impossible to prove the negative just as I said above it is impossible to know if the program caught a terrorist) contributing to the fact of no successful attacks due to disruption in the communication capabilities.

    I am deeply concerned about a power grab from anyone. That is why I am willing to listen to these proposals and mot merely accept or reject out of hand.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 4:01pm

73. Posted by CRABWALK 03/04/2008 @ 4:01pm

    Crab, unfortunately, I read that post as proving my point. The terrorists are going elsewhere in the world to find softer more accessible targets while (I believe) probing to see where weaknesses are in the US.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 4:07pm

74. Posted by DRHAMMER 03/04/2008 @ 3:59pm

    DR, we were having a civilized conversation until the condescending post about simply because I see a different reality to you that I have lost my ability to think for myself and have become a tool for propaganists. Therefore, I didn't even finish reading the post.

    Posted by Chilly Willy at 03/04/2008 @ 4:11pm

75. I'd like to hear about the administration that has a worse record in this area.

    Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 2:57pm

    Turk,

    This particular administration has a bad habbit of refuting reality and then has the audacity to tell us that what we saw happen didn't really happen, but rather that what they tell us happened is what happened. The scary thing of it is that a fairly large portion of our population is dumb enough to believe them.

    How does a nation survive when it has fools who can be lead around like a dog that doesn't think for itself? Other nations of the world have to be laughing at the all powerful United States being controlled by a three ring circus with a second rate clown being the leader in the White House.

    I don't know how bad or good McCain, Clinton or Obama will be in office, but I have a hard time seeing any of them coming up with an administration that is the complete failure Bushco has been.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/04/2008 @ 5:01pm

76. Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 4:11pm

    Did that really hurt your feelings, or did you actually read the post and decide that you were unable to justify the administration's flouting of the law?

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 6:15pm

77. Just cruised through some threads [tinyurl.com] on this subject that make perfect sense.

    Posted by drhammer at 03/04/2008 @ 8:28pm

78. So in that vein, I would like to ask, are you against video cameras in convenience stores and banks? (No warrant, no probable cause, loss of liberty to walk into a store without everyone seeing you). Are you against a police officer using a radar gun on the highway as you are driving? (Again, no warrant, no probable cause).

    Posted by CHILLY WILLY 03/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

    Those scenarios are in situations where I would have no reasonable expectation of privacy, so a search warrant would not be necessary. In my home and using a private telephone, I would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable, not absolute.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/04/2008 @ 10:00pm

79. Posted by TURK33 03/04/2008 @ 10:00pm,/i>

    I think that's the point I was looking to make.

    (Before I brutally assaulted CHILLY WILLY's delicate sense of decorum.)

    Posted by drhammer at 03/05/2008 @ 06:46am

80. Oops!

    (Messed up the HTML tags.)

    Posted by drhammer at 03/05/2008 @ 06:48am