White House, NSA Block Investigation of Spying

With news reports exposing the National Security Agency's previously secret spying on the phone conversations of tens of millions of Americans, what is the status of the U.S. Department of Justice probe of the Bush administration's authorization of a warrantless domestic wiretapping program?

The investigation has been closed.

That's right. Even as it is being revealed that the president's controversial eavesdropping program is dramatically more extensive – and Constitutionally dubious -- than had been previously known, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has informed Representative Maurice Hinchey that its attempt to determine which administration officials authorized, approved and audited NSA surveillance activities is over.

Why?

In a letter to Hinchey, the New York Democrat who has been the most dogged Congressional advocate for investigation of the spying program, OPR Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett explained that he had closed the Justice Department probe on Tuesday, May 9, because his office's requests for security clearances to conduct the investigation had been denied.

"I am writing to inform you that we have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," Jarrett explained in his letter to Hinchey. "Beginning in January 2006, this Office made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation."

Who blocked the request? The obstruction has come from the very administration that the president asserts is operating "within the laws of our country" and cooperating with appropriate investigations.

The security clearances were blocked by the NSA, which has taken its direction on the spying program from the White House.

Hinchey, who along with Representatives John Lewis of Georgia and Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey of California requested the Justice Department inquiry in January, following initial reports regarding the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, is furious.

"It is outrageous that people within the Bush administration have blocked an investigation into the role that members of the Justice Department played in establishing and executing this secret domestic spy program," says the New York Democrat. "We must get to the bottom of this and reveal who has stifled this investigation. The Bush administration cannot simply create a Big Brother program and then refuse to answer any questions on how it came about and what it entails. We are not asking for top secret information. We simply want to know how the domestic spy initiative evolved and who is behind what many legal scholars believe is an unconstitutional surveillance program. If the administration believes the program is legal then it should have no problem being forthright with Justice Department investigators as to how it was initiated and is being carried out."

The key questions that Hinchey and his colleagues want answered are these:

• Who within the DOJ first authorized the domestic surveillance program?

• What was that official's justification was for doing so?

• Had the Bush administration already enacted the program before getting original DOJ approval?

• What does the reauthorization process for the surveillance initiative entail?

• Why, according to news reports, did the then-Acting Attorney General refuse to reauthorize the program and why the Attorney General expressed strong reservations about the program and may have rejected it as well?

Hinchey is not prepared to let the matter rest.

The congressman is seeking to determine who in the administration prevented the OPR investigators from obtaining the security clearances needed to conduct an investigation. When he has that information, Hinchey says, he will press for a reversal of the denial of the clearances and the reopening of the investigation.

At the same time, Hinchey continues to push on a number of fronts for the opening of a full Congressional inquiry into the warrantless wiretapping program and administration efforts to stifle examinations of its domestic spying initiatives.

While he has often stood alone in the past, Hinchey's calls come as part of a Congressional chorus of concern expressed by key members of the House and Senate on Thursday.

The Senate's chief critic of the spying program, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, says that the latest revelations have raised a range of new concerns about the White House's apparent disregard for the Constitution and specific statutes requiring that a warrant be obtained before tapping into the telephone conversations of Americans on American soil.

"This Administration's arrogance and abuse of power should concern all Americans," says Feingold, who has proposed that the president be censured for authorizing the warrantless wiretapping program. "That the government may be secretly collecting, and using data mining to analyze, the phone records of millions of law-abiding Americans, as reported in the press today, is a frightening prospect. I am unaware of this program, and Congress needs to find out exactly what the Administration is doing and whether it is legal. It is time for the Administration to come clean with Congress and the American people. We can effectively fight terrorism and protect privacy, the rule of law, and separation of powers, but only if we have a President who believes in these principles."

Comments (360)

1. "Hinchey, who along with Representatives John Lewis of Georgia and Henry Waxman and Lynn Woolsey of California"

   Dang....where's John Conyers?!??!!?

   Posted by Mask at 05/11/2006 @ 3:20pm

2. John Nichols,

   While the termination of this investigation is certainly a serious assault on the viability of our democratic republic, I have to note that at least the press did notice when the investigation was blocked and subsequently abandoned.

   The same cannot be said of the press in regards to an older and arguably more important investigation.....PHASE II.

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/11/2006 @ 3:31pm

3. John,

   "Even as it is being revealed that the president's illegal eavesdropping program is dramatically more extensive – and Constitutionally dubious .."

   Has it been determined to be illegal or is it just HERE that it has been determined to be illegal? Any court challenges?

   If not then it is not illegal,true?

   And if it is not illegal the investigation should be closed. I want all potential terroists to be listened to and don't want the info published so they can change tactics against us, as happened in OBL cell phone revelations to the press and then to the terrorists, cutting down our ability to get them and instead having those who reveal receive pulitzers for hurting our efforts..

   Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 3:36pm

4. Free,

   If the Dems win the House, believe me you will see Phase 2,3,4,5,6...and that is all you will hear...for 2 years..until the Dems are expelled forever.

   Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 3:38pm

5. JM

   If not then it is not illegal,true?

   No, the ACLU suit has just begun--there has been no court hearing either way, hardly a ringing statement that the program is legal. Further, the comparison to the OBL satellite phone is spurious as a specific source/method was revealed.

   Essentially, your argument is that if a court hasn't ruled that the program is illegal, that there should be no investigation--an argument that completly ignores Congress' oversight responsibilities and the DOJ's professional responsibility.

   Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 3:42pm

6. Maasch,

   I don't think you have a clue as to how much a crisis your country is in. The rule of law has been abandoned and anarchy is breaking out....The Administration is doing whatever the hell it pleases and NOTHING (certainly not the law) will stop them.

   The following 72 Representaives have now been forced to file suit.....yes that's right, that's how powerless one of the "equal" branches of government has become.

   ..................

   "It is very disturbing that, on the same day we learn that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans, we also learn that the Department of Justice has abruptly cancelled its investigation into the Agency's warrantless wiretapping program," said Rep. John Conyers, the ranking House Judiciary Democrat who is spearheading the initiative. "These developments clearly point to the urgent need for oversight and review of this program. Congress has failed to provide this critical oversight which has led us to the courts."

   The brief argues that Congress never authorized the warrantless spying program, neither through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 nor the post-9/11 authorization for use of military force. It details the legislative history of both and asks the court to halt the program immediately.

   "As our brief makes clear, this Congress dealt with this issue authoritatively almost 30 years ago - warrantless spying on American soil is flatly prohibited," Conyers added.

   Conyers cited the Church Committee -- a special senatorial committee in the 1970s that gave Congress more oversight of the intelligence community in the wake of President Nixon's Watergate scandal.

   The following 72 Representatives are amici in the brief. The brief can be read here.

   John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii Gary Ackerman of New York Brian Baird of Washington Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin Howard Berman of California Shelley Berkley of Nevada Earl Blumenauer of Oregon Rick Boucher of Virginia Corrine Brown of Florida Michael Capuano of Massachusetts Julia Carson of Indiana William Lacy Clay of Missouri Artur Davis of Alabama Peter DeFazio of Oregon Diana DeGette of Colorado William Delahunt of Massachusetts Sam Farr of California Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania Barney Frank of Massachusetts Al Green of Texas Raul Grijalva of Arizona Maurice Hinchey of New York Ruben Hinojosa of Texas Michael Honda of California Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio Dale E. Kildee of Michigan Carolyn C. Kilpatrick of Michigan Dennis Kucinich of Ohio Tom Lantos of California Barbara Lee of California Zoe Lofgren of California John Lewis of Georgia Carolyn Maloney of New York Edward Markey of Massachusetts Jim McDermott of Washington James McGovern of Massachusetts Martin Meehan of Massachusetts George Miller of California James Moran of Virginia Jerrold Nadler of New York Eleanor Holmes Norton of District of Columbia James Oberstar of Minnesota John Olver of Massachusetts Major Owens of New York Donald Payne of New Jersey Charles Rangel of New York Linda Sanchez of California Bernard Sanders of Vermont Janice Schakowsky of Illinois Bobby Scott of Virginia Jose Serrano of New York Brad Sherman of California Louise Slaughter of New York Hilda Solis of California Fortney Pete Stark of California Bennie Thompson of Mississippi John Tierney of Massachusetts Tom Udall of New Mexico Chris Van Hollen of Maryland Debbie Wasserman Shultz of Florida Melvin Watt of North Carolina Maxine Waters of California Diane Watson of California Henry Waxman of California Robert Wexler of Florida Lynn Woolsey of California David Wu of Oregon Albert Russell Wynn of Maryland

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/11/2006 @ 3:49pm

7. I

   Posted by bkarloff at 05/11/2006 @ 3:51pm

8. Free, "I don't think you have a clue as to how much a crisis your country is in. The rule of law has been abandoned and anarchy is breaking out....The Administration is doing whatever the hell it pleases and NOTHING (certainly not the law) will stop them. "

   I don't buy any of the arguments and the 72 don't have any credibility with me any more than they do with the balance of the other house members.

   (0% of those listed above, fall for me, based on their past behaviors, as left wing nuts, on the fringe and even they make most democrats cringe, much less the bulk of the population.

   I am sure you disagree with me totally and thats cool, but it is how I see it..

   Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 4:02pm

9. Maasch,

   I am well aware of your closed mindedness on these topics.

   There are only two things that will awaken you to the unamerican power grab that has happened mostly in the last two to three years (unAmerican as it has unconstitutionally consolidated power in a single branch). Those two things are:

   1. A Democrat is elected to President.....I can rest assured knowing that you will not stand for a law breaking Democratic Whitehouse.....and I'll be with you.

   2. If on your next phonecall you hear a clicking and then hear a third voice say something like "damn the tape ran out".

   Other than those two things, Maasch, I know you could give a toss about Laws and Constitutions, and Equal branches of government and all those silly liberal things!

   Thanks for your non partisan support my fellow American!

   Posted by freedomplease at 05/11/2006 @ 4:10pm

10. Bru,

    "No, the ACLU suit has just begun--there has been no court hearing either way.."

    Aclu carries no weight with me what so ever, based on their past behaviors..

    I just disagree.

    If a charge has been made that something is illegal, then it should have its day in court...if congress feels it has been short changed in its equal power balance ,then it should challenge..on this I agree, but because 72 uber liberals and the aclu challenge..I feel it is a grand stand.

    An example, and maybe this can help my points,,,but 2 courts ruled that the meetings with the Vice Pres(any VP)with the energy companys or whomever, was not illegal, why would congress want to hold hearings on this if the Dems take the House? Wouldn't that be the legislative branch over stepping the judicial,and the excutive after they already ruled? Or is political horse shit at our expense by a fringe group?

    OBL did change its behavior after being "outed" and so would other terrorists, if they haven't already, with all the discussions, when nothing has been deemed illegal anywhere, except certain blogs, certain politcal slants and certain journalists(or pundits).

    Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 4:13pm

11. Free,

    "1. A Democrat is elected to President.....I can rest assured knowing that you will not stand for a law breaking Democratic Whitehouse.....and I'll be with you. "

    I don't see Bush has done anything to fit your number 1 criteria. If it is found he has, then I ,too, agree with number 1, regardless of Repu or Dem.

    I am saying I don't see it so far.

    As far as nuber 2....I don't want them listening to my calls, but if they are , they would soon move on as there is nothing there...ever.

    Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 4:17pm

12. Maasch,

    You are still not aware that it you....not us that are in the tiny minority. Thus by definition, it is you, not us, that are in the "extreme".

    Note: Bush has a 65% DISAPPROVAL rating.

    The vast majority of American disapproves of various things that he has done, such as lying, getting us into silly wars, managing silly wars badly, breaking laws, over stepping his constitutional authority, having his staff out CIA agents, etc, etc.

    Posted by freedomplease at 05/11/2006 @ 4:21pm

13. LL

    The same phone companies sell these phone records to businesses, but suddenly liberals are up in arms because the Federal Government accesses the same data that these businesses and state and local law enforcement agencies access.

    Can you substantiate that? I very quickly found three articles here http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0119calling19.htm l and Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 4:22pm

14. LL

    The same phone companies sell these phone records to businesses, but suddenly liberals are up in arms because the Federal Government accesses the same data that these businesses and state and local law enforcement agencies access.

    Can you substantiate that? I very quickly found three articles at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0119calling19.htm l, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/ columnists/entries/2006/01/legislators_tak.html">here and at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR 2005070701862.html that suggest that making them commercially available isn't legal, or at the very least is dodgy enough to not be business practice.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 4:24pm

15. Maasch

    "if it is found he has"

    And how do you suppose this could be shown to you when he intervenes in investigations????? And then you (and other dolts like you) mindlessly applaud this as some sort of vindication of his innocence.

    I mean really???

    Posted by freedomplease at 05/11/2006 @ 4:24pm

16. but 2 courts ruled that the meetings with the Vice Pres(any VP)with the energy companys or whomever, was not illegal, why would congress want to hold hearings on this if the Dems take the House? Wouldn't that be the legislative branch over stepping the judicial,and the excutive after they already ruled? Or is political horse shit at our expense by a fringe group?

    OBL did change its behavior after being "outed" and so would other terrorists, if they haven't already, with all the discussions, when nothing has been deemed illegal anywhere, except certain blogs, certain politcal slants and certain journalists(or pundits).

    Re the energy task force, no, Congress can still exercise oversight authority over legal conduct. The rulings may very well limit their subpoena power but there's no reason why they couldn't investigate as part of, for example, debating an energy bill.

    Likewise with the warrantless wiretapping. If the courts were to rule that FISA doesn't cover it, that would limit Congress' leverage but not their oversight responsibiliy of activity that they appropriate funds for.

    Re OBL, there is a difference in the specificity involved in saying that HIS satellite phone is being tapped and saying that the NSA is listening to phone calls. I had this discussion with Pontificus a while back and I think he overestimates the ability of any agents in this country to cover their tracks electronically, assuming that the program is actually tapping into any such instead of a couple of hundred million innocent Americans.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 4:29pm

17. JM

    Kinda hard to tell if any parts are illegal if the POTUS et al, refuse anyone any information on the program.... DUH

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/11/2006 @ 4:56pm

18. Wow, according to the leftwingers here both those select republican and demoncrat congressmen who all along have had oversight over the NSA program, and are still exercising oversight control are just incompetent idiots easily fooled by the genius of Pres. G.W. Bush!

    The only problem with that argument is that, since the briefing was classified, we don't know if the administration told them it wasn't seeking warrants. Likewise, Rockefeller himself said he was barred by the classified status of the briefing to get legal advice on its legality.

    Posted by brunowe at 05/11/2006 @ 5:10pm

19. "And if it is not illegal the investigation should be closed."

    C'mon Maasch, you don't see that this line of thinking is putting the cart before the horse?

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 5:11pm

20. JM's theory that no law is broken unless a court challenge has been not only made but upheld with wrongdoing proven simply means that, in his eyes, there are no laws in the US and we should do away with the court system. Before one can prove guilt, someone must be arrested, brought to trial, and then, according to the system of justice we used to have in the US, guilt or innocense is determined. If one3 has to be proven guilty, as John seems to be suggesting, then no one could ever be arrested.

    Let us remember that people get calls from sources they do not know because of wrong numbers. Sometimes, people even place calls to wrong numbers, because they dialed it wrong or because the party being called changed their phone number. Same is true of going to websites. For the government to keep this database of phone call records, websites visted, and emails (not to and from only, but the body of texts as well according to the report I read) is a complete invasion of privacy. The same report said the groundwork for this program may have been laid BEFORE 9/11.

    Can you not see, John, that if the government wants to, they can see my emails, see that I do indeed send emails to friends on occasion decrying what I believe from time to time to be unconstitutional actions of the Administration. They could then round up me, everyone I ever sent one of those emails to, everyone I have called or who has called me, and determine we are all "enemy combatants" or terrorists, throw us in Guantanamo and throw away the key, with no opportunity for those locked up to talk to an attorney, no due process, no right for a fair and speedy trial, and no one will ever know.

    This scares me. It should scare you too. What if the next president elected isw not someone you like John? What if you do not trust them to handle a program like this mion the same way I do not trust this (or frankly any) administration, ever, with these kinds of power. The Constitution used to protect us from this kind of intrusion. There was once a piece of legal jargon used in situations like this, an individual's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy. Apparently, no one in the US has a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy anymore. This revelation makes today a very sad day in the history of, not just the United States, but freedom!

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 5:15pm

21. Oh, and John, since you don't mind being intruded upon because, as you say, you don't do anything wrong, and I certainly believe you do not, let's apply you philosophy to the President. Since he too, theoretically, isn't doing anything wrong, why not do what you are willing to do, allow a review of all the practices by the appropriate agencies and legal channels. He has nothing to be afraid of, right? Why, then, not open up to scrutiny. Gee, he isn't nearly as willing to be scrutinized as he is willing to scrutinize all of us. I wonder why?

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 5:20pm

22. Wow, according to the leftwingers here both those select republican and demoncrat congressmen who all along have had oversight over the NSA program, and are still exercising oversight control are just incompetent idiots easily fooled by the genius of Pres. G.W. Bush!

    The only problem with that argument is that, since the briefing was classified, we don't know if the administration told them it wasn't seeking warrants. Likewise, Rockefeller himself said he was barred by the classified status of the briefing to get legal advice on its legality.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 05/11/2006 @ 5:10pm

    Well, as we all know, the President and his Cabinet officials will make statements to the public of the US that they cannot back up (see WMDs in Iraq and the link of Saddam to al Qaeda) which are later proven false. So, maybe the President hasn't been fully briefed on the complete status, use, data collected, and eventual reach of the program. Maybe, in good faith, he is telling what he believes to be true, as he supposedly did with the WMDs. (I don't believe that, but for a moment, I'll concede that for the sake of the discussion). Then, it is just as possible he doesn't know all he should about this program and we are being sold a bill of goods again. Whether a lemon is sold as being in good condition or not, a lemon is still a lemon. I don't personally feel he has earned the right of continuing trust by the American public based on his record.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 5:27pm

23. On further reflection, I am not sure if this is what Maasch meant, but … I suppose the scope of the program still needs to be investigated, but to get to a legal judgment on the legal/illegal question of the program itself, do we really need more investigation (although I certainly favor it)? The administration has already admitted the necessary facts in my mind - it authorized wiretaps of American citizens without a court warrant and circumvented the procedures of FISA. Maybe there is a political purpose to laying out the magnitude of the program, how the administration approached it historically, etc., but what MORE facts do we really need to get to the legal conclusion? At this stage, it seems that most of the debate centers on legal interpretations of executive power, statutory interpretation and so forth; not so much on facts. I guess part of me is worried that the Congress will simply drop it, throw up their hands, and say "the Republicans wouldn't let us get to the bottom of it." I do not think they have to drop it. Perhaps the lawsuits which will inevitably flow will bring more accountability than Congress seems willing to do.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 5:28pm

24. darn typing too fast

    Even if a lemon is sold as being in good condition, whether it is sold as such in good faith or not, a lemon is still a lemon. I don't personally feel he has earned the right of continuing trust by the American public based on his record, and I don't want anymore lemons from this lame duck run amok.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 5:29pm

25. ... which makes the Roberts and Alito confirmations even more depressing.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 5:29pm

26. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/11/2006 @ 4:56pm

    Actually, most people have no problem comprehending what the president is doing. He is breaking the law and claiming that, as president, he has the right to do so. Which part of that do you find overly complicated, Brave River?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 5:38pm

27. Yeah, and claiming he has the right to do so under the theory that a wartime President becomes a dictator who can ignore any law he likes. First off, no war was ever declared. I do not know the legalities of this, so am looking for someone to educate me on that, do we not have to have Congress declare war before a President gets the special powers Bush claims to be exercising?

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 5:42pm

28. Lennonist -

    If you are looking for legal analysis, there are many sources you could probably hunt for on the web, but I personally found NSA Legal Ananlysis [tinyurl.com] to be particularly useful. Besides providing good commentary, the author provides links to official documents setting forth the legal arguments of the adminsitration and those government officials and legal scholars who oppose what the adminsitration is doing.

    I also found that NSA Debate [fed-soc.org] provided a very good back and forth debate between two constitutional scholars.

    www.thinkprogress.org usually has some very goo dinformation as well.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 6:02pm

29. To LL:

    The same phone companies sell these phone records to businesses, but suddenly liberals are up in arms because the Federal Government accesses the same data that these businesses and state and local law enforcement agencies access.

    That is one of the weakest arguments I've seen you make (and that's saying a mouthful).

    First of all, the phone company allows its subscribers the option to opt out of that program. The Bush regime doesn't offer me the same option (if they're looking at my phone bill, which I doubt). This is not some business fishing for customers in a commercial venture. This is the federal government conducting what one would hope is a criminal investigation. One would think you, of all people, would know and appreciate the difference.

    Also, since this article is more current than the previous discussion, I posted the following observation of your remarks there:

    I don't know if the contradiction has occurred to you, but you seem very concerned about granting the government the power to enact Social Security because there is nothing in the Constitution that would expressly enable it to do so, yet you are completely at ease with granting the government the right to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant in spite of the fact that there is something in the Constitution that expressly prohibits it.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 6:07pm

30. Thank you very much HMAN. I appreciate the links. I'll go do some reading, because I like to be informed.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 6:12pm

31. Lennonist - responding best I can in short order to your question on the relevance of a declaration of war, FISA provides for that.

    The text of FISA makes no distinction beteen waritme and peacetime surveillance in setting forth what conduct violates the statute. If you violate FISA during either, you are guilty. However, FISA did contemplate a small execption for situations involving a declaration of war - allowing warrantless wiretaps for 15 days after war is declared. Also, FISA was amended by the Patriot Act (passed in response to 9/11). However, the requirements of securing a warrant through the FISA courts were left intact and were not amended. So, even though the administration claims that 9/11 brought about a wartime scenario somehow giving Bush authority to disregard FISA, this just is not true under FISA. Congress had the opportunity to amend FISA, did so, but did not amend the warrant requirements for domestic surveillance. Thus, FISA still applies, even in wartime.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 6:15pm

32. Posted by LENNONIST 05/11/2006 @ 5:15pm | ignore this person

    Some good points in your post to JM, Lennon. But if 72 Congressional representatives and the ACLU don't have any credibility with John, I'm guessing you won't hold much sway with him either.

    Posted by Lillian at 05/11/2006 @ 6:29pm

33. I'm beginning to suspect that those liberals...

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/11/2006 @ 4:07pm

    And this is where the rightwing paranoia train begins get a little steam behind it: suspicion. Everyone is a terrorist unless you can deny ever using the phone (a known terrorist form of communication) or until you name names. We hear tell that the President is only tracking known al Qaeda operatives or affiliates, so nothin's to worry our pretty heads 'bout. And we find that there are millions of them in our midst. No doubt many of them are ordering pizzas, calling in prescriptions, and trying out a little phone sex (dirty terrorists!). The good thing is that we find that it's not illegal aliens who are the most to fear; it's we who are the real menaces. Maybe we need to build that wall to make sure we don't escape.

    What fascinating patterns they must be discovering! The biggest pork project in the history of pork projects: we'll watch everyone call everyone, look for patterns, and then arrest people for terrorist activities. Logical and simple: the federal government at its best.

    He keeps explaining and explaining and explaining. And he never actually catches up to the truth. Or maybe it's that each stab at the truth is actually intended to mortally wound it rather than embrace it.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/11/2006 @ 6:30pm

34. The Bush administration cannot simply create a Big Brother program and then refuse to answer any questions on how it came about and what it entails.

    apparantly it can. at least until the new majority is sworn into congress in jan 07...

    what a racket...violate the constitution to support a lied-into war that profits all your contractor buddies and yourself, make anything incriminating "secret" and deny security clearance to anyone investigating your high crimes and misdemeanors.

    well done neofascists. the day of reckoning, however, approaches...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 6:35pm

35. Ibble,

    Apologists always get their panties bunched when fascism is mentioned. Yet what else is it beyond a union of the feds and corporate power to maintain strict control of everyone else?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/11/2006 @ 6:45pm

36. The Bush regime doesn't offer me the same option (if they're looking at my phone bill, which I doubt).

    Posted by Jack Rabbit

    It was stated today that they already have the phone records of "tens of millions." What makes you so confindent that yours arent among them. The goal of this program is for the NSA to ultimately have all your phone records and email visits in a database, which is a complete invasion of current privacy laws. Dont for one moment think: This doesnt affect me because why would they spy on me. A more appropriate question with regard to an operation like this is: Why are they looking at the phone records of tens of millions, and why is their goal to compile a database of all calls made from every phone in the US?

    This reeks of illegality as we usher in a new era of dictatorship type practices.........Bush has done more personally to roll back democracy and freedom than any other president in history.

    Posted by jpolston at 05/11/2006 @ 6:45pm

37. HMAN, I've read a lot of the information you provided links to. Thank you. Actually reading the Supreme Court decisions in the Truman case of desiring to nationalize the steel industry to avert a potentially crippling strike was probably most illuminative (in concert with the citations from the Federalist Papers). I think I have a reasonable handle on the arguments now.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 6:47pm

38. To JPolston:

    It was stated today that they already have the phone records of "tens of millions." What makes you so confident that yours aren't among them.

    That's a good point made better by the fact that a member of the church I attend is a 67-year college professor who found out he's on the terror watch list. People who know this gentleman find the idea ludicrous. See my remarks here.

    So, let me rephrase that. I doubt if they are looking at my phone records that they'll find anything will help protect Americans from Osama or any other terrorist, assuming that they are really interested in that.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 6:52pm

39. I have been afraid, for almost 2 years now, that prior to the elections in 2008, a national emergency will arise (al Qaeda attack) and that the current Administration will invoke martial law and suspend elections. All these revelations concerning the creation of databases on every darn thing every American does with their "privacy" (there's a word that won't exist much longer in the dictionary if we keep going in the direction we are), and especially given the current mood of the voters to give Congress to the Democrats (not because they are any better, but under the general hope that will at least provide some degree of Congressional oversight and a modicum of checks and balances), my fear now is less that it might or could happen, but that it will.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 6:54pm

40. ZERO,

    Jeb has already been anointed. And we voters have no memory for the bad taste that Bush leaves in our mouths.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/11/2006 @ 7:04pm

41. Zero

    We can only hope that here in a couple of years, after regime change in the US, that the next bunch of jackals do away with much of the legislation enacted during GWB's tenure.

    I woke up today to the MSM headline of more tax breaks for the rich.........which around noon became: NSA program more vast than previously thought. Every week the storyline reads more like Montel or Springer, and the country barely notices. When will the public wake up and demand that the lawlessness surrounding this administration must end. How many laws must GWB break before we reel him in. How many high ranking members of Bush's inner circle have to be questioned or indicted?

    Posted by jpolston at 05/11/2006 @ 7:11pm

42. FREIHEIT

    First off, how do you know if I do or do not have any investments? Just because I choose not to own a car does not mean I have nothing. I refuse to say more about what I may or may not own.

    It bothers me because I value liberty, I value freedom, I value the Constitution, I value future generations (and having children does not give someone a superior claim to that than I), I value life, and I value the great tradition of freedom that this country has stood for. Also, because no one will know when I've been taken, I am an easy target, and the fact that I am anti-Bush, I am a logical target. Because, also, my friend, I value you, and every citizen of the United States, whether we agree or disagree. I don't write people off as being nothing, worthless, or irrelevant, as your post leaves me with the implication you do.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:11pm

43. gee, "liberals" would be sooooo much worse than these neocon idiots. we soooo needed a bloody expensive distraction of a quagmire of a war to overshadow attempts to get "the terrorists".

    but yeah - your right. i say screw eating up the clock. go into the hurry up from time to time to keep their defense tired and on its heels and run up the score. damn the torpedoes. dont slow down til its the 2 minute warning and you got a 4 touchdown lead...

    TJ

    yeah - they can sling "commernist" til the cows come home but sling a little hyperbole back and OH THE BOOHOOING!

    obverse democratic fascists -

    obverse - business gains control of party, as opposed to clasic 30's paradigm

    democratic - uses national identity myth of democracy to rally people, while controlling msm and "national security" secrecy to cover up true undemocratic nature of the movement...

    fascism - wilkopedia it...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 7:18pm

44. ops - 1st part of above post for FREI

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 7:19pm

45. "the entire demoncratic party"

    "ridiculous partison claims of those biased and consumed by malivolent hatred"

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/11/2006 @ 7:14pm

    I say this without partisan hatred, bias, or "malivolence": you are an idiot. I don't think I've used that word on this site or any other. But your mind is made up before anything is presented. The death-defying leap in logic required to assume that all of these transmissions are just part of a benevolent system of safety precausions for our benefit, and that any question of this benevolence is partisan hackery leaves me with no other word but "idiot". I wish there were a more specific, more stylish word I could toss toward you, but I am not Chimichenga, alas.

    Idiot.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/11/2006 @ 7:22pm

46. "A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority. No doubt a government with distributed authority, subject to be challenged in the courts of law, at least long enough to consider and adjudicate the challenge, labors under restrictions from which other governments are free. It has not been our tradition to envy such governments. In any event our government was designed to have such restrictions. The price was deemed not too high in view of the safeguards which these restrictions afford. I know no more impressive words on this subject than those of Mr. Justice Brandeis:

    'The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, [343 U.S. 579, 614] by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy.'"

    Quote from the Supreme Court in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:23pm

47. Should have said "the montioring of these transmissions".

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/11/2006 @ 7:23pm

48. More from the Supreme Court, and exactly on point - same decision as cited above.

    "Thus, it is said, he has invested himself with "war powers."

    "I cannot foresee all that it might entail if the Court should indorse this argument. Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture. 10 [343 U.S. 579, 643] . . . .

    "The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers ex necessitate to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although [343 U.S. 579, 650] it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation.

    "We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies. Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. 19 I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am not convinced it would be wise to do so, although many modern nations have forthrightly recognized that war and economic crises may upset the normal balance between liberty and authority. [343 U.S. 579, 651]"

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:28pm

49. The Democrats are very slightly better than the Republicans. I do not support either. My support vests with the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:34pm

50. If you are truely paranoid about DEA, NSA, CIA, ATF, or FBI and not just guilt ridden don't get a drivers license, soc. sec. card, identity card, DHS card, Health Ins. or Credit card or file a corporate or individual income tax return!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/11/2006 @ 7:14pm

    The difference with all the other government collection of data, and that in the situation being discussed in this topic is significant. None of the other agencies gathering information and collecting records are spy agencies or law enforcement agencies. The potential for harm to the citizens of the US and our institutions of democratic government and freedom is greater when intrusion into the lives of the citizens is wielded by the agencies you named.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:39pm

51. One interesting thing is, with the mining of records of 10s of millions of Americans for potential terrorist ties, and in a system we now learn has been in place since 9/11, absolutely zero information has been garnered to protect us from anything. If this was not the case, that would be the first thing the Administration would be touting. They aren't. There has been no benefit in the war on terror. None. In 5 years. None. I think, even assuming one could say the previous Supreme Court ruling was wrong and get it overturned, there is no benefit to us as citizens. Only drawbacks. I, too, have nothing to hide, and I do not hide my disgust with this lawless Administration that knows such an impressive sense of irony, time after time extolling the "rule of law" and demanding other nations be taken down because they do not practice it, yet who do nothing but shred our Constitution and laugh in the face of attempts to impose the rule of law on them.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:46pm

52. If you live in the territory covered by Quest (Rocky mountain states mostly) then the NSA does not have your phone records. Quest asked the NSA to either get a FISA ruling or a letter from the attorney general before they would work with the NSA on this program. The NSA refused to do either, I guess the NSA didn't have enough faith in the program's legality to get a second opinion.

    Posted by Guiles at 05/11/2006 @ 7:48pm

53. "I don't write people off as being nothing, worthless, or irrelevant, as your post leaves me with the implication you do."

    ZERO DOES...

    "maasch is being an idiot."

    "enough of "conservatives", these people are idiots."

    I don't see the world as you do, I disagree...I could call you and your thoughts idiotic......but why?

    Posted by john maasch at 05/11/2006 @ 7:51pm

54. Ummm, I hope those justices recently nominated and confirmed really are the strict constructionists they were touted to be, because any reading of the history of this argument can only yield one opinion, the same as rendered in Youngstown CO v Sawyer.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:53pm

55. Link to USA Today article with information about Quest not participating in the NSA phone records program:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

    Posted by Guiles at 05/11/2006 @ 7:53pm

56. John, I did not say that to you, that was in response to FREIHEIT

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:53pm

57. And to be perfectly clear, I did not accuse FREIHEIT of that, nor did I assert it to be true in FREIHEIT's case, I said I got the impression from the way the comment was written.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 7:55pm

58. I wouldn't hold my breath. The "opposition party" hasn't allowed things to decay to such a degree just so they can turn around and undo what's been done. In the immortal words of Harry Truman, there's only one thing that's going to straighten this mess out, and that's a few appropriate kicks in the right asses.

    Posted by Mikeyeshu at 05/11/2006 @ 8:13pm

59. Actually, what is needed is a third party candidate to win the White House and go through everything with a fine toothed comb, then disclose all the horrors to the public.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:19pm

60. If you are not involved in terrorist activity, why would you worry about the numbers you have called being fed into this data base?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 8:19pm

61. Because, according to the Constitution, I should not have to. Hey, Pride, if you dno't break any laws in your bedroom, let's let the police watch you and your significant other making love. Let's keep records on how often you make love, what positions you use, and for that matter, how long it lasts. Might as well under yo9ur theory, since any babies you make might, possibly, one day, become terrorists.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:23pm

62. And also because, it's against the law, and because no one, NO ONE, is above the law. And because Bush turns into a hypocrite demanding other nations accept the rule of law when he tramples on it and subverts it himself.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:24pm

63. I'd like to know from a Bush supporter, what is it that constitutes "our way of life" that he is protecting in the illegal practices used to fight terrorism, because it sure isn't the Constitution, freedom, and traditional American values.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:26pm

64. You're talking apples to oranges.

    Case in point. I'll agree that if what I did in the bedroom stops a terorist from killing, I'll go prime time live. But it won't, for obvious reasons. See my point?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 8:28pm

65. Oh yeah, I think it was the same reasoning that allowed many Germans to say, "Hey, if you aren't a Jew, why do you care if Jews are rounded up, sent to concentration camps, tortured, raped, and gased.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:29pm

66. No, I do not. You pint is, hey, if the President wants to shred the constitution, and break the law, let him because you won't be hurt. That's faulty thinking. Under the same thinking, we may as well take away a persons right to an attorney before interrogation.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:30pm

67. To Rio Bravo:

    Tell me again how we can't trust the government eavesdropping on the phone, satellite, internet, and other communications of enemies of the state and its citizens!

    Let me give you a little civics lesson and see if it sinks in. In the eighteenth century, American colonists, weary of the arbitrary exercise of power by the British crown, declared independence. Elsewhere in Europe, Kings had even greater arbitrary power than the King of England. For example, the French King had the power to issue a lettre de crachet, a royal order to arrest an imprison an individual without charge.

    Our Founding Fathers wanted none of this. They devised a government that featured checks and balances that make it difficult for any one of three branches of government to exercise arbitrary power if challenged by one of the other two. This did not go far enough for some Americans, who thought there should be a Bill of Rights in the Constitution to expressly to expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the freedom of private citizens. And so they added a Bill of Rights to the new Constitution.

    The Fourth Article in the Bill of Rights is this:

    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 Warrants 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.

    Now, why can't we just trust good ol' Dubya to just just go after the bad guys? Well, you know, power corrupts. We don't trust people in power. It just isn't the American way. And while I wouldn't lend good ol' Dubya $20 until payday, the fact is that I don't think even a truly trustworthy person should have the kind of power good ol' Dubya thinks he ought to have. And neither did the Founding Fathers.

    Are these thoughts unpatriotic? No. Let's look at what James Madison, one of the aforementioned Founding Fathers, had to say about men, power and government in Federalist No. 51:

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

    With that, Madison proceeded to argue for a government of checks and balances.

    Now, sometimes the President gets too big for his breeches and thinks he can just ignore laws or make up enemies lists or sick law enforcement agencies on people just he doesn't like them and they don't like him. Well, we don't want that. So, before the President or his agents can start looking into somebody's personal effects, we make him ask a federal judge for something called a warrant. That means the government agents tell the judge why they think they should look at somebody's stuff. Usually, they have a good reason and the judge says "OK, go do your job," and signs the warrant. Sometimes he says, "Man, this is crap. You guys are just on a fishing expedition. Go back and bring me some real evidence against this guy."

    Getting a warrant before an investigation is a check by the judicial branch against the arbitrary power of the executive branch. If the President didn't think he needed a warrant, he might just investigate anybody he doesn't like.

    I hope you understand that much. It's just to make sure that when the President says "I'm fighting evil doers," that he isn't also fighting people like Senator Kennedy, with whom you may not agree but still isn't going to slam a hijacked jet into an office building, or somebody who organized an antiwar march in his community who doesn't even know how to make an IED and wouldn't make if he knew.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 8:32pm

68. Besides, it hasn't helped even one iota in 4 and a half years. But it costs us a fortune to have government workers doing these things that yield no results. Also, the potential for some president, any president, someday using the information wrongly will be there.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:33pm

69. It's funny when stuff like this comes up and the libs wrap themselves around the flag.

    The same flag that they wiped their ass on the day before. When it serves them well, no doubt.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 8:37pm

70. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 8:37pm

    pride is a sin

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 8:39pm

71. To Mr. Pride:

    Please elaborate. I can tell you how Bush has been using the Constitution as a door mat; please tell me how liberals wipe their ass on the flag.

    Thank you in advance.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 8:40pm

72. I guess Bush supporters think that the erosion of the Constitution is somehow linked the oath of office, "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution."

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:40pm

73. Mr. Pride, you have no idea who I am or what I believe, but I love the flag, and I rever the Constitution. Don't you dare call me unAmerican. The most unAmerican thing a person can do is destroy the Constitution. If you support the erosion of the Constitution, then it is you and not I who is unAmerican.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:42pm

74. Maybe remembering Waco is a good example of why this government should never gather this much information.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:44pm

75. I never said unAmerican.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 8:46pm

76. Mr. Pride, you said I wipe my ass with the flag, that to me is a fucking insult and an absolute accusation of being unAmerican.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:53pm

77. To Mr. Pride:

    No, sir, you did not say unAmerican. You said:

    It's funny when stuff like this comes up and the libs wrap themselves around the flag . . . . The same flag that they wiped their ass on the day before.

    I asked for an elaboration. And I believe that remark is at what Lennonist took offense.

    Consider yourself challenged.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 8:55pm

78. LVLIBERTY - who is scared? I( am not complainihng out of fear. I am complaining because it is 1) hypocritical of the Presi9dent and 2) a destruction of traditional American values and the Constitution. If you really do love liberty, then the Constitution should be a sacred document. I can't believe anyone in this country can be for the defacing of that document.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 8:55pm

79. The funny thing about all this so-called outrage. The fed's know 100+ times more about every move we make then you would ever suspect.

    Get over it. This is only the beginning of the tech age. In a few years, they will know everything.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 8:58pm

80. I will not "get over" the defacing of the Constitution. You want to live in a place where the freedoms you take for granted don't exist, the please, leave, leave this country to someone who really does love it. You love the lifestyle, I love the country, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:00pm

81. To Mr. Pride:

    Get over it is too often said by people who are either about to ram a shaft up our bums or for those who apologize for them.

    Mr. Lennonist and I are still waiting for an elaboration.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 9:00pm

82. Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:00pm

83. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/11/2006 @ 7:14pm: Tell me again how we can't trust the government eavesdropping on the phone, satellite, internet, and other communications of enemies of the state and its citizens!

    That's the point, brave river. The citizens of this country are not enemies of the state, despite what you have been told by the Decider.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:01pm

84. He's the one cloaking himself in the flag but who has absolutely not one idea of what it stands for since he is perfectly willing to give up the Constitution.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:02pm

85. I would suggest he is the one who falsely clo0aks himself in the flag since he is willing to destroy any element of the Constitution. This is what the Revolution, WWI and WWII were fought for? So this generation could destroy what has taken so long and cost so many lives to preserve?

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:05pm

86. To me, you all seem to have an warped sense of reality.

    Not meant to be mean, just an observation.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:05pm

87. To LL:

    You win another red herring award.

    I repeat this observation:

    I don't know if the contradiction has occurred to you, but you seem very concerned about granting the government the power to enact Social Security because there is nothing in the Constitution that would expressly enable it to do so, yet you are completely at ease with granting the government the right to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant in spite of the fact that there is something in the Constitution that expressly prohibits it.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 9:07pm

88. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 8:28pm: Case in point. I'll agree that if what I did in the bedroom stops a terorist from killing, I'll go prime time live. But it won't, for obvious reasons. See my point?

    I assume, therefore, that you would support mandatory video cameras in every house. After all, terrorists use face to face communications in houses to plan their devious schemes to kill you and your family. If you are not involved in terrorist activity, why would you worry about the government installing video cameras in every room of your house?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:07pm

89. the flag is a piece of cloth. amazes me how people confuse a piece of cloth with what it represents...concrete operational thinking at its apex.

    i'm more concerned with the country and people it represents. i'd happily burn 10 flags for every wasted life in this based-on-lies iraq incompetance...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:08pm

90. No, No - f...ing No!

    The point is, that all you are bitching about is already in place, and has been in place.

    Reality - what a concept.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:12pm

91. To LL:

    Yes, the President and a dwindling number of the American people. It's down to 31% now.

    Tell me, what part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understnad?

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 9:14pm

92. a few anarchists and worker's world party type burn a few flags to prove that our freedom is a bunch of bullshit and what do the concrete operational thinkers want to do? prove them right by denying them the right to freely express themselves by burning flags!

    hell, at the end of WW2 someone wanted to ban flag burning and even back then post concrete operational thinker lawmakers unceremoniously and correctly shelved the idea and got on to real governing...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:15pm

93. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:12pm

    eroding the constitution and justifying it by saying "its already in place" - what a concept...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:17pm

94. Will you join with me LL in demanding an end to income tax which not only is unConstitutional but which was promised to the American public would only be in place for the duration of WWI? Will you demand that there no longer be any deficit spending and that we will stop funding any programs whatsoever until our national debt is paid? Will you demand an end to all lobbying which contravenes every intent of our framers to make the government responsive to the people and not to the moneyed interests? Will you demand that the President inform the public about all the government's activities, since, after all, the government is "of the people, by the people and for the people?"

    I disagree with regard to intyerpretation of Roe v. Wade. Since the unborn are not born, they cannot be defined as humans. hence, they have no rights and the exprectant-mother has absolute right over her body wwhich is guaranteed in the Constitution the right to security in property, and in the 17th century one's body was considered a property right. I would not call out a militia to stop illegal immigration, but I do not favor amnesty, I do favor sending illegal immigrants home, and I also favor severe penalties for all companies who exercise illegal hiring tactics - my method would be to close the company down. Don't think we need a militia yet. I do agree that any state that made a deqal with any foreign nation has done so unConstitutionally, and the deal should be voided. Thre Constitution does not demand that anyone serve in the military, and since I am 53 years of age, it is more luikely I would cause deaths to servicepersons that aid them, so no, I will not enlist. Also, since any war conducted without the enactment of a declaration of war is also unConstitutional, I would refuse to serve in it, however, certainly, you would agree we either have to devclare war or get out.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:20pm

95. LVL, so, then, since until Clinton was caught getting blow jobs, under your theory, he absolutely had a duty to keep getting more until that time when it was determined it might be illegal - although, since both were consenting adults, there was no illegality involved!

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:23pm

96. So rant and rave, but this issue wins time and time again for the President with the American people.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/11/2006 @ 9:12pm

    I guess you didn't read the supreme court cite I provided earlier. It may win with some jingoists who do not respect the Coonstitution and it's sister the Bill of Rights, but in fact, it has already been previously determined to be unConstitutional.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:25pm

97. Is it a good idea to use whatever tech we have to stop people from killing us?

    If you answer yes, you understand and feel the threat we face.

    If you ansewr no, you may be setting the stage for innocent people to be wasted because you feel your rights have been violated.

    Tell that to the dead guy, and hope it's not you or someone you love.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:25pm

98. Just saying the protections are there means zippo Mr. Pride if those protections are ignored, abused, and flaunted. They don't exist in reality, as you called it, if in reality they are not enforced.

    Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:27pm

99. Common sense.

    This is what we must use. Without it, life makes no sense.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:29pm

100. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/11/2006 @ 9:03pm:demanding that Congress stop exceeding their enumerated powers with Federal funding of Education, Social Security, Welfare (corporate, agricultural, and personal), Foreign aid,

     Once again, the only response by Decider-ists is to change the subject. But, since that is all you are good for, please tell me, LovesHamsters, where in the constitution it states that the Federal government can not fund education, Social Security, welfare, or foreign aid?

     a constitional amendment to repeal the truly unconstitutional 16th amendment

     Why is the 16th amendment "truly unconstitutional"? An amendment to the Constitution is, by definition, part of the Constitution.

     Oh, and by the way, LovesHamsters, you do realize that if congress cuts off corporate welfare, you will no longer be able to cheat on your taxes by writing off your gas.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:30pm

101. Mr. Pride, liberty comes with cost. Every American must be willing to pay the same cost for liberty that our founding fathers paid. I'll die for my beliefs. Will you? Obviously not, you'd rather give up the liberty to protect your life. How "American" of you, how patriotic. My father, who fought WWII would puke all over you for that sentiment.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:33pm

102. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:25pm

     lots of innocent people have died in iraq. no wmd, no al queda link. lots and lots of pride, though...

     9 months into bush presidency, plenty of evidence before that some kind of terorist plot was up, nothing done to stop it...sounds like the first indication of incompetance to me, unless we want to get al "rese" here...

     scary scary scary scary BOO! see america? you need us? give up your rights!

     wanna know what we, YOUR government is really doing? SORRY! its all secret for your own protection! what? want potentially embarrassing or incriminating information about us? SORRY! its secret! for your own good!

     BOO! see? you schmuks need us! now go take a trip to disney world. buy some plastic crap you dont need. watch fox news and american idol and believe everythig we, your government, say. TRUST us.

     we NEVER are wrong. we are too PROUD to be wrong...

     BOO!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:35pm

103. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/11/2006 @ 9:12pm: So rant and rave, but this issue wins time and time again for the President with the American people.

     Great. Then you should be happy to have it investigated up the wazoo. After all, the more the American people find out about the President's penchent for spying, the more they will love the guy.

     Run with it, LovesHamsters. The American people have always loved presidents who spy on them. They also love presidents who claim to be above the law. And we have particular fondness for terrified little hamsters who are so scared of life that they will turn over all of their rights and liberties to a delusional messianic maniac who thinks he is ordained by God.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:36pm

104. Thank you Orwell for getting to the points I omitted in my first response, that was to follow, or something akin to what you said. However, Mr. Pride recaptured my attention.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:36pm

105. To Mr. Pride:

     If you answer yes, you understand and feel the threat we face.

     If you ansewr no, you may be setting the stage for innocent people to be wasted because you feel your rights have been violated.

     You must take lessons in propaganda from Karl Rove. That is one of the most outrageous black-or-white fallacies I've come across since "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 9:38pm

106. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:25pm: If you ansewr no, you may be setting the stage for innocent people to be wasted because you feel your rights have been violated.

     Tell that to the dead guy, and hope it's not you or someone you love.

     Great. So tell me, FascistPride, when can we come over to your house to install the video cameras?

     And why are you such a scared little weiner boy anyway?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:38pm

107. common sense? how did that apply to the decision to invade iraq?

     common sense says we the people are being played like a concert piano by a bunch of charletans whose loyalty is to their own socio-economic class and campaign doners and not to the country...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:41pm

108. Rove and Bush sell fear. They have everyone so afraid of the terrorist bogeyman, who is so dangerous that we haven't heard from him in 5 years, that everyone wants to run to the nearest voting bothg to repeal every freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Again, my father would puke. That is not bravery my friends, and that is certainly not fighting for the Constitution and our way of life. For me, our way of life is not defined by credit cards, shiny automobiles, and HDTV. For me, our way of life is defined by our Constitution. Any "roll back" of the Constitution is not an American value. Hell, it's terrorism in anothyer guise.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:42pm

109. I'm not sure what the term for the opposite of "scared little weiner boy" is ....

     But that is me.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:42pm

110. I'm not sure what the term for the opposite of "scared little weiner boy" is ....

     But that is me.

     Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:42pm

     fool? dupe? pride precedeth a fall...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:43pm

111. This stopped being a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" the first time that Bush said, "I don't care what the polls say [what the people want], I'm doing what the fuck I want and go cram it."

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:44pm

112. Mr Pride, get scared to talk Constitution with me and my father? Come on boy, where's your Prideballs?

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:45pm

113. Envy is the root of "most" evil.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 9:45pm

114. To the Bush Bubbahs at The Nation:

     If you think anybody who opposes the NSA program is a unreasonable, unreconstructed liberal pinko Commie, then I just heard that on Hannity and Colmes this evening that Newt Gingrich said of the program, "I won't defend the indefensible." He called it a mess.

     I guess Newt uses red, white and blue toilet paper, eh, Mr. Pride?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/11/2006 @ 9:49pm

115. Envy? Where did that come in? Who here is enviopus, except the present Administration, envious of all the oil.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:49pm

116. Envy? Where did that come in? Who here is envious, except the present Administration, envious of all the oil.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:49pm

117. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:42pm

     You still haven't answered the question, scared little weiner boy. You claim we should use whatever technology we have to monitor any and all potential terrorist threats. Clearly having a video camera in every room of every house would help in this regard, as terrorists have been known to discuss their devious killing schemes in private houses. Do you support the government mandated installation of video cameras or not?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 9:51pm

118. Maybe Mr. Pride is envious of our ability to stand on the Constitution...

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:52pm

119. I meant for, not on.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:52pm

120. Posted by USAPRIDE 05/11/2006 @ 9:45pm

     you seem like a nice guy - sorry i insulted you, but i assume you are a big boy (or girl).

     humility is the opposite of pride, and has nothing to do with being a weenie or caspar milktoast. unfortunately many of us are so choking on our pride ("the power of pride" oh how i hate that self sanctimonious insecure boastful claptrap) we cannot see the forest for all the trees of our delusion. it is precisely this "pride" (arrogance) that disgusts so many in the world today that might be our allies. its precisely this uber-patriotic "pride" that is blinding us to our stupidity. throw in a large dose of pop culturally lobotomized ignorance, RAGE, VANITY, sloth, lust GREED, and GLUTTONY, and an artery clogging slathering of pride in all the above as well as pride in our pride and - voila!

     a sickening train wreck of a couple of civilization collapsing 4 year terms...

     take a walk on the dark side...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 9:56pm

121. The Supreme Court, in the 1972 case of United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), rejected the Nixon Administration's claim that it had the authority to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant in order to investigate dangerous terrorist groups, and concluded that the Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against exactly such intrusions.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 9:57pm

122. When the AUMF was being drafted, the Administration wanted Congress to grant it the authority to use its war powers inside the U.S., and Congress refused to give that authority. For the Administration to now claim that it had the authority from Congress which Congress actually expressly refused to give it is about as dishonest as it gets.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:01pm

123. "It is one thing to draw an intention of Congress from general language and to say that Congress would have explicitly written what is inferred, where Congress has not addressed itself to a specific situation. It is quite impossible, however, when Congress did specifically address itself to a problem, as Congress did to that of seizure, to find secreted in the interstices of legislation the very grant of power which Congress consciously withheld. To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress."

     Quote from Justice Jackson in the Youngstown Co case cited above.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:02pm

124. i think we dinged his pride...carefull, he might invade us...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 10:03pm

125. Bush is a lame duck run amok.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:03pm

126. He went to go wrap his balls in the flag probably.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:03pm

127. Careful? Hell, no one calls me unAmerican ever and gets away with it.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:06pm

128. I apologise to evereyone else here for my expression of my anger, but I will not abide someone saying I wipe my ass with the flag. No apology to Mr. Pride, but to everyone else, yes.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:08pm

129. e went to go wrap his balls in the flag probably.

     Posted by LENNONIST 05/11/2006 @ 10:03pm

     my bad - i think i said "BOO" one tine too muc

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 10:08pm

130. His alert level jumped to carnelian.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:10pm

131. well, ambien tim for this islamofascist symp (does not rol off the tongue like "comsymp", does it?)

     yup, butterfly comr to me...nite

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/11/2006 @ 10:12pm

132. nite to you too!

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/11/2006 @ 10:13pm

133. I can't believe Richard Pryor is gone.

     Good soul, he was.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 10:19pm

134. If we all just keep at each other, they will occupy our spcace.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 05/11/2006 @ 10:37pm

135. Lennonist -

     Happy to provide you with the sources. Coming back tonight and reading the thread, I see you have articulated quite a solid argument. It's a good thing to have a solid body of law on your side. From what I gather, the left posters are having their way with the wingers. Liberty is talking about immigration and about information sharing done by businesses (which you agree to by contract and can opt out of), USAPride is left with tired toilet paper analogies, and Rio is citing the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And I am so sure that if SCOTUS ruled against the NSA program, Liberty would give that decision as much validity as he gives Roe v. Wade.

     It's a waste of effort to even argue with these guys. I've been sucked into it on this issue so many times, I cannot muster the effort tonight. No matter how many cites to the Constitution, the Federalist papers, the Youngstown Steel case, FISA, the AUMF, or the Patriot Act anyone makes, these so-called "strict constructionalists" will bend like a reed in the wind to support their emperor.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/11/2006 @ 11:23pm

136. To the Libertarian on this board, you give me one good reason that they need the call records of every American in this country. There isn't one. These are not the records of terriorist that we are talking about these are your records sir and my records. If you think that we are safer with Bush in office then you are living in a dream world. We haven't been attacked again because an attack like that of 9/11 takes a long time to put together it is not because Bush is in office. There are more terrorist attacks now around the world than ever before. Our men and women are being killed everyday in Iraq by terroist that weren't there before we went in Iraq. So don't say were aren't being attacked by terrorist because we are it just not on the scale of 9/11.

     Posted by suep at 05/11/2006 @ 11:40pm

137. Posted by ZERO 05/11/2006 @ 11:54pm

     Well said, Zero.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/11/2006 @ 11:57pm

138. Posted by ZERO 05/11/2006 @ 11:55pm: with any serious attempt at debate

     Hopefully, you will exclude non-serious debate from the category of idiot-symp.

     You see there is something to be said for continuously expounding on the idiocy of the idiots, for the sake of those who may be only intermittently paying attention. Otherwise, the lunatic rantings of the mindless are left unresponded to, leaving the casual visitor to conclude that it is a reasonable argument when some idiot rants about the obvious legality of some clearly illegal act, or some other idiotic riff.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:07am

139. Zero, I understand how you feel. I will continue to write, because, 1) I still strongly believe that truth, facts and knowledge are necessary to be spread, and just as during the middle ages, eventually, knowledge overcomes ignorance, and 2) I also strongly feel that it is important to keep trying to build bridges between people. The Decidua (some people like to call him the Decider, but I will call him what he is) is the greatr divider. This country is desperately in need of a uniter. I am not that person, but I can keep working in that vein so that others, who are truly capable, can do the work of uniting someday in the future.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:12am

140. ", have earned my contempt. I attempted to debate, to understand, to be open minded, and when all that failed, i attempted to ignore. finally i am forced, as in endure the ongoing wave of ever-escalating idiocy, to simply denounce what is stupid as such. "

     Many of us have felt this way since Carter-Mondale...the idiot Gore, the moral giant Kennedy, civil rights giants like ol' Jesse 'n Al, shining stars like Schumer and who can forget the ever stimulating Dashel...

     Ah, yes, fatigued and now reduced to putting up with idiots...where to next..if only Dean could win...

     After reading this drivel and most of Ors stuuf, I have come to understand what Limbaugh and others mean when they refer to the some elements of the far left ..kooks...and you define it to an art.

     The kook faction of the democratic party who have convinced themselves they are the great American center...if mnothing else it is entertaining.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 12:12am

141. There are many conservatives who come here frequently and, to one degree or another, actually want to engage ideas. USAPRIDE is not one of these. Don't engage those who are just here to toss their bumper sticker slogans at us. Else we'll have just have to go all WWJD over him.

     This is a really sad and scary time. It's not surprising that we voted in such weak, unprincipled men who will jump to utilize any new gadgetry to buttress their support through illegitimate means since they have no principles on which to stand strong (sorry for the run-on, it's late). But that's not the sad and scary part; that part comes when people like LL continue to fight against everything they say they believe in and for a man who they say does not represent their beliefs as fully as he might. There is no explanation, nor justification. The ship is not sinking, they shout. There's nothing to see here--please move along. The Big Man is just protecting us from the unknown and the unknown is scary. What is scary is the known: that a remarkable gang of half-wits thinks they have powers beyond the rest of us mere mortal citizens.

     As I offered to NACL yesterday, if any frightful conservative wants a teddy bear, simply post your shipping address and a fluffy, cute and cuddly-wuddly bear will be overnighted to you. No charge and no questions. When your president frightens you sufficiently for you to allow him to look over your shoulder during any electronic communication, it's time to understand who is actually threatening this country. When thoughts of bearded brown men chanting and plotting dance through your imaginations, Teddy will be there to tell you that it's all right and that the president has been time-outed in the Lincoln Bedroom.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:13am

142. I agree with Orwell - which is why I posted all the responses on another thread about the contradictions and superstitions inherent in religion. My goal was not to upset Johannes, but to make sure someone confused on that issue, when reading the comments from proponents of fundamentalism, would not think them true because I gave up and didn't respond.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:15am

143. After reading this drivel and most of Ors stuuf, I have come to understand what Limbaugh and others mean when they refer to the some elements of the far left ..kooks...and you define it to an art.

     The kook faction of the democratic party who have convinced themselves they are the great American center...if mnothing else it is entertaining.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 12:12am

     One more round and then it's beddie-bye, John. Good luck on the headache in the morn.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:15am

144. I think that same approach, when discussing political topics is equally valid and important.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:15am

145. The neocon message has nothing to do with being conservative. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first great conservationists in this country and a traditional conservative. Yet, the Decidua Administration has a terrible record and policies on conservation.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:21am

146. The trampling and shreding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights has nothing to do with traditional conservatism. In fact, it is antithetical to traditional conservatism.

     Until Vietnam, war was not a value or policy of traditional conservatives, rather, they were against getting into WWi and WWII.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:23am

147. Empire and aggrandizement has nothing to do with traditional conservatism. Injecting religion into politics has nothing to do with traditional conservatism.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:24am

148. Reminded again this evening watching Fukuyama on The Daily Show that the US still outspends the rest of the world on the military. Conservatives don't want a small government. They want a force to feed their need for growth. The rest of us bums continue to set historic marks for productivity while the growth secured by our finest goes to the overly bejowled fellers at the top. Meanwhile, the rush we experience from vacinating some new country with some bastardized form of democracy is just enough to distract us from where the conservatives really want small government: social spending and corporate regulations.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:25am

149. Traditional conservative values and policies never included an activism toward spreading democracy to any foreign country. Heck, we stayed out of the French revolution and the initial Napoleonic wars which were initially intended to rid Europe of monarchies and to replace them with a Napoleonic republic, but as has been said so often, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Napoleon fell victim as has every other dictator in history.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:27am

150. I think, neocon supporters have not read the words of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Monroe, and the others. If they have, they either need a translator or Cliff Notes, because they clearly do not understand traditional American values and the necessity to stay true to the Constitution, as it is written, and not as the new breed of neocon activist judges want to rewrite it.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:30am

151. Jefferson and W#ashington both understood that no one can export democracy. Either people take it for themselves or not. No one can hand it to anyone though, because if so received, it will not be respected, cherished, valued and protected with all one's heart, mind and body.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:32am

152. Speaking of conservatives in denial:

     Among the Top 10 "Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries", a panel of 15 conservative scholars selected Keynes's "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", explaining their decision thusly:

     Keynes was a member of the British elite--educated at Eton and Cambridge--who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

     Right up there with Mein Kampf [humaneventsonline.com]

     Damn Democrats and their debt-expanding ways!

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:37am

153. The neocon vision is not a conservative approach. It is a radical/reactionary movement that they even state as being a mission to bring democracy to the world. It really isn't democracy that is what they want to export. It is American business. This is more about opening markets, finding sources of cheap labor, and stealing natuaral resources. Just as in Vietnam, the rhetoric used to cloak the plan is couched in ideals that appeal to many Americans. On the one hand, it flatters the constituency by saying, what we have is the best (no argument here), hence, it is our mission in this new millenium to bring it to the world. At the same time, they create an amorphous enemy, unseen, lurking everywhere, ready to strike at any moment. The combination of heady ego gratification and an overriding/idiotic fear is an intoxicant hard to resist. True patriots do not live in fear of a bogeyman around the corner. They do what we have always done: go on with their lives as if there is nothing to be afraid of and they do not destroy the most incredible experiement in government ever created in order to preserve that system. Without comparing the Decidua to Hitler, that is the same tactic he used to undo Germany's new republic and transform it into a tyrannical watr machine intent upon enslaving the world. The only way to preserve our way of life is to never give up that way of life, meaning, never sacrifice even one iota of our precious liberties. That is true patriotism and that is a real, traditional conservative approach.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:42am

154. Good point TJ. However, it was Cliniton (really an economic conservative) who stoppede the spiraling debt increase and started paying off the debt and consequently lowering interest. Since the end of the LBJ era (The Great Society), it is not our social programs that have caused so much debt. It has been the arms race and now the war in Iraq.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:45am

155. There is another point to make about FDR and his policies. At the time, there was no way out of the Depression. He did the best he could to get as many Americans back to work as possible. It was a good economic decision for the country at the time as well as being the most humanitarian policy available. The alternative was to let people starve and go homeless and watch our population dwindle. Had he allowed that, we would not have been in position to respond to the attack on Pearl Harbor either as quickly or as effectively as we did. The industries FDR saved, and the mass of human population he saved, are what saved the world from enslavement under Nazism.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:48am

156. That is a fascinating interjection, ZERO.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 12:51am

157. Zero,

     Quote polls all you want, but the only poll that matters is election poll...and once again you may end up complaining America voted against its own interest again, or your message didn't get out.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 12:59am

158. Well, John, and you may end up complaining in a few years that the Decidua led this country down the drain, abandoned traditional conservative values, embarked us on a perpetual war that is unwinnable, spiraled us into a degree of debt that has crippled our economy, and led us into such a degree of anethma towards our ecology that the earth is on its way to being a wasteland. Don't try to crow too loudly before sunrise, the morning may be overcast and the cock may not crow.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 01:03am

159. RIO,

     Don't know your age, but everything else is wrong except for my ancestry (at least my father's half) which is obvious. Further, you were not attempting to use just one bit of info; you also used my posts as evidence of democratic voting, I'm guessing, and you would be wrong.

     Here's the thing: we have no idea what they are doing with this information. And it is not up to them to start governing according to a privately conceived set of rules. This is the government as the only great Republican governor once said was "of the people". At least it is supposed to be. Now it is "of the people's data".

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 07:58am

160. (I've voted for Nader among others and my parents haven't voted for a democrat in over a quarter century, and never voted exclusively democrat.)

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 07:59am

161. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/12/2006 @ 07:59am

     constitutional ammendment

     no candidate elected to fed office without majority of vote...direct runoff or ordinal voting...break the systemic 2 party lock...make it realistically possible to elect non dempubs (repubocrats).

     and REAL campaign finance reform

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 08:39am

162. SELF-COUP

     A self-coup is a form of coup d'état that occurs when a country's leader dissolves (disembowels or eviscerates) the national legislature and assumes extraordinary powers.

     Warrantless eavesdropping by the NSA and/or others constitutes the establishment of Secret Police. Feingold is right to demand this self coup nonsense stops right here.

     It augurs well for our in-danger democracy that the recently retired Generals are restless that governmental policy should receive an open hearing, not be decided by a cabal of George, Dick, Rummy and god's will.

     Posted by cognitorex at 05/12/2006 @ 09:01am

163. Such nice dreams, Ibble.

     Breezed through a story this morning telling me that I and other citizens don't care so much that the president is peeking into our private lives a bit, just so he makes us safe. And that solves that...if he can just show us that he is helping to make us safe.

     President after president treats the American citizenry like his dogs. Maybe we should try flying without one for a while and see if things are any worse.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 09:20am

164. Impeach the Mother Fucker Already [impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com]

     Posted by Will C. at 05/12/2006 @ 09:29am

165. "The industries FDR saved, and the mass of human population he saved, are what saved the world from enslavement under Nazism."

     what saved the world from Nazism was the red army.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 09:36am

166. LL 1. According to an ABC News article, the phone numbers only concern calls made to likely terrorist cites like Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is why the data is on a small number and not the billions of calls (if not 10's of billions) that the entire data base holds.

     That is NOT what the story says. Here's the actual quote: "Here's how it works. Officials say the phone records, with no names attached, are fed into NSA computers, programmed to track patterns, between the US and places where suspected terrorists might be, including Afghanistan and Pakistan."

     So in fact that program isn't limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and without knowing what the Administration's criteria are for "places where suspected terrorists might be", the coverage could be worldwide.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/12/2006 @ 09:53am

167. "Impeach the Mother Fucker Already [impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com] "

     Flakes and kooks..hillarious.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 09:57am

168. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/12/2006 @ 09:53am

     Henceforth, it's probably best to start with the basic premise that 'love liberty' is going to get his facts wrong. As a corollary, it behooves one to anticipate that he will a) attempt to divert to an irrelevent issue, and/or b) run and hide in his underground bunker.

     Knowing all of that, it's easiest to treat his postings as something in which to avoid stepping.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 10:01am

169. We now know that George Bush lied again, when he said he only violated the FISA law in spying on terrorists overseas.

     1st of all, we knew he was lying about it being just terrorists, we knew he was spying on environmentalists, because Conservatives hate the environment. All because Conservatives do not like hippies, there is no other possible reason why anyone would hate the environment. So, we knew George Bush was using the NSA to spy on environmentalists and other patriotic law-abiding citizens.

     2nd, we all knew George Bush was lying when he said it was just overseas phone calls.

     George Bush took a 6 week vacation before 911 hit. John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial just prior to 911. FBI director Louie Freeh resigned a week before 911.

     George Bush has done nothing to try to catch the Anthrax Serial Murderer. Conservatives are okay with that - the terrorist who killed five Americans, the serial killer with weapons grade anthrax, attempting to kill members of Congress. Has George Bush tortured any of the 5 white gray haired suspects who work at US biological weapons laboratories?

     We know that the US Special Forces had Osama Bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora - Osama Bin Laden walked through their perimeter as though it was constructed of Swiss Cheese rather than US Special Forces - maybe the two are the same? Or maybe George Bush let his business partners brother, Mohammed Bin Ladens brother, the man who the billionaire Bush family has invested hundreds of millions of dollars together in the arms trade, the carlyle group, the oil business.

     The Reaganites said trust us, we gotta give chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein - said its for national security - said you better not question it.

     The Reaganites said trust us, we gotta give weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Were there other people in Afghanistan that Ronald Reagan could have given weapons to? Well, yes, but the Republicans knew what they were doing, it was national security, nobody was allowed to question it, and everybody knows that giving weapons to Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s was a brilliant idea - just like giving weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein was in the 1980s. You see, Reagan knew that we had to only give weapons to the most fanatical rebels against Russia in Afghanistan - and those could only come from Wahabbi fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia - beginning with trusted members of the extended Bush-Bin-Laden family.

     Now George Bush says he wants to catch terrorists? BS - this NSA spying is being used against environmentalists, against lawyers protecting whistleblowers, surely against small-time marijuana growers and medical marijuana patients.

     How many fools does George Bush the idiot think he is still fooling with his lies? You Conservatives for sure, but we will get the proof, just like we did about George Bushs other lies, and you dumb Conservatives will be left holding the bag for his lies, news that he lied will reach you fools last as usual - maybe decades from now - which is how long it will take for America to repair the damage George Bush has done.

     Posted by conshame at 05/12/2006 @ 10:02am

170. Posted by CONSHAME 05/12/2006 @ 10:02am

     3rd, we know GWB is lying because we have footage of his lips moving with audio of words coming out of his mouth.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 10:06am

171. Conshame,

     ZZZZZZZZZZZZ....

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 10:12am

172. Bush's war on terra can be translated as a war on the world

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 10:20am

173. Zero and Maasch:

     According the Wall St. Journal's latest poll, it's 29% who are in Massch's version of the "mainstream."

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/12/2006 @ 10:30am

174. ZERO writes (11-V-2006 @ 11.54):

     we have "libertarians" who apologize for orwellian programs of spying, detention, torture, and killing. we have "budget balancers" who apologize for a growth in spending combined with deliberate, radical revenue loss that together produce the biggest deficits and growth in total debt in the entire history of the nation dating back as far as records are kept. we have people who complain that "liberals" have no plan for a sound economy, and then apologize for an economic "management" that is made up of radical detaxation of the very wealthiest exclusively, regardless of conditions being approached or resulting outcome of consecutive tax cuts. we have people who voted for bush in 2000, claiming that Clinton had over-extended the military, with crazy "nation-building", who now apologize for a disastrous war and occupation sold, in light of any other reason, as an attempt to transform the entire middle eastern civilization.

     (Sigh).

     ZERO, you don't understand.

     You don't understand that there is one, and only one, misconduct on the part of The State that stains the whole social contract inexorably: and that is the moment when ... the soveriegn has his meaty, mucousy phallus --- blue veins at the point of bursting strain --- lovingly licked and suckingly nibbled with gurgles of mouth-watering pleasure from a horny young intern, willingly on her knees before the erect presidential phallus with all of its steaming hotness. The grunts ... the low groans melting into moans ... the oral pleasure of the recipient as the flood of jism spasmodically gushes down her gullet. "Ahhh - ahhhh - aaaaaaa" gasp both the sweaty, sexually aroused recipient and author of this explosive, white hot stream of sizzling man juice ...

     Now, that is what constitutes a deep-seated crisis in the Republic that may take generations to investigate and punish (according to Sensenbrennerian moralists). That sweaty exchange of fluids is warrant to cripple the government for the balance of the presidential term, until the moral legion of Corporate Pirates and VanityWarriors arrives. And you concern yourself with invasions and occupations, warrantless surveillance, mass terrorizing assassination attempts on Congresspeople, budget implosions? Silly ZERO.

     Indeed, if the NSA had the foresight and wisdom to tap ML's phone, the FELATIO CRISIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED. Think about it, ZERO, as JOHN "31-percent (& falling) Self-Nominated Mainstream Man" MAASCH clearly has with all of his remaining brainstem that enables him to effaciously eat, drink and evacuate waste (altough we only see the evidence of the latter, abundantly delivered to this web-page) ...

     Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 05/12/2006 @ 10:42am

175. At the moment, I am running a program to identify and disable data mining software from my computer; as I am doing so, these thoughts occur to me:

     How many of us have such software on our computers, and how many of us run them regularly? Why do I/we do this? How many of us availed ourselves of the opportunity to add our names to the 'no call' list a few years ago, and so take our phone numbers away from those asshole telemarketing companies?

     Why do all this? I don't use my computer for nefarious purposes (unless you consider blogging here and calling our president Dub-yak nefarious) - if I'm not doing anything wrong, I should have nothing to hide, right? Why shouldn't I let just any Tom, Dick or Harry have access to the website addresses I visit, the emails I write, afterall, when I step outside my house - physically, electronically - my expectation of privacy is gone. But I have nothing to fear - least of all from my government - because I'm an American and I can trust that my rights are being protected.

     To those who say 'I've got nothing to hide,' well ask yourself why you (likely) have a pop up blocker on your computer; why do you run AdAware (or something similar) to prevent data mining from your computer. Did you add yourself to the No Call list? If you do/did these things, would you add a feature to block data mining on your phone if you could?

     If the answer is 'yes' to any/all of the above, and you still support Bushco's attempts to dig through YOUR information, then I suggest you rethink your position. Or diable your pop up blocker, remove AdAware, and allow those telemarketers full access to your home at each and every dinner hour. 'Cause if you don't, the stench of your hypocrisy is overpowering, even from here.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 10:46am

176. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/11/2006 @ 7:51pm: I don't see the world as you do, I disagree..I could call you and your thoughts idiotic......but why?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 09:57am: Flakes and kooks..hillarious.

     Nice consistency, Mr. Maasch.

     Oh, and if you are going to insult other people's intelligence, you really should learn to spell.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 10:46am

177. Or diable your pop up blocker, remove AdAware, and allow those telemarketers full access to your home at each and every dinner hour. 'Cause if you don't, the stench of your hypocrisy is overpowering, even from here.

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 05/12/2006 @ 10:46am

     Sorry, that should be 'disable' your pop up blocker...

     My bad

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 10:47am

178. (Concerning the NSA's reluctance to observe the FISA laws)

     "The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events."

     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0511-09.htm

     Once again, for those who think that no one who is innocent of wrongdoing should resent this kind of intrusion or investigation,

     this sums it all up.

     Posted by drhammer at 05/12/2006 @ 11:06am

179. And by the way, to all the apologists out there:

     Do you remember what fucking country you're supposed to be living in?

     Posted by drhammer at 05/12/2006 @ 11:08am

180. Skeletonman -

     Great post. I did my small part this morning by "opting-out" of Verizon's program of cooperation with the NSA by canceling their service. I will take my business to a company that at least puts up a fight for its customer's privacy rights.

     I suggest others do the same and send a hard message to AT&T, Verizon and Bell South.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/12/2006 @ 11:15am

181. One wonders what sort of quid pro quo was offered to ATT, Bell South, Verizon. Somehow, I doubt they saw this (the NSA program) and their patriotic duty.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 11:35am

182. Hman,

     careful of the polls...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 11:40am

183. I have done my part by retiring the word "lie" from my vocabulary. I now use the word "bush", as when I catch my teenage son in prevarication, it will now be:" don't bush me you punk"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 11:41am

184. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/12/2006 @ 09:20am

     yeah - when i get back from overseas this summer i'm going to do it - start an organization advocating such. if nothing comes of it, so what? can say i tried, eh?

     plus, as hightower points out, when interested in long term changes, one should expect the struggle to take a LONG time. in some things, one should not even expect the fruits of ones labors to mature in one's own lifetime.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 11:41am

185. like "the long war" Ibble?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 11:43am

186. Conshame

     The Reaganites said trust us, we gotta give weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Were there other people in Afghanistan that Ronald Reagan could have given weapons to? Well, yes, but the Republicans knew what they were doing, it was national security, nobody was allowed to question it, and everybody knows that giving weapons to Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s was a brilliant idea - just like giving weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein was in the 1980s. You see, Reagan knew that we had to only give weapons to the most fanatical rebels against Russia in Afghanistan - and those could only come from Wahabbi fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia - beginning with trusted members of the extended Bush-Bin-Laden family.

     Sorry, but the actual weapons distribution was routed through Pakistan's ISI. Since we needed Pakistani help, our leverage was limited. At the time Gen. Zia, the ruler of Pakistan, was stressed Islamism as a unifying feature and, as a result, is was the more militant factions of the mujahadeen that got the most aid. Further, bin-Laden was more of a Saudi contact then our own.

     SkeletonMan

     I have AdAware, two pop-up blockers, SpyBot and the ZoneAlarm internet firewall. I may put a condom on my mouse soon.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/12/2006 @ 11:46am

187. One wonders what sort of quid pro quo was offered to ATT, Bell South, Verizon. Somehow, I doubt they saw this (the NSA program) and their patriotic duty.

     Posted by SKELETONMAN 05/12/2006 @ 11:35am | ignore this person

     Sorry, that should be 'as their patriotic...'

     Damn, I hate it when I do shit like that.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 11:53am

188. Posted by SKELETONMAN 05/12/2006 @ 10:46am

     good post. a bit off topic, but...

     why the hell are our tax supported law enforcement agencies not prosecuting and jailing these bastards who DAMAGE OUR PROPERTY (our home computers), costing us buzillions of dollars a year to safeguard, fix, and replace our private property?

     why are they not making new laws that more easily cover the actions of these companies? maybe because these companies bankroll "our" politiciacs? maybe because the buzillion dollar industry that has grown up around fixing these stupid invasions of privacy and malicious damaging of private property.

     and now what is our own government up to, eh?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 11:54am

189. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 05/12/2006 @ 11:43am

     as i call it... "the hundred years third world war"

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 11:55am

190. To Rio Bravo:

     I would be more concerned if Pres. G.W. Bush order 400 private confidential files on all the important and congressional members of the opposition party in order to glean prejudicial information on his enemies and foes!

     That would also be a concern, but in my view no greater concern than the one to which I alluded. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect private citizens from the arbitrary exercise of power by the government. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the executive branch from investigating a private individual without frist showing probable cause for launching the investigation. I believe it was Chuckie boy Schumer's underlings that ordered in violation of federal and state law the credit and other reports illegally on a Black conservative Republican candidate in a gubernatorial election on the east coast. Is this the kind of abuse you fear?

     My research shows that your reference is to a researcher in Senator Sarbanes' office named Lauren Weiner looking into the records of Lt. Governor Michael Steele of Maryland. When Ms. Weiner got this information, it would have been on the same order as you or I getting it, not on the same order as the NSA or the Justice Department getting it.

     Federal charges are being filed against Ms. Weiner. That seems to be in order. There is nothing in the Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 11:57am

191. To Rio Bravo (let's try this again):

     I would be more concerned if Pres. G.W. Bush order 400 private confidential files on all the important and congressional members of the opposition party in order to glean prejudicial information on his enemies and foes!

     That would also be a concern, but in my view no greater concern than the one to which I alluded. The point of the Bill of Rights is to protect private citizens from the arbitrary exercise of power by the government. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the executive branch from investigating a private individual without frist showing probable cause for launching the investigation. I believe it was Chuckie boy Schumer's underlings that ordered in violation of federal and state law the credit and other reports illegally on a Black conservative Republican candidate in a gubernatorial election on the east coast. Is this the kind of abuse you fear?

     My research shows that your reference is to a researcher in Senator Sarbanes' office named Lauren Weiner looking into the records of Lt. Governor Michael Steele of Maryland. When Ms. Weiner got this information, it would have been on the same order as you or I getting it, not on the same order as the NSA or the Justice Department getting it.

     Federal charges are being filed against Ms. Weiner. That seems to be in order. There is nothing in the article from which I am getting this information about Senator Sarbanes being involved in the matter.

     Even if Senator Sarbanes himself had gotten this information it would not quite be the same thing, although it would raise the gravity of the matter a bit. It would wrong, but since Sarbanes is a member of the legislative branch of government, it is not as serious as when a member of the executive branch does it. This is only because a member of Congress has no power to use whatever information he received against Mr. Steele in a criminal proceeding. The executive branch does.

     Moreover, in the case of a Congressman, the check on his power to investigate is the committee system. The Congressman must show he has cause to investigate the matter and take the issue to a Congressional committee, which will decide collectively whether there is any reason to look into the matter.

     While a member of Congress going on a fishing expedition to find embarrassing information about a political opponent is a serious concern, the use of arbitrary power becomes more of a concern when the executive branch does likewise. The Constitution therefore requires the executive branch to check with the judicial before proceeding with that part of an investigation.

     Article from The Washington Post

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 12:01pm

192. as i call it... "the hundred years third world war"

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 05/12/2006 @ 11:55am

     its like the energizer bunny...

     it goes on and on and on...and mil/industrial contractors enrich themselves off of taxpayer money on and on and on... today the enemy is eurasia, tomorrow, eastasia, day after someotherpacia...

     dry up student loans and antipoverty programs to assure the only way out of ignorance and poverty for many is to volunteer (so you dont have to institute and unpopular draft) and bumble into unnecessary war after war after war...

     the hundred (+?) world war three...

     BOO!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 12:03pm

193. Concerning the musings of a quid pro quo:

     "The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg."

     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0511-09.htm

     Posted by drhammer at 05/12/2006 @ 12:19pm

194. Concerning the musings of a quid pro quo:

     "The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg."

     http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0511-09.htm

     Posted by DRHAMMER 05/12/2006 @ 12:19am

     I was going beyond that to include winking an questionable mergers, favorable legislation, etc. But maybe I am just too suspicious. I hate being bushed to, though.

     Posted by skeletonman at 05/12/2006 @ 12:26pm

195. Posted by SKELETONMAN 05/12/2006 @ 11:35am: One wonders what sort of quid pro quo was offered to ATT, Bell South, Verizon. Somehow, I doubt they saw this (the NSA program) and their patriotic duty.

     The original USA Today story [tinyurl.com] claims that:

     The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA

     Contracts typically include payments. Hence, I would assume the companies are selling the data to the NSA.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 12:27pm

196. I think to really understand the issue it has to be placed in context. I apologize if we've already been over this, but the thread's long and I might have missed something. In any case, this is partially conjecture, but I think plausible nevertheless. The NSA isn't collecting this data just to have it sitting around -- there's gathering information if you don't analyze it.

     I think it's fairly obvious to any observer that the data-mining of "tens of millions" of phone records is the first phase of the NSA's domestic spying operation. The second phase is feeding these records into supercomputers to analyze the information and look for suspicious patterns. The third phase is to wiretap (often, apparently, without a warrent) individuals whose calling patterns are deemed suspicious.

     The problem with this is that it circumvents almost every protection in the Bill of Rights. In this scenario, we all begin as potential suspects. A computer then determines who is the most suspicious of the bunch. Then that individual is wiretapped to see if they are indeed engaging in criminal behavior.

     This upends our entire system of law, which is set up to protect the rights of the individual from the government, particularly the executive branch. The government can't go on fishing expeditions to see who's guilty and who's not. Moreover, since the program and the information it collects have no foundation in law, it'll ultimately prove damaging to the prosecution of actual terrorists, since any two-cent lawyer could have evidence obtained in this manner thrown out without breaking a sweat. It's all truly alarming.

     Posted by breasonable at 05/12/2006 @ 12:30pm

197. "I'm far more threatened by the culture."

     Posted by FREIHEIT 05/12/2006 @ 12:05am

     As a father of 3 teens, I've found much of our culture to be daunting. I comfort myself with the notion that I have at least some control over over my kids' environments.

     Not so with the NSA data mining.

     Ironically, as time goes on we find out that our kids want to listen to us less and less.

     And the NSA more and more.

     Posted by drhammer at 05/12/2006 @ 12:33pm

198. Well, I'm glad that this issue is good for the president. He needs a little encouragement, I'm sure. And I'm only to happy to let him know that most of the calls going out from and coming into our house phone are to/from my in-laws or my wife's clients. I share this in expectation that I receive the same from those who mistakenly place themselves above my private affairs. My business poses no threat to anyone; theirs threatens anyone.

     BREASONABLE said it quite nicely. The foundation of our legal system is presumption of innocence unless evidence exists otherwise. Even then, there are limits placed on any investigation to make certain that rights are upheld. When the rights of any particular sector of society--in this case, those of us who have phones--are curtailed by assuming guilt and conducting an investigation before any evidence exists against us, then the country has lost its foundation.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 1:08pm

199. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/12/2006 @ 12:34am

     It is not a question of constitutionality. It is a question of legality. Under sections 2702 and 2703 of the stored communications act [cybercrime.gov], the telcos are NOT allowed to transfer the call information to the government (or anyone else) except with a court order or the callers permission. (There are also a couple of other exceptions that don't apply.)

     a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

     This appears to be a clear violation of the statute by the telcos.

     Secondly, FISA [tinyurl.com] defines the electronic surveillence that it covers as:

     the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States.

     It also defines "contents" as:

     "Contents", when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication

     So, it would seem that call data information is covered by FISA and the government, therefore, can only collect it under a FISA warrant.

     This will not quiet the hysteria of the idiots. It just leaves them without a valid argument, as always.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 1:11pm

200. Another Red Herring Award for LL

     In fact, such a lengthy post deserves at least two.

     The first Red Herring Award is for his use of Argumentum ad Populum. If two-thirds of those surveyed think the Earth is flat, it doesn't change the fact that it is round. The fact that two-thirds surveyed answered as they did doesn't mean that their Fourth Amendment rights aren't being violated.

     In addition, was there a question asked in the poll about how many believe it would be too much trouble for the government to get a warrant for this fishing expedition? (I'll save you the trouble, LL; the answer is No; the word warrant does not appear in any of the questions).

     Next, we have this:

     What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?

     For citing this, LL and The Washington Post are jointly awarded a Red Herring Award for use of a False Dilemma. The False Dilemma is a logical fallacy of which Bush, neoconservatives and their partisans are particularly found. A prize-winning example of this fallacy is "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

     The way the question is posed, the issue becomes a matter of either protecting civil liberties or fighting terrorism. That is simply either/or.

     Again, the Post failed to ask respondents for their feelings about whether the government should get a warrant to seek this information.

     A question not asked would be: Do you believe it is possible for the government to fight terrorism in such a way at to protect the Constitutional rights of private citizens? My answer, were I asked such a question, would be: Yes, absolutely.

     No matter how the Bush Bubbahs try to spin it, the NSA program is a wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment. It would not be too much trouble for the government to get a warrant before looking at the phone records of private citizens. Furthermore, I resent the corporate sycophancy with this fascist snooping and will look into changing my phone company today.

     In any event, for LL's hysteria and bluster, he is without a valid argument that the government has any right to do what it has done without a warrant.

     Ref: poll (The Washington Post).

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 1:30pm

201. I am wondering if all of you who lose sleep over the NSA listening to your phone calls looking for terrorists are as concerned about all the companies who know your personal habits based on your purchases. The coupons and offers you recieve in the mail are not a coincidence....your credit cards are a bigger threat than the NSA.. Get real...this is bullshit...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 1:40pm

202. "attempting to stonewall a congressional investigation into the program"

     stonewall the collection of 72 kooks ...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 1:41pm

203. Eventually the people of the Soviet States relented and almost all joined the Communist Party as if you can't beat 'em you might as well join 'em.

     Can somebody please direct me as to how I can join the NSA?

     Posted by freedomplease at 05/12/2006 @ 1:42pm

204. Get real...this is bullshit...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 1:40pm

     Obeying the law is what? Really? Choosing not to see a problem and there being no problem are not interchangeable. Go back to sleep. We'll take care of the country and wake you when it's back to normal.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 1:43pm

205. To John Maasch:

     I am wondering if all of you who lose sleep over the NSA listening to your phone calls looking for terrorists are as concerned about all the companies who know your personal habits based on your purchases.

     Yes. I'm concerned about that, but not as concerned. The private companies looking into my personal habits are only going to try to sell me something I usually don't want. Frankly, I find that rather annoying. In any case, those snoopy assholes don't have the power to send me to prison, like a snoopy government does.

     Next question.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 1:50pm

206. TJ,

     Thats the point..based on the hearsings he(Bush) has broken no laws...

     No one will let you here "take care of the country"....sorry.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 2:01pm

207. JAck,

     If the info is illegally gotten against you, as you claim the NSA is, then it can't be used aginst you in court....you win and don't go to prison..or you have a shitty lawyer...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 2:02pm

208. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/12/2006 @ 1:50pm: Yes. I'm concerned about that, but not as concerned.

     Actually, don't you think it is highly likely that the NSA has also contracted with the credit card companies to data mine our purchasing data?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:12pm

209. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:01pm: Thats the point..based on the hearsings he(Bush) has broken no laws

     What hearsings are those, Mr. Maasch?

     Your hero, the one with the manly flight suit package, admits to breaking the law. His defense is not that he didn't do it, but that he is allowed to do it.

     And, make no mistake about it, Mr. Maasch, the only point that you have is that George W. Bush is your Lord and Savior and you would gladly drop to your knees whenever he asks you to.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:16pm

210. Frankly, I find the guy trying to sell me siding more of a problem than my government listening in to phone call to or from suspected terrorits..I can imagine EVERYONES phone calls here would be a cure for insomnia..

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 2:16pm

211. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:02pm

     MAACH, that said, wouldn't you worry that obtaining evidence through what are very likely extralegal channels undermines the government's abililty to successfully prosecute terrorism?

     Posted by breasonable at 05/12/2006 @ 2:16pm

212. To John Maasch:

     If the info is illegally gotten against you, as you claim the NSA is, then it can't be used aginst you in court....you win and don't go to prison..or you have a shitty lawyer...

     And meanwhile I would have to invest the time and money into defending myself. Your answer is not satisfactory.

     Also, they can use the information they find to inconvenience me in other ways. For example, as I have pointed out here several times in the past week, a fellow member of the church I attend found out recently that he is on the terror watch list. The details of what I know are here. This sort of story is becoming all too common.

     Could I be put on a watch list simply because I know this man? Or because I think it's ridiculous that he is on such a list and will so publicly? Or because I think this is a government violation of civil liberties, that there is a serious pattern of such violations and those responsible should be removed from office? The problem with that list is that they don't tell a person why he's on it. That being the case, how would I know it really has anything to do with fighting terrorism?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 2:21pm

213. OR,

     You are ridiculous..I have already posted here my feelings on Bush...maybe YOU need to find a Savior...for you are lost..

     What hearings?....FISA judges testimony in Senate with Specter chairing..google..

     Posted by john maasch at 05/12/2006 @ 2:22pm

214. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:16pm: Frankly, I find the guy trying to sell me siding more of a problem than my government listening in to phone call

     Fine. You are more concerned with the siding salesman than the NSA. It is your right to be an idiot. To demonstrate your lack of concern, you can voluntarily surrender your constitutional rights, if you choose.

     What you can not do, is voluntarily surrender the constitutional rights of others.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:27pm

215. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:22pm: You are ridiculous..I have already posted here my feelings on Bush

     Right. Didn't you say that you got a hard-on watching him in his flight suit? Or was that one of you whackjob buddies?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:30pm

216. JAck,

     If the info is illegally gotten against you, as you claim the NSA is, then it can't be used aginst you in court....you win and don't go to prison..or you have a shitty lawyer...

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:02pm

     Oh, okay. So no harm done then. Please explain why having the NSA stroll through your daily activities seems not unreasonable to you. That's how the system should work, I suppose. Round up everyone, shake 'em down, and let the lawyers hash it out. I hear Gitmo has vacancies...

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:30pm

217. Liberty, hold on a minute. It's hardly "ballgame" here.

     I am pressed for time, but in short, Smith v. Maryland may answer the Fourth Amendment question, but that only takes your position so far. That decision certainly does not end the legal debate because there are several statutes that may have been violated by the data-mining program. See the following for very good analysis:

     Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies

     Orin Kerr

     Glenn Greewald

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:36pm

218. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:22pm: What hearings?....FISA judges testimony in Senate with Specter chairing..google..

     Thanks for the tip, Mr. Maasch. I tried the search, but it doesn't seem to turn up anything about hearings that found Bush "has broken no laws". Perhaps you could provide a more specific link?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:36pm

219. Maasch must mean the hearings that they had to close because the NSA refused to cooperate.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/12/2006 @ 2:40pm

220. And a question: given the telecommunication companies' easy acquiescence on the matter (excepting Quest, of course), is there any reason not to suspect that they may be turning over data on internet traffic as well? They do, of course, provide internet access to tens of millions of people.

     And to follow, what does everyone think, in light of today's poll results: would the average citizen feel more or less intruded upon by a NSA program that compiled a record of the internet sites visited by their specific IP address than one that records the phone numbers they called? I think more.

     Posted by breasonable at 05/12/2006 @ 3:15pm

221. Maasch,

     How about a Hillary Clinton government collecting all the data on every voter in Oklahoma. And then when you go down to your precinct to try to vote her out in 2012 you find out that you're on a list of felons prohibited to vote.

     Three weeks later you find out it was a mistake and was made because you had a similar name to a convicted felon. It then takes you about a year to get back on the "eligable" list via getting a "pardon" (even though you did nothing wrong).

     Can't happen?

     Then explain how all those non felons were on the list of felons in Florida 2000.

     Posted by freedomplease at 05/12/2006 @ 3:20pm

222. To BeReasonable

     [G]iven the telecommunication companies' easy acquiescence on the matter . . . is there any reason not to suspect that they may be turning over data on internet traffic as well?

     Unfortunately, no.

     [W]ould the average citizen feel more or less intruded upon by a NSA program that compiled a record of the internet sites visited by their specific IP address than one that records the phone numbers they called?

     I don't know. However, as I implied in my response to LL (it's on the previous page) about The Washington Post poll, it is a very good example of polling results suited to fit the needs of certain people by the way the questions were posed. I think there's a lot more concern about the NSA program, and rightly so, than that poll indicates.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 3:24pm

223. No penalty if the federal government is no longer enforcing federal laws. Maybe we need to get Sheriff Joe and his posse on the job.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/12/2006 @ 3:44pm

224. Posted by ZERO 05/12/2006 @ 3:41pm: it would appear that at least 3 major american corporations - those listed above - may very well have broken serious federal laws. what is the penalty for THAT?

     According to § 2707 of the statute [cybercrime.gov], as a civil infraction, violations carry a minimum penalty $1000 per person, plus potential punitive damages and lawyers fees:

     The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.

     So, roughly 100 million customers times $1000 per customer, is roughly $100 billion, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Can you say "class-action lawsuit"?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 3:55pm

225. JACK RABBIT, this is the way the question in the Washington Post poll was worded:

     It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

     I think that's a fair way to characterize the program. But I think the question itself is skewed a bit -- it turns it into a referendum on investigating terrorism, not on Fourth Amendment principles, legality or privacy.

     Posted by breasonable at 05/12/2006 @ 3:58pm

226. What hearings?....FISA judges testimony in Senate with Specter chairing..google..

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/12/2006 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person

     The ACTUAL testimony of the FISA judges, regarding the legality of the Bush warrentless spying program is below. As you can plainly see, each of them specifically stated that, since they have been kept in the dark, they COULD NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION on it. That's a far, far cry from "..based on the hearsings he(Bush) has broken no laws..." John.

     Judge Allan Kornblum: "The main reason we're not going to discuss that program is because we've never been briefed on it, we don't know what it involves, and we're not in a position to comment intelligently about it."

     SEN. LEAHY: I do have a question. It's been reported the current presiding judge of the FISA Court, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and her predecessor, Judge Lamberth, expressed doubts about the legality of the president's warrantless wire tapping program. Both insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not be used to gain warrants for the FISA Court. Do you agree with the decision of the presiding judges to bar the Justice Department from using information obtained from this program and the FISA applications, Judge Baker?

     Judge Harold Baker: I'm not familiar with their decision on that, and I'd like you to excuse me from interfering in the proceedings of the existing court. I don't know what's been presented to them. I'm really in the dark with that, and for me to give an answer on it would be speculation.

     SEN. LEAHY: Judge Brotman, do you have a different answer?

     Judge Stanley Brotman: No, I'd give the same answer.

     SEN. LEAHY: Judge Keenan?

     Judge John Keenan: I'm afraid, senator, I would give the same answer. I don't know what the program is and I have never been briefed.

     MR. : I agree with my colleagues, Senator Leahy.

     Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2006 @ 4:00pm

227. To Zero:

     [Q]west [stated] that turning over the records to the government violates federal privacy laws.

     arguably, att, verizon, and bell south are guilty of violating federal privacy laws.

     speaking of accountability, it isn't just the bush team that's breaking the law.

     it would appear that at least 3 major american corporations - those listed above - may very well have broken serious federal laws.

     what is the penalty for THAT?

     I don't know what is done with corporate crime. Does a judge sentence an artificial person to an artificial prison?

     The question brings up a broader issue of the vulnerability of the rights of private citizens vis a vis power centers other than the government. It's not just Kings or Presidents who are capable of acting arbitrarily. CEOs and their aides can do it, too.

     LL will probably call me a Bolshevik for saying this, but we need to protect ourselves from intrusion into our lives and the potential destruction of livlihoods from that source, too. Corporations are just another power center hostile to the rights of man. What is said in the Declaration of Independence about governments can be applied to other centers of power, including economic power. This is especially apt at a time when that power is becoming concentrated in fewer hands, leaving us with all the disadvantages of capitalism and few of the former advantages.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 4:09pm

228. Posted by BREASONABLE 05/12/2006 @ 3:58pm

     You also need to look at the context leading up to the question. The immediately preceding question forces the respondent to take a side in the False Dilemma of security or privacy:

     44. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?

     Now that the respondent is in the proper "you ain't got no liberties if your dead" mindset, they can ask the money question.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 4:10pm

229. To all: Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes last night:

     Gingrich: I'm not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people. And I'm prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I'm prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who's making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it's underway.

     Please click here [crooksandliars.com].

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 4:23pm

230. Lillian -

     Good luck with Maasch. He got his one soundbite on the hearings from a conservative site or news source and he is going with it, don't you see? Engage him on the actual testimony about the judges final conclusions?

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/12/2006 @ 4:32pm

231. Conservatives are just racist homophobes at heart. That's the glue that binds.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 05/12/2006 @ 4:40pm

232. To Hman and Lillian:

     I don't care how or even whether Maasch responds to Lillian's post. She's poked a hole in his argument that she can run a railroad through.

     The argument being presented here is that Bush has the right to do what he is doing unless it found illegal. That's horsepucky. Given the language of the Fourth Amendment, it must be held that Bush has no right to do what he is doing unless the power has been expressly granted to him, hopefully with some Congressional oversite provided, and then ruled legal.

     Thank you, Lillian.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 4:44pm

233. To Mr. Lattanzi:

     This discussion is about the NSA warrantless wiretap program. It has nothing to do with gay rights or racism. Please stay on topic. The Bush Bubbahs here have thrown enough red herring our way to have any more from anyother source.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 4:47pm

234. "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

     I would like to dedicate the last line to Maasch

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 4:54pm

235. Jack, I don't recall you being so strict when the god drivel invaded another thread, or am I mistaken?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 4:56pm

236. To the other JR:

     You are mistaken. I put two or three posts up on that thread about that.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 5:00pm

237. Jack- Sorry for my outburst.

     Posted by rmjlattanzi at 05/12/2006 @ 5:02pm

238. Posted by JACK RABBIT 05/12/2006 @ 4:47pm |

     page 6 of the comments is usually about 2 pages beyond the off topic mark anyhoos in my experience...and indicative of impending new blog entry

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 5:18pm

239. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/12/2006 @ 5:22pm

     Actually, what section 2703 says is:

     a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 5:32pm

240. yes you did, Jack, my mistake

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 5:39pm

241. Posted by RMJLATTANZI 05/12/2006 @ 5:02pm

     outburst all you want. the worst they can do is ignore you. i don't know if anyone has actually been banned, and i've seen some pretty outrageous outbursts...been the source of one or two...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2006 @ 5:45pm

242. Wait until the inevitable class action lawsuit against AT&T, Sprint, et. al. The information the investigation needs will be subpeonaed.

     http://griperblade.blogspot.com - grumblings from the heartland [griperblade.blogspot.com]

     Posted by Wisco at 05/12/2006 @ 7:20pm

243. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2006/05/decider.html

     The link above explains EVERYTHING!

     Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2006 @ 7:23pm

244. How is it that the neocons don't see this latest violation as one more step in the war on the American people? You're all suspected terrorists, get it? The definition of terrorist will come to include agitator, flagburner, NY Times subscriber, Chomsky fanatic, pot smoker, porn afficionado, ect. The funny thing is, just as Aldous Huxley predicted, the people of Brave New World would learn to love their masters and accept their slavery with a smile on their face. LL and the usual suspects are there to lead the way to servitude, waving the flag and crying TERROR! No doubt if Clinton had tried to sneak this kind of shit through even after Oklahoma City people like LL would be calling him a fascist criminal trying to take away his precious freedom.

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/12/2006 @ 7:36pm

245. And though they say they're not targeting everyday people guilty of no crimes they're full of it. Just as On Star claims they don't share their info on your travels or whereabouts with anyone else. Riiiiiiiight.

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/12/2006 @ 7:39pm

246. To Chimi:

     And they would have been right. At least it would have provided a much better reason to try to remove him from office than banging an intern in the back room.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/12/2006 @ 7:41pm

247. You know, all the phones in Cuba are tapped by Castro, email is controlled by the state, and every hotel room in La Habana is bugged. Americans think this is crazy commie bullshit. Or do they?

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/12/2006 @ 7:42pm

248. I'm not coming back Johannes, you win.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 8:47pm

249. I hope your proud.

     Posted by Lennonist at 05/12/2006 @ 8:48pm

250. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/12/2006 @ 6:29pm: Yes, but as I noted and legal scholars in general have cited, is that pertains to specific requests of an individual.

     That's laughable, LoveShack. Your claim is that the telcos would be breaking the law if they turned over one person's call records, but they are not breaking the law if they turn over every person's call records. That is not what the statute says.

     Could you provide a link to the "legal scholars" who claim that law breaking is excusable when it is done on a massive scale?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 8:52pm

251. I have a technical point: I make international calls for free every day through Skype. If they aren't tracking that, too, they aren't getting the whole picture. Also, does anyone know anything about the math on this? How are they analyzing the call patterns? How does a pattern of calls show a terror link? I saw one of the government guys on Fox News saying that criminals and terrorists use those throw-away cell phones now, which are basically untrackable. If the terrorist changes numbers frequently, how will a pattern be established? Can they compare the calls, disposable cell calls, IP addresses to fixed addresses, to WiFi connections, to LAN houses? Does the technology even exist to do this, or is it another Star Wars program, just a way to pay people with the right conections some big money?

     Posted by cassenthri at 05/12/2006 @ 9:16pm

252. Posted by CASSENTHRI 05/12/2006 @ 9:16pm: How does a pattern of calls show a terror link?

     It doesn't.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/12/2006 @ 9:20pm

253. Oh no, not that, don't leave, please don't leave, boohoohoo.

     now I admit, here and on the other thread, that my tone was too harsh, but imagine how Maasch and liberty feel, who regularly get savaged around here. I took some bumps here from folks who were defending you and your off topic god rant, now didn't that make you feel good?

     no one is doing anyone a favor by posting here, or anywhere for that matter. we post for ourselves above all, some are nice and some are nasty, and some are one thing or another depending on the subject matter, and numerous other factors.

     I find that when I am too nasty, it's best to ignore the person that triggers that reaction. or silence for a while. new topics, new posters, though I enjoy hearing from the usual subjects, well most of them.

     you my dear Lenny, started very heavy on the peace and love syrup, and then switched to the god thing, I admit I am turned off by both. I too have not gone unscathed, been called arrogant, bitter, old and worse. so what? it's all fun and games, entertainment, like verbal poker.

     by all means, go. find a kinder gentler blog, or grow some thicker skin. then come back swinging, or not. adieu

     Posted by johannesrolf at 05/12/2006 @ 11:55pm

254. Liberty -

     I stand behind Orwell's rebuttals, and add a few of my own:

     1. Your reliance on Smith v. Maryland can only go so far. Although Kerr (my second source) and I agree that case provides some authority, it only provides precedent for the constitutional standards under the Fourth Amendment. As an initial matter, it's certainly arguable that because of the technological advances since 1979 and the increased reliance people place on storing personal information with third-parties that what is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" has changed, the Smith case carries less weight today. But, that is a side point. Even assuming Smith is still good law, it would only provide cover under the Fourth Amendment. However, there is also the statutory framework to consider.

     2. On that front, I think you misread Sections 2702 and 2703. Orwell makes my point.

     3. You completely ignore the Pen Register statute - passed in response to the Smith case. 18 USC 3121. That law provides that no one may use such a device without obtaining a court order either under the criminal wiretap law or FISA.

     4. You also ignore FISA itself. It is likely that the data-mining comes under VISA's definition of content (Orwell posted that definition earlier). If so, then this data-mining component brings us back to the same debate concerning actual eavesdropping (which we have had before and I will not repeat here again).

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/13/2006 @ 12:31am

255. To the Conservative who said that Pakistan was responsible for training George Bushs business partners brother Osama Bin Laden. You said, oh no, you gotta understand, Ronald Reagan was forced to give the weapons to Pakistan, and Pakistan wanted to give the weapons to the Saudis. Pakistans ISI - they did it.

     The fact that the billionaire Bush family, has been in business to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars with Mohammed Bin Laden, in the oil business, in the arms trade, the brother of Osama Bin Laden, you say that Reagan and Bush didnt give him the weapons?

     It was all Pakistans idea to give Osama Bin Laden the weapons?

     OK. So lets suppose that Reagan wanted to give the money to someone besides the Saudi Wahhabites such as Bush family business partner Mohammed Bin Ladens brother Osama Bin Laden. Lets assume your BS about it all being Pakistans idea is true. Of course, it isnt true, its a lie, but lets assume its true. What was Iran doing? Iran and Pakistan werent both supporting Saudia Arabian Wahhabbites with American dollars, were they? Was Iran not opposed to Saudi Wahhabbites, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Ladens brother Mohammed Bin Laden, Mohammed Bin Ladens billionaire business partner George Bush Senior? You say Pakistan - our ally - diverted the money that Reagan wanted to give to good people, Pakistan took that money, intercepted it, thwarted Reagans intentions, and gave that money to the brother of his Vice Presidents business partner? .

     Posted by conshame at 05/13/2006 @ 03:19am

256. The CABAL has literally looted the US Treasury in the greatest heist ever conceived.

     Rumsfeld's Department of Defense was the conduit utilized. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position - Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department. Dov Zakheim was the Comptroller who worked for him who actually did the deed before being secreted away to a cushy consulting job at Booz Allen.

     WHERE IS THE MISSING $1 TRILLION ???

     Dov Zakheim was the Pentagon's comptroller and CFO during 9/11. Over $1 trillion is unaccounted for during his tenure. He was (is?) Corporate VP at System Planning Corporation, a major player in the "Homeland Security" industry. One of the products that SysPlan sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes.

     http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS...

     The CTS is a tunable UHF FM transmitter. Many takeoff and lending tests were performed using this system on a commercial size Boeing aircraft under the supervision of Raytheon in the days prior to 9/11.

     RAYTHEON'S ROLL IN 9/11:

     5 EMPLOYEES OF RAYTHEON WITH EXPERTISE IN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS DIED ON THREE SEPARATE FLIGHTS ON 9/11

     http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/raytheon-connection-to-9-11...

     WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

     Stanley Hall Raytheon Director of Electronic warfare program management. Raytheon did the retrofit of the A-3 that hit the Pentagon, where Bush claimed Flight 77 hit it. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 77.

     Peter Gay Raytheon VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that hit the North World Trade Tower I.

     Kenneth Waldie Raytheon Senior Quality Control for Electronic Systems. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that hit the North World Trade Tower I.

     David Kovalcin Raytheon Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems. Disappeared on American airlines Flight 11, the one that hit the North World Trade Tower I.

     Herbert Homer Raytheon Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense. Disappeared on United airlines Flight 175, the one that hit the South World Trade Tower II.

     FIVE OF RAYTHEON'S FLIGHT TERMINATION SYSTEM EXPERTS ALL GO MISSING ON 9/11?

     STOP.

     THINK.

     Cheney ran the 9/11 operation from the bunker using NORAD to accomplish it. Hundreds were in on the scheme, and today, thousands know the truth.

     ISRAEL'S ROLL IN 9/11:

     Seated behind Mohammad Atta on 9/11 was an Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin.

     WHAT ARE THE ODDS?

     STOP.

     THINK.

     Atta was sitting in seat 8D. In front of him were the two brothers, Wael and Walid Al-Shihri. Behind him was his comrade in his final days, 'Abd Al-'Aziz Al-'Omari. To Al-'Omari's left was the Israeli Mossad agent, Daniel Lewin, and right behind him, the man who would kill him, Sattam Al-Suqami.

     In those exact moments, a group of Mossad agents were waiting in Manhattan for the first plane. They had surveillance and filming equipment with them. Meanwhile, F-15 planes were on high alert in Otis air base, 150 miles away, not knowing in which direction to fly.

     CHENEY CONFUSED THEM WITH HIS WAR GAMES.

     It is noteworthy that in those moments, the Mossad agents here, according to eye-witnesses, were dancing and cheering in front of the WTC. The Israelis were arrested in New York. Later, they were moved to Washington, and from there to Israel, and the report was quickly suppressed.

     http://web.archive.org/web/20021003225412/http:/abcnews.go.com/sect...

     http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm...

     So Cheney actually ran the show on 9/11.

     Our Treasury has been looted.

     Our military has been degraded.

     Our National Guard has been sent abroad.

     Cheny works for George Bush Senior.

     Bush Senior works for Israel AND China.

     Next up:

     Use of the same "flight termination" system to fly massive aircraft into nuclear power plants causing the Chernobyl effect in Miami, New Jersey and LA - with a possible fourth in Atlanta...all designed to effectively destroy the US economy and system as we know it.

     Israel has already aligned with China to take advantage of the situation.

     The US Dollar will be worthless. Why do you think the price of gold is racing so high?

     All of this is coming BEFORE the elections - possibly as early as September.

     Laugh it off if you choose, but unless Cheney is physically removed from office and tortured to reveal the plan, it will happen.

     Your Democracy is already dead. A coup has already occured.

     Will you go down without a fight?

     Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bush, Zakheim, Feith, Libby, Pearle, Wurmser, Chertoff and many others need to be physically interrogated.

     Posted by plunger at 05/13/2006 @ 07:25am

257. Conshame

     First, if you think I'm a conservative, you clearly haven't been here very long.

     It was all Pakistans idea to give Osama Bin Laden the weapons?

     Well actually, no one gave bin-Laden weapons because he was only a supporting player in the 80s. In 1984, he set up guest house in Peshawar for mujahadeen; this was just a way station. The inspiration and leadership for this was one of his Islamic Studies teachers, Abdullah Azzam. It was Azzam who founded the so-called Services Office in Peshawar that recruited Muslims--bin-Laden was the financier at this point but Azzam was the leader. Further, both Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc. and James Coll's Ghost Wars indicate that bin-Laden was Saudi Arabia's man, working closely with Prince Turki al-Faisal Saud, the head of Saudi intelligence. Further, the Arabs who were recruited this war were no more than a fraction of the mujahadeen. bin-Laden didn't even set up his first camp inside Afghanistan until 1986, didn't have his first meeting with Zawahiri in 1987 and didn't found al-Qaida until 1989. The point of all this is that bin-Laden wasn't overwhelmingly important in the 80s, so the idea that he was this major recipient of US-Pakistani aid is nonsense. The major recipient of aid funneled throught the ISI wasn't bin-Laden but Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

     Essentially, the only proof you have the he was this US asset was that his brother was in had financial ties to Bush. What does Iran have to do with it?

     Finally, I don't argue that the ISI diverted aid that Reagan intended for someone else. I point out that since we needed Pakistan's assistance, we had to run the operation through the ISI to a large extent.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/13/2006 @ 07:27am

258. Alright - just a co-incidence. George Bush was Vice President, and he was in business to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the arms trade and the oil business with Mohammed Bin Laden. Just a co-incidence that Mohammed Bin Ladens brother Osama Bin Laden was the beneficiary of a Pakistani policy of supporting Wahhabi fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan rather than other anti-Soviet factions. As you say, Osama Bin Laden was a minor guy, he only became very important to the Taliban overnight for no reason years later. Conclusion: just a co-incidence, and Pakistan rather than Osama Bin Ladens brothers business connections to Vice President George Bush, plus those business connections had nothing to do with anything. You should also point out that Osama Bin Laden is the black sheep of the Bin Laden family, since that is another ridiculous assertion that could be thrown in there.

     Meanwhile, Iran was being attacked with chemical weapons, by whom? Saddam Hussein. It was necessary that America give Saddam Hussein chemical and biological weapons for national security - so we were all told. Anyone who disagreed with the strategic necessity of giving chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein must have been a communist - it was the 1980s. Vice President George Bush, Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld, they knew what they were doing - they had secret information. Conservatives defended giving the weapons to Saddam Hussein, and to this day Conservatives swear that it was okay, it was intelligent, because Saddam Hussein was their ally. We had to give him Anthrax, Plague Germs, Mustard Gas, VX, Smallpox, etc, we had to give him agricultural credits to pay for it.

     We should also recall which country it was that helped Iran build nuclear reactors - when it was strategically necessary for national security for us to build nuclear reactors for Iran. It was necessary - the Shah needed those reactors - if you were against the idea you must have been a communist. Iran needed reactors - it was national security. I dont know which US President it was - but I just know he had secret information. It was national security, we had to build those reactors for Iran.

     George Bushs director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, recently went to Iraq before being named to his post, and said we need a Salvadoran Option for Iraq. A Salvadoran Option for Iraq. What is a Salvadoran Option? John Negroponte was around during the 1980s - during this time John Negroponte used to say that we really needed a Salvadoran Option for El Salvador. It was for National Security. John Negroponte knew what he was doing - he had secret information. El Salvador needed a Salvadoran Option - it was necessary. If you didnt think El Salvador needed a Salvadoran Option, then you must have been a communist - it was the 1980s. Commentators explained that when John Negroponte was in Iraq, saying we need a Salvadoran Option for Iraq for our national security, he meant in sterilized terms that we need to train militias to control the Sunni insurgency. Well if you didnt think Iraq needed a Salvadoran Option then you must have been a ... terrorist - communist is so 1980s these days. Now Iraq has a Salvadoran Option thanks to what these guys know best.

     So here we have Conservatives telling us we need to get rid of the right to be secure against warrantless searches conducted without probable cause, and they say it is necessary for national security, and they have a track record of being disastrously wrong.

     Posted by conshame at 05/13/2006 @ 10:06am

259. Lennonist,

     A solid rule here...give no quarter and expect none. This is no place for "feelings" or "can't we all just get along"....no, we can't, not all the time....almost never, ...but most here will buy you a beer.....which is good enough for me.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 11:21am

260. "good law" is a term of art meaning "good precedent."

     Nice advocacy but recognize that is all both of us are doing. Any final decision (if it ever gets that far) could just as easily go against your position (or mine obviously).

     A final point on Congressional power in your last paragraph, specifically your statement that Congress "violates" court decisions. Congress CAN pass legislation that trumps a Supreme Court decision if it is enlarging constitutional protections, in this situation, the Fourth Amendment. It cannot override a previous decision by passing a law that somehow infringes on a Constitutional power or protection. There is a difference.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/13/2006 @ 1:51pm

261. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/13/2006 @ 1:16pm: Actually, SCOTUS rulings are not law as you infer. Liberals seem to have this attitude about SCOTUS, but we conservatives fail to see why liberals want to have SCOTUS and Congress share that responsibility.

     As HMAN says, the phrase "good law" is a term of art, meaning that a particular case or statute is still considered a binding precedent. It is neither liberal nor conservative. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the term might lead one to wonder about your knowledge of the law, LovesToHumpHampsters.

     Secondly, laws passed by Congress are of no effect if they are ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I suspect we will see some rulings on FISA, and related laws such as 2703 and perhaps 3121 and several others as a result of this debate between Congress and the President.

     I do not think there are any constitutional grounds on which to challenge the Stored Communication Act, nor have I ever heard any arguments that it is unconstitutional. But, in any event, your suspicions alone do not cause an act to be unconstitutional. LovesToBendOver. So, until such time as the act is found to be unconstitutional, it is the law of the land. And the telcos violated it.

     the phone numbers in and of themselves do not provide the identity of the subscriber

     This is like the hamster argument that referring to someone as "Joe Wilson's wife" does not identify "Valerie Plame". A phone number is indeed a universal identification number for the subscriber. If it were not, the telephone system would not work.

     2703 is very clearly aimed at preventing the government from obtaining both content and phone records of named individual(s). This law is a protection for individuals and does not cover a blanket list that does not reveal the identity of callers. You might dislike it, you might think if legal this is a loophole, but that is the stated intent of the statute.

     You just make this stuff up, don't you LovesFacism? That is NOT the intent of the statue. The intent of the statute is that the telcos should not be divulging call information to the government. The statute reads:

     a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

     To read this as a provider may not provide individual records to the government, but can provide all of its records to the government, only offers further proof that English is not your first language. Please show me where the statute states that the telcos may provide all of their call records to the government, even though they can not provide subsets of their call records to the government.

     Also Orwell in the same posting had contended that the Telcos were in violation of FISA because they had these records.

     More lies, LovesToBeAnIdiot. Please show me where I contended that the telcos are in violation of FISA. FISA restricts the actions of the government. It does not apply to private corporations.

     What I contended was that, given the definitions in FISA, it seems that the government would need a FISA warrant to collect this information from the telcos.

     BTW, I personally am interested in seeing if SCOTUS also rules on the apparent violations of it's rulings with the particulars of 2703,

     Oh, this is a good one. Please tell me, LovesToDoWhatTheDeciderTellsHimToDo, on what grounds you find this section to be unconstitutional. And, since you love to refer to anonymous "legal Scholars who agree with the Government's position", could you provide a link to a legal scholar who argued that this section of the act is unconstitutional, PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE USA TODAY ARTICLE LAST THURSDAY.

     Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 4:37pm

262. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/13/2006 @ 5:28pm: True, the government can de-anonymize the data if connections to terror suspects emerge

     Ah, another idiot steps up to defend the indefensible. Truth be told, brave river, the government can de-anonymize the data whether or not connections to terror suspects emerge. The de-anonymization of the data is trivial for anyone with an internet connection.

     Why do you feel it is significant that they strip out the postal address? Like a telephone number, a postal address does not directly identify an individual. One must "de-anonymize the data" by matching the address to a name. A phone number certainly provides as much indentifying information as a postal address (if not more so).

     try to elicit templates of terror calling behavior from the data.

     This is meaningless gibberish, so it is not surprising that a whackjob like you would pretend it is meaningful. What, pray tell, is a "template of terror calling behavior"?

     What exactly are the privacy advocates worried about?

     To begin with, it is against the law. Conservatives used to believe in the rule of law. Now, apparently, all you whackjobs believe in is the rule of the Decida.

     If the law is no longer relevant, why do we even bother to have them?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 5:56pm

263. it doesn't take a legal scholar to determine that the administration broke the law.

     it says, quite clearly, that you need court-approval to eavesdrop domestically. period.

     the administration has not done this. therefore, they have broken the law.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2006 @ 7:12pm

264. rio bravo, you are completely missing the point. the law requires a court order, which the bush administration has brazenly and consistently overlooked, and lied about. it's really that simple.

     Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2006 @ 7:21pm

265. I too am concerned about the domestic spying program. But I seem to be in a minority. Polls have shown that the large majority of Americans approve of these tactics. It seems that the "be scared, be very scared" exhortations of the Bush regime have worked.

     Stan Gildersleeve Los Gatos, CA

     Posted by nats at 05/13/2006 @ 7:22pm

266. rio bravo, if you believe that the administration is doing the "right thing", then why did bush lie about both the existence AND the extent of the program?

     Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2006 @ 7:24pm

267. stan, a "large" majority of americans it is not. the number who support the program, even with the extraordinarily simplified knowledge of its detail, is in the low 60s percentile....

     Posted by darladoon at 05/13/2006 @ 7:25pm

268. .

     ORWELL2005 05/13 @ 4:37pm

     a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

     The first question is, is the president constitutionally barred from intercepting communications by or to Americans, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake?

     The answer is NO, he is not so limited. No court, no responsible legal authority, has ever averred tbat he is. Moreover, the Congress specifically ordered the president, on Sept 14, 2002, to do all that was necessary and reasonable to protect this nation from terrorist attack.

     Furthermore, is the president subject in his actions to the control of a FISA court? Two months ago a panel of FISA judges, testifying before a senate committee, held he wasn't. That included a judge who was one of the authors of the FISA statute. See excerpts of the transcript in NACL's post of 05/12/2006 @ 12:58am

     But is it conceivable that tens of millions of Americans can become suspects in a national security probe, justifying the acquisition of their telephone records? No! That is not a reasonable assumption. Seizing or just requesting the records of Americans en mass would be illegal.

     Well, isn't that what has happened? Isn't that what USA Today reported? Isn't this uproar about the govt acquiring the record of tens of millions of subscribers or customers?

     The answer is no. The data NSA requested and received was purged by the telephone companies of information identifying individuals. NSA received broad, almost ethnographic material which its computers could squeeze for anomalies and particular qualities. Only when such patterns appeared and the suspicious patches were isolated would the focus turn upon individuals. For such investigations of specific Americans the govt would request FISA warrants.

     The people behind this fuss realize that. They know the govt was acting responsibly and within the law. A Democrat White House given the same threat, would have done the same. Bush has not become Big Brother, he is not watching tens of millions. (Why, for heaven's sake?)

     The clarion calls are nevertheless being sounded to make a ruckus once more, to again goose the crazies, the paranoids and simpletons into shrieks of alarm. They want to keep alive a climate of suspicion and innuendo, a rising sense of panic and fear, fear of Bush, fear of the govt, fear of an out-of-control America. They know the smoke is just their bad mouth odor, there is no fire beneath it. But smoke it is, and that endless smoke and endless stink is what they are after.

     Should terrorists break through and achieve horrendous mayhem, those voices seeking to lame the govt now, will instantly turn into laments and accusation: the administration was not vigilant enough, did not keep its eyes open, failed in its first duty, to protect the nation.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/13/2006 @ 8:16pm

269. .

     CORRECTION

     The congressional resolution ordering Bush to defend the country against terror was dated 14 Sept 2001 (not 2002).

     Posted by nacl at 05/13/2006 @ 8:19pm

270. Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/13/2006 @ 7:14pm: You have to love the way anyone who disagrees with leftwingnuts is charactorized as simply an "Idiot"

     It's not "anyone", brave river. It's only those people who demonstrate their lack of connection to reality by repeatedly asserting things that are not true.

     In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment or FISA.

     I am sorry this is so difficult for you to follow, brave river. The telcos clearly violated (and continue to violate) the Shared Communication Act when they gave the call records of all of their customers to the government. This has nothing to do with the government, the fourth amendment, or FISA. (I could quote the statute for a third time, but it is clear that you are not really reading it, so why bother.)

     As for the government, it may be in violation of FISA given FISA's definitions of "electronic surveillence" and "content", but it is less clear cut. If you are interested, see my post from 05/12/2006 @ 1:11pm.

     Apparently the road back to reality is seen as an unnecessaary "road trip"

     If the "road trip" leads to your version of reality, I'll pass.

     for the real leftist haters of American culture.

     The "real leftist haters of American culture"? What does this thread have to do with American culture? Is it your claim that those who oppose the Decida are "real leftist haters of American culture"? Apparently, we are over 2/3 of the population. That would make you a fringe whackjob extremist. How's it feel, brave river?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 8:40pm

271. Posted by NACL 05/13/2006 @ 8:16pm: The first question is, is the president constitutionally barred from intercepting communications by or to Americans, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake?

     The answer is NO, he is not so limited.

     Actually, that is not the first question. The first question is, is the president barred by statute from intercepting communications by or to Americans without a warrant, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake? And the answer to that question is clearly YES.

     Seizing or just requesting the records of Americans en mass would be illegal.

     Well, for once, we are in agreement Salty.

     The data NSA requested and received was purged by the telephone companies of information identifying individuals.

     That is just plain stoooopid. The data was not stripped of the telephone numbers. A telephone number is a unique identifier of a particular individual. In virtually all cases, it is trivial to map the phone number to the individual. In fact, it is easier to map the phone number to an individual than it is to map a postal address to an individual, yet you seem relieved by the fact that the postal addresses were stripped out.

     Given that the data was not stripped of identifying information, I presume we are left with your original assertion. That is, "seizing or just requesting the records of Americans en mass would be illegal."

     Should terrorists break through and achieve horrendous mayhem, those voices seeking to lame the govt now, will instantly turn into laments and accusation: the administration was not vigilant enough, did not keep its eyes open, failed in its first duty, to protect the nation.

     Creating a database of all of the phone calls made in America will not protect us from terrorism one iota. If you want to claim it does, please explain what a "suspicious pattern" of telephone calls identifying terrorist activity would look like.

     Furthermore, since not a single illegal program instituted by the Decida has been stopped, it is unclear how the "voices seeking to lame the govt now" could be held accountable. A more rational conclusion would be that the things we are doing (like spying on every American) are not helpful in preventing terrorist attacks.

     Also, I have to say, Salty, that your post was lacking in your usual vitriol. Perhaps you are getting tired of defending the indefensible. Maybe you need to take a break and recharge your batteries. Given the number of ongoing investigations, you are going to need an awful lot of energy over the next few months.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 9:02pm

272. Posted by NACL 05/13/2006 @ 8:16pm: Moreover, the Congress specifically ordered the president, on Sept 14, 2002, to do all that was necessary and reasonable to protect this nation from terrorist attack.

     Oh, and by the way, that is not what the congressional resolution states. The authorization gave the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

     Furthermore, the "reasonable" restriction within the authority would clearly restrict the Decida to those actions that are legal.

     Under your interpretation, the Authorization was a declaration of martial law.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 9:06pm

273. Or,

     I always disagree with you but I do enjoy some of your posts...even when you stoop to insults( I am not sure why, since you have an intellect),

     Are you an attorney or work for the dems?

     Just curious, and where do you live? What part of the country..

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 9:07pm

274. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 05/13/2006 @ 9:07pm: I always disagree with you but I do enjoy some of your posts...even when you stoop to insults( I am not sure why, since you have an intellect)

     What insults?

     Are you an attorney or work for the dems? Just curious, and where do you live? What part of the country..

     Ask your friends at the NSA. I am sure they can figure it out.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 9:34pm

275. I guess my interst in you as a person is wasted...

     Typical. I attempted to move outside the box..and was rewarded with...you being you, I guess. Congrats!! You have restored my senses!!

     I should have known to drop my guard. Thanks for restoring my faith in the blind liberal...you defy human nature and fit the stereotype..you should be proud...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 10:08pm

276. ignored.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 10:08pm

277. "What insults? "

     Your last post..as always...

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 10:09pm

278. To NaCl:

     The first question is, is the president constitutionally barred from intercepting communications by or to Americans, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake?

     The answer is NO, he is not so limited.

     You got it wrong, fella. Don't worry, it's not the first time.

     The president's authority is linited as follows:

     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 Warrants 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.

     What part of the Fourth Amendment do you not understand?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/13/2006 @ 10:13pm

279. I think I have finally joined ZERO's way of thinking: if the apologists are willing to got this far to sacrifice their country for their king, then the hell with them. The question isn't the NSA or FISA or any other established agency, law or regulation that the administration is willing to bastardize for its own purposes. The questions are what won't these fucks excuse and what are their limits?

     The answers are: "nothing" and "the sky". Let them [ir]rationalize the Constitution and legal precedents. Let them expend their energy to accelerate the velocity at which this country is being driven into a brick wall of the administration's own construction. These apologists are meaningless as all thoughtless entities ultimately turn out to be.

     Poof! Gone. Let's get on with the work of America.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/13/2006 @ 10:21pm

280. John Maasch,

     Get over yourself. You throw out dirt all the time--we do notice. You can't get all pure and clean and high and mighty when a little dirt is tossed back at you.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/13/2006 @ 10:24pm

281. Banter is good... dirt is dirt and is aimed at a persons face...I never aim at anyones face...but have it your way...no problem.

     Posted by john maasch at 05/13/2006 @ 10:39pm

282. Have it my way? Look, I've never taken offense at your statements, but you toss out such random, insipid, insulting remarks directed to, oh let's say, 80-85% of the posters who visit this forum that claiming never to aim at anyone' face seems just a might cowardly. Perhaps you make such sweeping inanities in jest, but take a quick look at your hands if see if they aren't soiled. Were I the obsessive type such as NACL, with all the time in the world to "research" Nation blogs for your previous posts, I would feel quite confident of being able to dig a hole to China by excavating the dirt you have tossed in our faces. This is not to say you are any worse than others; it's just a little message to say "John, you are as dirty as anyone in these here parts."

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/13/2006 @ 11:37pm

283. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 05/13/2006 @ 11:37pm

     You see, TJ, to Mr. Maasch, calling us anti-american, terrorist appeasers who are motivated solely by our irrational personal hatred of George W. Bush is not an insult. It is a statement of his perception of reality.

     But, that was what I meant by asking "what insults?". When I call The Brave River an idiot, it is not an insult. It is a statement of my perception of reality. The man is an idiot. As is LoveShack. As is Mr. Maasch. And certainly Salty. In my reality, anyone who can still support the failed extremist policies of this messianic lunatic is an idiot.

     The only exception being those that are financially profiting from these criminal endeavors. I assume none of my whackjob buddies here at the Nation blog fit this description, but if any of you do, then I apologize. You are not idiots. You are merely greedy selfish bastards. Congratulations.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/13/2006 @ 11:55pm

284. To Orwell:

     In my reality, anyone who can still support the failed extremist policies of this messianic lunatic is an idiot . . . . The only exception being those that are financially profiting from these criminal endeavors. I assume none of my whackjob buddies here at the Nation blog fit this description, but if any of you do, then I apologize. You are not idiots. You are merely greedy selfish bastards.

     Dick Cheney will be glad to know that you think more highly of him than to call him an idiot.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/14/2006 @ 12:04am

285. any attempt to rationalize the justification for the 'terrorist surveillance program' is merely reinforcing a policy of psychological pre-emption against the Other. why bother defending a program that so clearly flirts with our constitutionally protected (and hard fought) freedoms? and bush really likes to talk about how we are spreading "freedom" around the world. can the man actually defend this extraordinarily vapid statement?

     this policy of pre-emption driven by the ruling classes in order to protect their status, their holdings, their continued dominance. just think of what's at stake in the middle east? the lines of conflict are being continually re-drawn to enrich and enliven these people. i say, fuck the lot! cheney and bush, both draft dodgers. scum of the earth! (they're probably reading this as we speak, so i'll repeat that last part: SCUM OF THE EARTH!!!

     Posted by darladoon at 05/14/2006 @ 01:00am

286. From the Frank Rich NYT editorial:

     It was under General Hayden, a self-styled electronic surveillance whiz, that the N.S.A. intercepted actual Qaeda messages on Sept. 10, 2001 -- "Tomorrow is zero hour" for one -- and failed to translate them until Sept. 12. That same fateful summer, General Hayden's N.S.A. also failed to recognize that "some of the terrorists had set up shop literally under its nose," as the national-security authority James Bamford wrote in The Washington Post in 2002. The Qaeda cell that hijacked American Flight 77 and plowed into the Pentagon was based in the same town, Laurel, Md., as the N.S.A., and "for months, the terrorists and the N.S.A. employees exercised in some of the same local health clubs and shopped in the same grocery stores."

     HOW MANY MORE COINCIDENCES DOES THIS COUNTRY REQUIRE TO FINALLY ADMIT THE TRUTH?

     Mossad was shadowing every move of the (purportedly) "Arab Terrorists" in the weeks preceding 9/11.

     One of the cells was obviously under the "care and feeding" of the NSA.

     Hayden was by necessity the individual tasked with ensuring that the operation not be detected. Who better to run interference than the guy running the data vacuum?

     Note:

     Numerous media outlets -- including the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, and CNN -- uncritically reported Gen. Michael V. Hayden's January 23, 2006 claim that, if the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program had been in place before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it "would have detected some of the 9-11 operatives in the U.S., and we would have identified them as such."

     Uh, actually, it was...and it DID....

     AND YOU BURIED IT!

     http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120018

     A secretive U.S. eavesdropping agency monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the terror attacks and the alleged chief hijacker, but did not share the information with other intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said Thursday.

     The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by the National Security Agency, or NSA, an intelligence agency that monitors and decodes foreign communications.

     The NSA failed to share the intercepts with the CIA or other U.S. intelligence agencies, the officials told Knight Ridder. It also failed to promptly translate some intercepted Arabic-language conversations, a senior intelligence official said.

     http://mediamatters.org/items/200601240004

     Like Cheney, however, Hayden did not mention that the NSA, CIA and FBI had significant information about two of the leading hijackers as early as January 2000 but failed to keep track of them or capitalize on the information, according to the Sept. 11 commission and others. He also did not mention NSA intercepts warning of the attacks the day before, but not translated until Sept. 12, 2001.

     In a January 5 article that documented Cheney's original claim, the Post also cited the September 11 Commission to report that "bureaucratic problems -- not a lack of information -- were primary reasons for the security breakdown," and that the "bigger problem" was that FBI investigators "had missed numerous opportunities to track" down Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, who went on to participate in the hijackings. That article also cited Rand Corp. terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman's assessment that, in the Post's words, Cheney's comments "ignore[d] the breadth of the government failures before the attacks."

     From the January 5 Post article:

     Cheney said if the administration had the power "before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."

     Even without the warrantless domestic spying program, however, the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies had important clues about the Sept. 11 plot and the hijackers before the attacks, according to media reports and findings by Congress and the commission.

     For example, the NSA intercepted two electronic messages on Sept. 10, 2001, that warned of the attacks -- but the agency failed to translate them until Sept. 12. The Arabic-language messages said "The match is about to begin" and "Tomorrow is zero hour," intelligence officials said.

     U.S. intelligence sources have said that NSA analysts were unsure who was speaking on the intercepts but that they were considered a high enough priority for translation within two days.

     Cheney's apparent reference to Alhazmi and Almihdhar is also incomplete, leaving out the fact that several government agencies had compiled significant information about the duo but had bungled efforts to track them.

     According to the Sept. 11 commission's report, released in 2004, the NSA first identified Alhazmi and Almihdhar in December 1999, passing the information to the CIA but conducting no further research.

     In 2000, the CIA failed to place Alhazmi and Almihdhar on a watch list despite their ties to a terrorist summit in Malaysia. The CIA also mishandled efforts to follow them after the summit and failed to share information about them with the FBI, including the crucial fact that both men had U.S. visas, the commission found.

     By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report.

     Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were.

     Hoffman also said Cheney's comments ignore the breadth of the government failures before the attacks, which were due to structural problems rather than a single missed lead.

     "It's not that legislation was lacking; it was a systemic failure," he said.

     Yet many media outlets simply reported without challenge Hayden's suggestion that the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program could have identified the hijackers and their terrorist plot, while conservative media figures quickly adopted it, as the examples below illustrate.

     From a January 24 article in The Wall Street Journal titled "Wiretap Program Could Have Foiled 9/11, Hayden Says":

     The country's No. 2 spymaster said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. could have been prevented if the Bush administration had in place a domestic surveillance system that has been criticized by civil libertarians and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

     In his speech to the National Press Club, Gen. Hayden, deputy director for national intelligence, outlined many themes that the White House is expected to use to defend the surveillance program. Chief among them is the argument that al Qaeda succeeded in striking the World Trade Center and Pentagon particularly because Washington didn't have the authority to quickly track telephone calls coming into the U.S. from suspected al Qaeda operatives in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

     "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 operatives in the U.S., and we would have identified them as such," said Gen. Hayden, who last spring concluded six years as NSA director. He seized on recent threats by Osama bin Laden to attack the U.S. as proof that Washington needs extraordinary powers to respond.

     From a report by CBS White House correspondent John Roberts on the January 23 broadcast of the Evening News:

     ROBERTS: With congressional hearings set to start February 6, the White House has launched an aggressive campaign to rally support. Wednesday, President Bush goes to the NSA. Tomorrow the attorney general makes a public pitch. And today it was the former NSA chief, now deputy intelligence director, saying, "If only they'd had this before 9-11."

     HAYDEN [video clip]: Had this program been in effect prior to 9-11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9-11 Al Qaeda operatives in the United States.

     T R E A S O N

     Posted by plunger at 05/14/2006 @ 07:54am

287. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in April of 2002, Hayden lied under oath about the NSA Domestic Spying Program:

     But as Media Matters noted in response to the earlier comparisons, in contrast with the Bush administration's surveillance program, the eavesdropping of U.S. residents conducted under Echelon was carried out in compliance with FISA, according to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

     In his April 12, 2002, testimony before the House Intelligence Committee Tenet denied that Echelon was used to spy on U.S residents without a warrant. He said, "We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

     Then-National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden -- currently Bush's nominee for CIA director -- also appeared before the committee and testified, "If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or her."

     By contrast, since the disclosure of their warrantless domestic surveillance program, Bush has asserted -- and administration officials such as Hayden have repeated -- that he possesses the authority to eavesdrop on U.S. residents' communications without FISA approval.

     READ ALL ABOUT THE MEDIA'S COMPLICITY IN THE COVERUP HERE:

     http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120018

     Posted by plunger at 05/14/2006 @ 07:55am

288. .

     ORWELL2005 05/13 @ 9:06pm

     NACL: "Congress specifically ordered the president, on Sept 14, 2002, to do all that was necessary and reasonable to protect this nation from terrorist attack." (NACL 05/13/2006 @ 8:16pm)

     ORWELL: that is not what the congressional resolution states. The authorization gave the President the authority -

     "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

     Sure, but that sentences continues after "organizations or persons" -

     ". . . organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

     In short, Congress' aim was not to order the president to merely punish those responsible for 9/11, but to do so for a purpose: "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US". That is precisely what I had said and what you want to belie.

     You deliberately truncated the key sentence that disproves you. If that is not Orwellian to the slimiest dregs, nothing is. And it is as stupid as it is dishonest as you must have known that I would notice your forgery and nail your enormous ears back.

     You then add:

     Furthermore, the "reasonable" restriction within the authority would clearly restrict the Decida to those actions that are legal.

     Yes, that is a disoriented way of restating the resolution: the president's actions in defense of the US, are legal if they are reasonable. They surely are. If it is reasonable for Sears to mine commercial data banks to locate homeowners likely to need new oil burners, it is even more reasonable for NSA to search for phones within city area codes repeatedly calling fertilizer retailers.

     Under your interpretation, the Authorization was a declaration of martial law.

     You stagger from one pile of poop to the next. Martial law does not exist within the Constitution. It exists in circumstances where there is no law, where the police-judicial system has broken down, and where, as a first step, the law of the soldier's gun directed by their general, rules.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/14/2006 @ 09:43am

289. .

     ORWELL2005 05/13 @ 9:02pm

     Actually, that is not the first question. The first question is, is the president barred by statute from intercepting communications by or to Americans without a warrant, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake? And the answer to that question is clearly YES.

     You ask my exact question and give it a Yes, where I said, NO.

     The real difference between us is that I backed up my opinion. I pointed to the congressional resolution and to US history where no court has ever held a president who intercepted communications, for the purpose of defending the country, to be acting illegally. You however give no reason for your YES. You think the say so of an expert like you is enough, eh?

     The data was not stripped of the telephone numbers. A telephone number is a unique identifier of a particular individual. In virtually all cases, it is trivial to map the phone number to the individual.

     The data involved millions of records and was stripped of names, addresses and other personal details. It was given to computers to search for patterns of frequency, time, place, and interconnections.

     We don't have the eyeballing of people, let alone masses of people, when data in anonymized form, is in the maw not of policemen and detectives, but of machines searching, and the focus is not on names and people, but on combinations. Moreover, that is a reasonable method when it is imperative to discover, among 300 million, dangerous individuals who very much merit surveillance.

     Creating a database of all of the phone calls made in America will not protect us from terrorism one iota. If you want to claim it does, please explain what a "suspicious pattern" of telephone calls identifying terrorist activity would look like.

     You stumble from one absurdity to the next. If you don't know the answer to your second sentence, how can you be so sure about the first?

     My earlier post mentioned the example of frequent contacts with one or several fertilizer companies by apartment dwellers being a tip off. With an "iota" of brains you could figure out a few of the other conjunctions and rhythms, that could prove useful indicators. There is no need to spell them out.

     Moreover, had you eaten fewer paint chips in youth, you would not now be uttering such tripe:

     Furthermore, since not a single illegal program instituted by the Decida has been stopped, it is unclear how the "voices seeking to lame the govt now" could be held accountable. A more rational conclusion would be that the things we are doing (like spying on every American) are not helpful in preventing terrorist attacks.

     I usually agree with MAASCH, but I don't with his notion that you have an intellect. At most I'll granted that what you lack in intellect you more than make up for with stupidity.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/14/2006 @ 10:29am

290. .

     TJBEHRENS1 05/13 @ 11:37pm

     Were I the obsessive type such as NACL, with all the time in the world to "research" Nation blogs for your previous posts, I would feel quite confident of being able to dig a hole to China . . ."

     You cannot reply so you make do with an ad hominem eh?

     BTW, it doesn't take an obsession or any time to retrieve a previous post, if you have a bit of memory, and a bit of method.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/14/2006 @ 10:44am

291. well, of topic a bit (!?), though i'm sure the topic will be addressed in some future blog entry, but...

     apparantly rupert murdoch has come close to endorsing hillary clinton as the dem nominee (as reported on the abc talking head blabbathon this morning).

     thats interesting.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 11:32am

292. 53% of american publc sees latest phone record buying as invasion of privacy, disconcerting. 66% say its ok.

     ie - most americans ok with sacrificing some freedom for security.

     giving the devils their due... no evidence pointing to monitoring of content of calls yet... the sheer volume of the calls recorded would make such rather difficult (if not impossible), even with supercomputers working 24/7.

     give the devils no slack... regardless, the fine line they walk (that we know about) deserves constant watchful criticism from everyone. i think many of the 66% who say they are ok with the current program are at the same time glad that their representatives are making a stink over the program, keeping the white hot lens of skepticism focused of a government that indeed could easily slip into "big brotherdom". furthermore i am not entirely conviced that we have heard the last of our government's activities, nor that the next revelation will be as constitutionally defensable. time will tell.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 11:44am

293. This follows a typical pattern emerging in the Bush administration: the unwillingness to give (public) reasons for its actions. To the extent that it continues to act without reason, especially reasons that can be defended and explained to the people it means to govern as reasons that are good for them, is the extent to which the power of this administration is truly illegitimate. The frustration with this kind of behavior leads to real alienation and apathy. We can only hope at this point for a shift in congress in the fall elections to a democratic majority and thus the beginnings of impeachment proceedings.

     Posted by boxelder at 05/14/2006 @ 12:00pm

294. I guess I'm about 3 days late - but anyone who has ever read the Patriot Act would know that both NSA wiretapping American's phone calls, and acquiring information as to which phone numbers Americans have called, are subject to very specific procedures, which are set out in the Patriot Act.

     You can make the argument that, since the Patriot Act requires obtaining a national security letter for every phone number for which calling information is desired, it's a little cumbersome to get national security letters for all 130 million phone numbers the NSA wants information on. But if I recall my civics, if the law isn't working, the proper procedure is to change the law, not do whatever the heck you want and hope you don't get caught. That ol' separation of powers thing, you know?

     I realize that for conservatives the law is only to be followed when a Democrat is president. Unless they really hate the Constitution as much as they seem to most of the time, it would be nice if they followed it.

     Posted by sdeleve at 05/14/2006 @ 12:07pm

295. To IBB:

     The poll from Newsweek is at odds with the one from The Washington Post that the rightists were touting yesterday.

     Of course, if our rightist friends want to play the Argumentum ad Populum game, we can always discuss a certain 29% figure that came out a couple of days ago.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/14/2006 @ 12:08pm

296. NACL

     you honestly believe hussein was a threat on par with the the axis in WW2?

     wake up call to everyone...

     iran will eventually have nuclear weapons. everyone who wants them will eventualy have nuclear weapons. the surest way to not get invaded by the US or anyone else is to have nuclear weapons.

     the developping world is developping. they outnumber us considerably. our ability to influence world events, backed by our economic and military might is, relatively speaking, diminishing even as i type. ultimately there is nothing we can do to stop this. the only way we (the US) will remain significant in the world is if we become masters of diplomacy, if we lead by example. the only way we can do this is if we provide a moral and ethical example and lead thusly. it may require some sacrifices on our part. it will not preclude maintaining a strong military, nor will it entail allowing enemies to harm us when such can be avoided.

     but it will be impossible if we continue to show the arrogance and imperial attitude we have shown over the last few years, if we continue to denigrate international institutions and refuse to lead by example in terms of international agreements.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 12:10pm

297. JACK

     yeah, i agree, and as i have said, i firmly believe this administration is a pack of wicked incompetants. but i don't THINK this is the issue that will topple the house of cards. i mean, everything that comes out sheds doubt in people's minds, and we will have to wait. i beleive more damaging information is to come. until then bravo to all who screech loudest in opposition to this stuff, and shame on those who NEVER question the motives of "our" "leaders".

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 12:18pm

298. one thing appears to be gelling...the counterrevolutionary zeitgeist (damn i wish they had a spellcheck on this thing!) appers to be petering out, aided by the arrogant incompetance of the neocons and their mistakes. even the corporate owned msm is losing its ability to shape folk's opinion. even the pop culturally lobotomized average schmuk is at least dimly aware that he/she has been bullshitted to and does not trust what "they" say. a new spirit, one of distrust of authority and conventional wisdom, is growing and thank god.

     the current msm is almost on par with soviet style pravda. ever see anything unflattering to corporate america unless someone is in court and thousands have already been cheated/lost pensions?

     making no predictions here, but it will be very interesting to see what the electoral relults will be come november and in 08. and what the establishment (which includes BOTH political partis and their financial backers) will interpret from it, how they will respond to it...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 12:38pm

299. To IBB:

     I don't think there is a single issue that will topple the house of cards. This one is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and indefinite detention without charge is a violation of the Sixth. Bush has disregarded international treaties concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and other detained persons, in addition to violating the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the administration of occupied territory, which contravenes the "supreme law of the land" clause of Article Six. Lying about the threat posed by Iraq is a war crime on its face. In addition, we can examine Bush's role in the Plame unmasking. If he even knew anything about what was happening, he is guilty of conspiracy.

     All of these are impeachable offenses. The kind of incompetence displayed over the response to Hurricane Katrina is not, but neither is it going to buy him any friends when he needs it.

     Mr. Cheney fares little better. His role in the Plame unmasking is more active than Bush's. Reports are that Rove is about to be indicted and that Fitzgerald will now focus on Cheney's role. He, too, lied about the war in Iraq and played a more active role than Bush in manipulating intelligence. In addition, Cheney guided the no-bid contracts for Halliburton, of which he was once CEO, through the procurement process, raising possible charges of conflict of interest. Many reports also say that it was Cheney who pushed for the NSA program.

     These are all outrages. Most are impeachable offenses. Unlike Nixon's crimes, which were all conveniently packaged under the name Watergate, there is no one name for these. The manipulation of pre-war intelligence in order to build a bogus case for invading Iraq by itself makes Watergate look like petty crime and anything related to banging an intern in the back room look like a parking ticket.

     When my uncle died several years ago, he was 89 years old, had suffered a series of strokes, had cancer of the bowels and congestive heart disease. Any of these could have been the cause of death. Any of the matters we are discussing in this post could be used by themselves to oust the Bush regime from power. Just pick one. Of course, we'll use them all.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/14/2006 @ 12:44pm

300. Posted by NACL 05/14/2006 @ 09:43am: In short, Congress' aim was not to order the president to merely punish those responsible for 9/11, but to do so for a purpose: "in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US". That is precisely what I had said and what you want to belie.

     You deliberately truncated the key sentence that disproves you. If that is not Orwellian to the slimiest dregs, nothing is.

     Ah Salty, you really are a fool. And, you show raw courage in being willing to demonstate it so publicly. I admire you, my good man.

     The "in order to" clause, describes why the Congress has authorized the President to go after those responsible for 9/11. It does not change the nature of the granted authority in any way. Congress authorized the president to go after those responsible for 9/11 and those harboring the responsible parties. And no one else.

     Yes, that is a disoriented way of restating the resolution: the president's actions in defense of the US, are legal if they are reasonable.

     My goodness. You really do need remedial help. Stating that an action must be legal in order to be reasonable is not at all the same as stating that any reasonable action is legal. If you do not understand that, then it is truly a waste of time to converse with you.

     Your assertion that any action the president believes to be reasonable is legal is quite foreign to our way of government. It is more in tune with a facist dictatorship. Perhaps you should consider moving to a country with a system that more closely matches your desired system.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/14/2006 @ 12:56pm

301. JACK

     oh - i agree. the question is...

     if (and i think it HIGHLY likely WHEN is more accurate) the face of congress changes, will they have the political cojones to pursue impeachment? i pray so, but it is impossible at this juncture to say...

     and look at papa bush cavorting around with bill clinton, arm around his shoulder like he wishes bill were his son... strange days indeed. might peculiar, momma... i guess what scares me is the level of control exerted by "the establishment" (mainly the plutocratic corporate shadow government and its biggest shareholders) over BOTH parties.

     well, speaking of "mighty peculiar momma", time to do mother's day stuff...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2006 @ 12:59pm

302. Posted by NACL 05/14/2006 @ 10:29am: You ask my exact question and give it a Yes, where I said, NO.

     This is tiresome, salty. I did not ask the same question. If you do not see the difference between the two questions, then you clearly understand nothing of the law, english, or our system of government. You are, my good man, a tremendous waste of time.

     The data involved millions of records and was stripped of names, addresses and other personal details.

     It was not stripped of the telephone numbers, salty. Only a fool would argue that telephone numbers are anonymous. But that makes sense. You are a fool.

     If you don't know the answer to your second sentence, how can you be so sure about the first?

     I do know the answer to the second sentence. The notion that computers can detect a suspicious pattern of anonymous phone calls indicating terrorist activity is silly. It is a form of wishful thinking, much like that employed by a 4 year old.

     My earlier post mentioned the example of frequent contacts with one or several fertilizer companies by apartment dwellers being a tip off.

     Gee. I thought everything was anonymous. How does the computer know that the calls are to fertilizer companies?

     Furthermore, there is not a single empirical case in which frequent contacts with one or several fertilizer companies by apartment dwellers was a tip off to a terrorist attack. The only thing accomplished by investigating each instance of this would be to waste a tremendous amount of the investigator's time. Which would, of course, make us less secure, not more secure.

     Moreover, had you eaten fewer paint chips in youth, you would not now be uttering such tripe: "Furthermore, since not a single illegal program instituted by the Decida has been stopped"

     Tripe? So tell me, foolish pillar of salt, which program instituted by the Decida has been stopped due to the public outcry of us extremist left wing bush hating anti-american kooks?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/14/2006 @ 1:11pm

303. The data involved millions of records and was stripped of names, addresses and other personal details. It was given to computers to search for patterns of frequency, time, place, and interconnections.

     Posted by NACL 05/14/2006 @ 10:29am

     You may choose to believe this, but it is not clear that this is the case. Look into this more and you will find conflicting accounts with administration apologists agreeing with you and the rest of us pointing to other administration statements that conflict with what you state.

     From the original USA Today story: "Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information."

     This needn't be stated by USA Today because it is obvious. On what basis could the government determine that certain "patterns" of calls were of more interest than other patterns? The only basis is by knowing who was calling whom. And if either the who or whom were known to be of special interest to the NSA, it would be a simple matter of getting legal wiretaps to study their calls.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/14/2006 @ 2:50pm

304. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/14/2006 @ 3:27pm

     To repeat for the upteenth time, the telcos are explicitly barred by statute from distributing this information to the government. What they are doing is expressly forbidden under the law. This is not a fourth amendment issue. This is a statutory issue. US v Miller has no relevance to this.

     The telcos can and will be sued for their actions. It is likely that the Decida will try to quash such suits under the state secrets privilege (as they have already down in a previously filed CA lawsuit). Hopefully, the privilege will be denied. But, who knows.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/14/2006 @ 3:54pm

305. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/14/2006 @ 3:06pm: As I have stated over and over, SCOTUS has provided a green light for this activity and despite the leftist protests, the action will continue.

     And no matter how many times you repeat it, it is still wrong. This is a statutory issue. The only relevance of SCOTUS would be in an argument that the statute is unconstitutional.

     Are you arguing that the statute barring the telcos from surrendering this information to the government is unconstitutional? If so, on what grounds do you find it to be unconstitutional?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/14/2006 @ 3:57pm

306. what are we.. one decaying justice away from this being sanctioned by the supreme court? so it'll become constitutional...let's assume so.

     one other side-effect of this attempt by bush to make the trains of the anti-terror effort run on time is that it's more evidence of incompetence. this tactic does not work; it's too much data and not targeted enough to be useful. patterns! if it were not so dangerous it'd be laughable. torture does not work either, bombing the bearded ones into submission does not work, and neither does anything bush has attemped.

     it is because if the "war on terror" is to be won, it'll be won with more democracy, not less.

     and... could someone please expain to me what rodent-fucking has to do with the issue?

     Posted by dabar at 05/14/2006 @ 11:21pm

307. I've hesitated to step in because Orwell et al. are doing such a good job with the arguments (and LL, it really is the staute--the SCOTUS case is not the point). However, I just came across this LATimes article [latimes.com] while catching up on my RSS feeds. The article appeared on May 13 and is entitled "Phone Firms Questioned Legal experts say the divulging of records to the government is prohibited by a 1986 law. By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer"

     Apparently, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was passed precisely to close up the opening created by the Smith case. Although Congress can't override a SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, they can pass statutes barring the phone companies from providing the call records.

     The article also states: "Companies that violate the law are subject to being sued and paying damages of at least $1,000 per violation per customer.

     The first such lawsuit was filed Friday against Verizon in New Jersey."

     Posted by brunowe at 05/15/2006 @ 01:19am

308. Liberty -

     You continue to ignore the point made countless times by myself and Orwell. This is a statutory issue. Congress can enlarge the protections of the Fourth Amendment - and it has. Miller and Smith are largely irrelevant due to the statutory framework that was enacted since those decisions. I fully understand those decisions. If it was not for 18 USC Sections 3702, 3703, and the Pen Register Statute, and FISA, your argument would carry the day. But, again, those statutes are on the books, so deal with it.

     I think I am done with the conservative posters who continue to twist in every conceivable way to apologize for this administration. I wonder sometimes if there is ANY infrigement of constitutional rights that would somehow be objectionable to thse folks.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 10:25am

309. .

     ORWELL2005 05/14 @ 12:56am

     Your assertion that any action the president believes to be reasonable is legal is quite foreign to our way of government. It is more in tune with a facist dictatorship.

     Your ugliest feature is your handle. A conscious double talker and blatant liar, a naked supporter of fascists, yet you have the impertinence to call yourself, Orwell.

     The subject is a congressional resolution ordering the president to do all that is necessary and reasonable to prevent terrorist attacks on the US. That you twist into a fascist dictator who thinks he has the power to do whatever HE deems reasonable.

     In the last post you had no compunction about changing the resolution by cutting out the last third. Caught in that deceit you are in no way abashed. You say:

     The "in order to" clause, describes why the Congress has authorized the President to go after those responsible for 9/11. It does not change the nature of the granted authority in any way. Congress authorized the president to go after those responsible for 9/11 and those harboring the responsible parties. And no one else.

     You insist the resolution's gravamen was to punish 9/11, not to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US".

     Stating that an action must be legal in order to be reasonable is not at all the same as stating that any reasonable action is legal...

     That is 1st class Orwellian double-speak. You are saying, about a resolution (that has the force of law), which orders up what is necessary and reasonable to stop terrorism: that for the president's actions to be reasonable they must be legal, but as they are, in your opinion, not legal they are not reasonable, and if not reasonable they violate the resolution, hence, Bush may not defend the US with all reasonable means.

     You think, as a general rule, law decides what is reasonable, rather than that, as a general rule, what is reasonable decides what becomes law. (That's again, your fascist instinct.)

     In America, an era called the Enlightenment, that worshiped Reason, produced the country's Founding Fathers. They crafted a trellis for all subsequent legislation: the Constitution. It took for its hallmark, what is decent, and for its benchmark, what is reasonable. It set up the Supreme Court (not ORWELL2005) to determine, by means of reasoned arguments, what adheres to that trellis and what doesn't.

     No one has suggested, that that congressional resolution was illegal. The Congress has the authority to command the president, in the language of its choice. It did not choose to say, do all that is necessary and legal to stop the terrorists. It certainly did not say, enforce all existing laws that pertain to the safety of the US. That would have been redundant. It called on Bush to do whatever is necessary and reasonable to achieve the safety of the US.

     Perhaps you should consider moving to a country with a system that more closely matches your desired system.

     That is perfectly in tune with the irony of you calling yourself, Orwell.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 10:35am

310. ALL Perhaps this was touched back-thread (haven't waded thru quite all of it)

     White House Spokesperson Dana Perino "NSA -- the National Security Agency -- does not intentionally listen in on any domestic-to-domestic calls without a court order."

     Does beg the question of how often it occurs "unintentionally"

     Also, as pointed out in USA Today, while not being unconstitutional, it may still be illegal: USA Today

     Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2006 @ 10:58am

311. .

     ORWELL2005 05/14 @ 1:11pm

     NACL: The first question is, is the president constitutionally barred from intercepting communications by or to Americans, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake? The answer is NO.

     ORWELL: That is not the first question. The first question is, is the president barred by statute from intercepting communications by or to Americans without a warrant, if he reasonably believes the safety of the US is at stake? And the answer to that question is clearly YES.

     NACL: You ask my exact question and give it a Yes, where I said, NO.

     ORWELL: I did not ask the same question. If you do not see the difference between the two questions, then you clearly understand nothing of the law, english, or our system of government. You are, my good man, a tremendous waste of time.

     Here again you are on your milk crate, hands on hips, supporting your proclamation by stamping your foot, rather than offering an argument, never mind a reasoned argument.

     To repeat: Does the Constitution limit the president's ability to defend America against attack? Is that the same question as: Can a constitutional statute, restrict how the president may defend the nation? Those are the same question, and they call for the same answer. For the following reason:

     A law limiting the president's power is only effective, if it is constitutional. If the Constitution refuses to limit the president in the way he must defend the nation, a statutory requirement for warrants or whatever, can't either. Especially since the Constitution enumerates the president's commander-in-chief function and insists that as CinC, when defending the country, the resources of the nation are at his command. Those certainly include the police and its ability to intercept and read the enemy's communication (not least when the enemy is terrorists operating on American soil). That has never been disputed. Furthermore, the Congress' war power resolution has clearly activated the president's CinC powers.

     Your other objections are even simpler and cheaper. Most make their point by calling me a fool, a four year old, and silly. But they can't spare the time to explain how and why my words are foolish, silly and childish.

     Gee. I thought everything was anonymous. How does the computer know that the calls are to fertilizer companies?

     This hypotetical example could work thus: The fertilizer company telephone numbers are inserted into the computers, they are dangled like magnets over municipal area codes. What jumps up, especially involving several different fertilizer firms, is then more finely sieved. Municipal govt numbers related to parks and highway maintenance, commercial numbers, one family homes with yards, etc., can be weeded out, leaving apartment numbers of individuals who are then identified and examined. Different strategies would apply to cell phones, faxes, emails, etc.

     there is not a single empirical case in which frequent contacts with one or several fertilizer companies by apartment dwellers was a tip off to a terrorist attack.

     Now you pretend to know what NSA has and hasn't discovered. Suddenly you are a pish posh awash with NSA piss, an insider on the outside, a singular case of epispadias. Go wash your hands you urine specimen.

     So tell me, foolish pillar of salt, which program instituted by the Decida has been stopped due to the public outcry of us extremist left wing bush hating anti-american kooks?

     Listen, that upright people, that healthy society, that positive values survive, does not mean swine and lowlife, vermin and farts, fleas and influenza do not teem in the swamps and crooked alleys of the world.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 11:18am

312. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/15/2006 @ 10:18am: So then again for the umpteenth time, why then do you not protest or even answer to my posting Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/14/2006 @ 3:06pm as to the fact that state and local governments do the same thing and have been for years?

     As best I can tell, your post did not indicate that state and local governments do the same thing (receive a comprehensive set of call records from the telcos). If they do, then it is news to me and equally illegal.

     Furthermore for you and others; Congress cannot pass a law defining a liberty (in this case by restricting Government)...They have no authority to create rights not enumerated.

     You are demonstrating a total misunderstanding of our system of government, Love. I would think you would be embarassed.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:22am

313. Posted by NACL 05/15/2006 @ 10:35am: Your ugliest feature is your handle. A conscious double talker and blatant liar, a naked supporter of fascists, yet you have the impertinence to call yourself, Orwell.

     I am happy to see that you got your spunk back, Salty. You're certainly going to need it.

     You insist the resolution's gravamen was to punish 9/11, not to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the US".

     Because that is what the authorization says.

     That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

     I am sorry that you have such a difficult time with language. I know its a long sentence, pillar o' salt, but you really have to parse the entire thing. Pulling out a clause here and there is not really have language works (and certainly not how statutory language works).

     You think, as a general rule, law decides what is reasonable, rather than that, as a general rule, what is reasonable decides what becomes law.

     I think that, by definition, something that is against the law is not considered reasonable under the law.

     No one has suggested, that that congressional resolution was illegal. The Congress has the authority to command the president, in the language of its choice. It did not choose to say, do all that is necessary and legal to stop the terrorists.

     My point exactly. Thank you.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:31am

314. Some here cited the first Washington Post poll (take the VERY DAY that the story broke) for the notion this is a "non-issue" with the American people, and the public actually supports what the government is doing. Many responded that the Washington Post poll was misleading and taken before the public could have even been fully informed of the issues.

     Well, now that we have had a few days, it looks like the apologists are again in the minority:

     USA Today Poll [tinyurl.com]

     51%-43% disapprove of the program.

     About two-thirds say they're concerned that the federal government might be gathering other information about the public, such as bank records and data on Internet use, or listening in on domestic phone conversations without obtaining a warrant.

     Two-thirds are concerned that the database will identify innocent Americans as possible terrorism suspects.

     The findings differ from an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Thursday night of 502 adults. In that survey, 63% called the program an acceptable way to investigate terrorism. The findings may differ because questions in the two polls were worded differently.

     Also, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll includes more respondents -- the margin of error is +/--4 percentage points, compared with +/--5 points in the ABC poll -- and was taken after Americans had a day or two to hear and think about the program.

     Views divide sharply along partisan lines. Among Republicans and those who generally vote Republican, 71% approve of the program. Among Democrats and Democratic "leaners," 73% disapprove.

     Americans are split on whether the news media should report information about the government's secret methods to fight terrorism: 47% say yes; 49% say no.

     They want to learn more about this program, though. By nearly 2-to-1, 62%-34%, they support immediate congressional hearings to investigate it.

     I suspect with time, the minority will shrink some more.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:37am

315. Posted by NACL 05/15/2006 @ 11:18am: A law limiting the president's power is only effective, if it is constitutional. If the Constitution refuses to limit the president in the way he must defend the nation, a statutory requirement for warrants or whatever, can't either. Especially since the Constitution enumerates the president's commander-in-chief function and insists that as CinC, when defending the country, the resources of the nation are at his command.

     Salty, you continue to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of our system of government. Were you born in this country?

     You and your whackjob buddies seem to think you live in a dictatorship, protected by the grace and glory of our dear leader. Most people do not share your view. And the constitution certainly doesn't share your view.

     Those certainly include the police and its ability to intercept and read the enemy's communication (not least when the enemy is terrorists operating on American soil). That has never been disputed.

     It has certainly been disputed. It is currently disputed. You live in delusions, salty. They have no connection to reality.

     Your other objections are even simpler and cheaper. Most make their point by calling me a fool, a four year old, and silly. But they can't spare the time to explain how and why my words are foolish, silly and childish.

     I tried. Apparently, it didn't get through. Sorry. Maybe someone else can get through. You seem to speak a different language than I am familiar with. Are you a native speaker of English?

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:41am

316. .

     You Fellas Do Have a Use.

     You are instructive. I am beginning to subscrive to the idea that what separates people is not race, it is not class, nor is it money, intelligence or gender, religion or ideology. There is really only one divide: the line between the sane and the insane, those who think clearly, and those who, inside their minds, are pursued by devils and eaten by worms.

     It is probably a medical matter. One day we will have a name for this disease; perhaps it will reveal itself to be a whole new form of pathology. It is clearly infectious. Some have more, and some less resistance to it. In some societies it is so rampant, so common, that it is the norm and the sane are treated as mad. Lichtenberg said, a man can never know whether he is not living in a madhouse. Nietzsche thought mental illness was rare in individuals, but common in social groups.

     Perhaps that is how and why Spengler's societies and civilizations die.. Those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.

     Is it that societies as they age become less and less able to shake off this pathogen? It slowly consumes them, like gangrene. It seeps into their limbs like gout. Or are their moments of remission? Perhaps some societies are thinned out quickly, as by a galloping plague, and are then swiftly stamped out by their neighbors. Of course, if surrounded by jungles or deserts they might linger on and on, a giant sanatorium. Maybe everyone will finally be infected and that is how the world will end, not with a bang or a whimper, but a giggle.

     Which suggests the Yiddle. Why has he lasted so long, but ever on the edge of extinction? He is a combination of the most insane and most sane. Which is one reason Jews produce so many doctors, not least, psychiatrists. And they have these strange hybrids, like the inventive and positive, Noam the linguist, and the cracked and hallucinating, Chomsky. Interestingly, those who understand and admire the linguist are generally not part of the moiety splashing around in his politics.

     Are scientific and technical breakthroughs the drip drip product of a hormonal gene given to provocation? But if that drip drip then gushes into a torrent, does it grow monsters of spite and malice, distrust and paranoia? Questions upon questions.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 11:51am

317. Posted by NACL 05/15/2006 @ 11:51am: There is really only one divide: the line between the sane and the insane, those who think clearly, and those who, inside their minds, are pursued by devils and eaten by worms.

     Don't worry, Salty. They have meds that can control the delusions and keep the devils and worms away. Talk to a shrink. I'm sure they will write you a prescription.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:56am

318. .

     ORWELL2005 05/15 @ 11:31am

     "It did not choose to say, do all that is necessary and legal to stop the terrorists. " My point exactly.

     You have reached rock bottom and are now digging down. Well, without me, brother.

     I once before stopped talking to you. Because you were obtuse and obstinate and dishonest, the classic left-over Stalinist, capable of every impudent distortion, as highlighted by your masquerading as an Orwell. Nothing has changed. You retain the moral intelligence of lint.

     Incidentally, Orwell at one point could take it no longer and started sending bios of your friends to the police, MI-5. Yours he might have sent to the Sanitation Deartment.

     So long.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 12:30pm

319. Posted by NACL 05/15/2006 @ 12:30am: as highlighted by your masquerading as an Orwell

     And what of you, masquerading as salt?

     So long.

     Ta ta. I hope you resolve your problem with being "pursued by devils and eaten by worms."

     And remember, my good man, in reality, as opposed to your delusions, the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of your boy Bozo's performance as president, don't trust him, and just plain don't like him. And, what must really stick in your craw, by a 2:1 margin, they prefer the great blow-job master himself, Slick Willie, over your boy Bozo.

     Who knows, Salty, with any luck you can be the last man standing on the Titanic. Or is it the Hindenburg? Whatever... Enjoy...

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 12:47pm

320. Concerning NaCl:

     once before stopped talking to you. Because you were obtuse and obstinate and dishonest, the classic left-over Stalinist, capable of every impudent distortion, as highlighted by your masquerading as an Orwell. Nothing has changed. You retain the moral intelligence of lint.

     Can any one say projection? I knew you could.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/15/2006 @ 1:07pm

321. NACL

     Which suggests the Yiddle. Why has he lasted so long, but ever on the edge of extinction? He is a combination of the most insane and most sane. Which is one reason Jews produce so many doctors, not least, psychiatrists. And they have these strange hybrids, like the inventive and positive, Noam the linguist, and the cracked and hallucinating, Chomsky.

     Ethnic stereotyping now? And is "Yiddle" even a word?

     The subject is a congressional resolution ordering the president to do all that is necessary and reasonable to prevent terrorist attacks on the US.

     That isn't what the resolution said. If authorized the President to use all necessary force against the 9/11 perpetrators. This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war and gives the President only those power that exist in wartime. As SCOTUS has pointed out, that doesn't include carte blanche to do as he will inside the United States.

     LL

     Furthermore for you and others; Congress cannot pass a law defining a liberty (in this case by restricting Government) that SCOTUS has already ruled doesn't exist. Congress cannot create new constitutional rights unless by Constitutional Amendment. They pass laws that define and implement rights and authorities enumerated in the Constitution. They have no authority to create rights not enumerated

     Congress is doing no such thing. They are passing a staute pursuant to their authority under the Insterstate Commerce Clause. Some of the confusion is Orwell's because he is confusing source of authority with effect. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act act of 1986 has the effect of expanding protections beyond what the Fourth Amendment offers but isn't actually expanding or reinterpreting the article per se. There is nothing in the statute inconsistent with the SCOTUS ruling the the Fourth doesn't cover pen registers.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/15/2006 @ 2:00pm

322. Posted by BRUNOWE 05/15/2006 @ 2:00pm: Some of the confusion is Orwell's because he is confusing source of authority with effect.

     I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I think you have misunderstood what I have said, however. I believe that I have said repeatedly that the 4th amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with a statute that bars the telcos from providing call records to the government. How is that confusing source of authority with effect?

     Also, in addition to being irrelevant, the "They have no authority to create rights not enumerated" is utter bs. Congress can and does enact legislation that creates "rights" not enumerated all of the time. Congress may not restrict the rights enumerated in the constitution. However, they can certainly expand on those rights, should they choose to.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 2:13pm

323. Yes; see the Civil Rights Acts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 2:23pm

324. Orwell, my apologies--the statement was HMANs but I think I just plain misread it.

     Congress can enlarge the protections of the Fourth Amendment - and it has.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/15/2006 @ 2:33pm

325. HMAN23--"The findings differ from an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken Thursday night of 502 adults. In that survey, 63% called the program an acceptable way to investigate terrorism. The findings may differ because questions in the two polls were worded differently."

     You can get any answer you want when you poll on this issue. If you include the words "protection from terror" you get one answer, if you don't include those words you get another. Leave the polls out of this. State what you believe and allow others to state their opinion.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 05/15/2006 @ 2:42pm

326. This is the core of the debate between liberals and conservatives for more than 50 years. The left believes that Congress can bypass their Constitutional enumerated powers and have used the Commerce Clause to justify their actions. Conservatives have long held and the Rehnquist Court began correcting and now the Roberts Court (hopefully) will correct this even further.

     Congress does not have the power to expand rights not enumerated in the Constitution.

     The only problem is that the "New Federalism" jurisprudence is unlikely to help you. Since we are dealing with regulation of private companies here, the part that looks at 10th and 11th Amendment restrictions doesn't help. Further, the Lopez-Morrison line of cases is probably not applicable as telecommunications companies and the regulation thereof are clearly in the stream of interstate commerce.

     I would also point out that SCOTUS doesn't have the last word on statutory interpretation. Unless they hold that the 1986 Act exceeds Congressional authority, that is likely to stand.

     An excellent link, btw, thanks.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/15/2006 @ 2:46pm

327. Brunowe -

     I see your point on what I wrote earlier. I can see how it came across conflating effect and authority. I did not mean it that way.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 3:21pm

328. Leave the polls out of this. State what you believe and allow others to state their opinion.

     Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/15/2006 @ 2:42pm

     I was merely responding to posts like the following:

     Despite a day of media hyperventilation over the National Security Agency's program to collect information on domestic phone calls, a new poll finds the American people back the operation by overwhelming numbers.

     In a survey taken yesterday after USA Today blew the cover on the program, 63 percent of those surveyed said they supported the records gathering operation, with 44 percent saying they "strongly" endorsed it. …

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 05/12/2006 @ 12:29am

     Someone asked me yesterday to defend that this issue is a winner for the president. The most recent poll says yes indeed. …

     A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/12/2006 @ 12:34am

     I didn't see your suggestion last week, when the polls were saying something different

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 3:23pm

329. Posted by NACL 05/15/2006 @ 11:51am "It is probably a medical matter. One day we will have a name for this disease; perhaps it will reveal itself to be a whole new form of pathology. It is clearly infectious. Some have more, and some less resistance to it. In some societies it is so rampant, so common, that it is the norm and the sane are treated as mad. Lichtenberg said, a man can never know whether he is not living in a madhouse. Nietzsche thought mental illness was rare in individuals, but common in social groups."

     this is quite possibly the least informed trash i have ever read. it is indeed disease, but not organic. it is an axis II disorder -- broadly defined as neurosis = a mental disorder -- more narrowly defined as anti-social personality dis, or narcissistic personality disorder. but common to all of them is a very limited emotional growth. leaving the sufferer prone to reactionary notions of social organization. read: opposed to democracy...or if you prefer the tradition of the right (not just here, but internationally). these types are small minded, self-referential, idiots (old definition). they are not cognitively impared; they can carry out tasks such as math, shopping, operation of machinery, computer programming, and so forth. but insofar as the the more complex mental functions of compromise, empathy, hard work, consideration of others' points of view are concerned...they are woefully inadequate. they are prone to impulsive acts of violence, breaking of rules and law to serve their narrow agenda/s, and other antisocial behavior, are all trademarks of the (infantile) reactionary. 'tis interesting that you rely on the grandfather of fascism to bolster your inverted, and perverted point of view.

     Posted by dabar at 05/15/2006 @ 3:42pm

330. I'm curious and this is not a dig, but where do you get the concept that SCOTUS doesn't have the final authority on statutory law and it's constitutionality?

     My misphrasing, I meant on statutory construction, not its constitutionality.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/15/2006 @ 3:51pm

331. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 05/15/2006 @ 3:03pm: but where do you get the concept that SCOTUS doesn't have the final authority on statutory law and it's constitutionality

     That is not what he said. What he said was "SCOTUS doesn't have the last word on statutory interpretation.". Statutory interpretation is a different beast entirely from constitutionality. While the court does have the final judicial word on issues of statutory interpretation, the legislature is always free to enact subsequent clarifying legislation, if they feel that the court has mis-interpreted their intent.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 4:01pm

332. Since when did opposition to government intrusion into personal privacy become a *liberal* issue? Has the world turned upside down? Where is the conservative outrage at government run amok? I ask these questions because from what I am reading here, many conservatives posting on this web site do not express any real concern for domestic spying. My conclusion is that the conservative movement in the United States has transformed into a national socialist ideology based on the use of government for conservative ends. While I am not suggesting that conservatives come from the Nazi ideology, their approach is similar to national socialist trends in the Soviet Union and modern China.

     Posted by gentryfunk at 05/15/2006 @ 4:15pm

333. Posted by ZERO 05/15/2006 @ 3:48pm: saying the spying is legal is the same as saying we live in police state and that is ok

     Speaking of spies-r-us, ABC news [tinyurl.com] is reporting that the government is tracking their reporter's telephone calls in an effort to root out leakers (also known as those that reveal damaging information about The Decida and his crime syndicate).

     I expect to see LoveShack, Brave River, and Salty front and center forthwith to explain how this is no big deal; americans actually favor this type of thing; only anti-american terrorist appeasers are concerned; leaks like this are hurting America; and, of course, it is all Bill Clinton's fault.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 4:30pm

334. Homage to NACL

     From atop a heap of trash comes an author nonpareil To cop and then rehash the lines and phrases he doth steal He's a hack who tries to hide his lack of thoughts to call his own So he backs the safest side and takes their dogma out on loan He swills and then he mimics like a parrot with his licks He shills for every gimmick, expecting carrots swinging sticks Resistance is just futile when he launches you the salt His writing is so brutal your very paunch feels the assault With a knack for repetition he adorns his declarations And there's no lack of superstition in his corny incantations Salty gets his cues straight from the news and never wanders from the flock He feels every bump and bruise the soldiers suffer in Iraq And though they're crying and they're dying he still supports them from afar He buys the lies, believes the guise and he puts magnets on his car Once you take in what he imparts you'll probably think he's on peyote But to your chagrin he's just so smart and has the wits of Don Quixote As he rides on Rocinante with a flare so gastronomic Reporting evil like he's Dante, writing verses all too comic You Dems should really shut your trap before he deals another setback Just take your place upon his lap or he'll replace you with a wetback Let the hamsters do their job instilling fear and sowing terror They've a treasury to rob and more wars to base on error

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/15/2006 @ 4:31pm

335. Homage to NACL (easier to read)

     From atop a heap of trash comes an author nonpareil To cop and then rehash the lines and phrases he doth steal

     He's a hack who tries to hide his lack of thoughts to call his own So he backs the safest side and takes their dogma out on loan

     He swills and then he mimics like a parrot with his licks He shills for every gimmick, expecting carrots swinging sticks Resistance is just futile when he launches you the salt

     His writing is so brutal your very paunch feels the assault With a knack for repetition he adorns his declarations

     And there's no lack of superstition in his corny incantations Salty gets his cues straight from the news and never wanders from the flock

     He feels every bump and bruise the soldiers suffer in Iraq And though they're crying and they're dying he still supports them from afar

     He buys the lies, believes the guise and he puts magnets on his car Once you take in what he imparts you'll probably think he's on peyote But to your chagrin he's just so smart and has the wits of Don Quixote

     As he rides on Rocinante with a flare so gastronomic Reporting evil like he's Dante, writing verses all too comic

     You Dems should really shut your trap before he deals another setback Just take your place upon his lap or he'll replace you with a wetback

     Let the hamsters do their job instilling fear and sowing terror They've a treasury to rob and more wars to base on error

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/15/2006 @ 4:33pm

336. I screwed that up even worse...

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/15/2006 @ 4:34pm

337. OK, this time...

     From atop a heap of trash comes an author nonpareil

     To cop and then rehash the lines and phrases he doth steal

     He's a hack who tries to hide his lack of thoughts to call his own

     So he backs the safest side and takes their dogma out on loan

     He swills and then he mimics like a parrot with his licks

     He shills for every gimmick, expecting carrots swinging sticks

     Resistance is just futile when he launches you the salt

     His writing is so brutal your very paunch feels the assault

     With a knack for repetition he adorns his declarations

     And there's no lack of superstition in his corny incantations

     Salty gets his cues straight from the news and never wanders from the flock

     He feels every bump and bruise the soldiers suffer in Iraq

     And though they're crying and they're dying he still supports them from afar

     He buys the lies, believes the guise and he puts magnets on his car

     Once you take in what he imparts you'll probably think he's on peyote

     But to your chagrin he's just so smart and has the wits of Don Quixote

     As he rides on Rocinante with a flare so gastronomic

     Reporting evil like he's Dante, writing verses all too comic

     You Dems should really shut your trap before he deals another setback

     Just take your place upon his lap or he'll replace you with a wetback

     Let the hamsters do their job instilling fear and sowing terror

     They've a treasury to rob and more wars to base on error

     Posted by chimichenga at 05/15/2006 @ 4:36pm

338. best post I have read all day.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 4:39pm

339. To Chimi:

     Excellent, even I don't think of NaCl as Don Quixote or Dante. Joe McCarthy, maybe.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 05/15/2006 @ 4:49pm

340. Orwell chills and Chimi thrills.

     Please refresh my memory--alas I was but a poor little Cub Scout during Watergate. Did Dick ever monitor the press to the extent indicated by Orwell's link? I am s'posing not, given the fact that the press assised in his put down.

     How many assaults can they conduct on this country? Separation of powers: check, with their abuse of questionable signing statements and ignoring of court and congressional orders to release information. We've had speech and assembly under attack since the inception of this administration with its "free speech zones" and its "cleansed town hall meetings". We now have press under attack. I guess the Constitution is like the Bible for them. Why read either the New Testament or the Amendments--they're just too long and goody-goody?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/15/2006 @ 4:53pm

341. TJB -

     This story will only get worse. I suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/15/2006 @ 5:04pm

342. Since when did opposition to government intrusion into personal privacy become a *liberal* issue? Has the world turned upside down? Where is the conservative outrage at government run amok? I ask these questions because from what I am reading here, many conservatives posting on this web site do not express any real concern for domestic spying. My conclusion is that the conservative movement in the United States has transformed into a national socialist ideology based on the use of government for conservative ends. While I am not suggesting that conservatives come from the Nazi ideology, their approach is similar to national socialist trends in the Soviet Union and modern China.

     Posted by GENTRYFUNK 05/15/2006 @ 4:15pm

     There aren't any conservatives posting here. Anyone who supports Bush isn't anywhere near to being a conservative.

     You hit the nail on the head about the similarity of Bush and his supporters to other unsavory political movements. But, my God, do some of the "liberals" here ever cringe, gnash their teeth, and shout when the word "fascism" is introduced.

     Posted by fromredbird at 05/15/2006 @ 8:49pm

343. HMAN---I haven't posted in about two weeks. Had some business to take care of. Therefore I made no mention of the poll numbers that gave the impression that people that the program was ok. I am saying that the polls are being manipulated by everyone and it needs to be put in prespective. You can change the polls on this issue by including the phrase protection from terror attacks or leaving it out==Polls are not an indicator of either side in an argument being right.

     Zero---I see you are now calling people idiots. A sign of frustration that you usually don't show. You need to understand that tens of millions of people do not and will not see the world as you do. I have came to that conclusion long ago and live with much less frustration. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I feel that phone records are fair game and a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of their phone calls. They can check mine all they want. If people want to sue the phone companies for giving the government these records, that's ok too. Good Luck--people have won crazier cases than this one.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 05/15/2006 @ 9:11pm

344. "Therefore I made no mention of the poll numbers that gave the impression that people that the program "

     Sorry--should read--Therefore I made no mention of the poll that gave many the impression that a majority of Americans approved of the NSA program.

     Posted by Len Mosse at 05/15/2006 @ 9:39pm

345. Posted by LEN MOSSE 05/15/2006 @ 9:11pm: I feel that phone records are fair game and a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of their phone calls.

     You have every right to feel however you want. However, we are a nation of laws, not feelings. And it is against the law for the telcos to turn this information over to the government without a court order.

     Posted by orwell2005 at 05/15/2006 @ 10:28pm

346. .

     The Chimi, Can Can.

     Chimi, grab your ears and pull your head

     out of that smelly anal bed.

     Wake to the beauty of the day.

     _

     Leave that fetid, batty cave,

     those wasted hours, that lost daylight -

     so much footwork, for a wallop of hay.

     _

     Dancing with phantoms, hating the brave,

     is for the lonely, for losers, for slaves.

     Kick that habit, brake those concatenations,

     leave the suckers to weep and rave.

     _

     But down in Colombia where you drink tea,

     you can't, can can, can you.

     'Cause you're not slim with vim, not tall,

     but a head smaller, a bit greasy,

     a wannabee obese with me, me, me.

     _

     You want a world wherein to sashay

     in black shades, sleek tailoring,

     plowing girls and parting crowds.

     But that's not your world of light and day.

     _

     So so back into your cave, back to that tea.

     Up into that warm, smelly hole.

     To dream and envy and forget, your inferiority.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 10:45pm

347. .

     BRUNOWE 05/15 @ 2:46pm

     That isn't what the resolution said.

     Here are the words of the resolution of 14 Sept 2001:

     "Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

     "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives. . .

     "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

     You say:

     As SCOTUS has pointed out, that doesn't include carte blanche to do as he will inside the United States. It authorized the President to use all necessary force against the 9/11 perpetrators. This is the functional equivalent of a declaration of war and gives the President only those power that exist in wartime.

     Only? You write, "gives the president only those powers that exist in wartime." You realize, don't you, that it is in wartime that presidential power is at its peek.

     Please identify the case you mean, where the Supreme Court restricted presidential power in wartime. Provide a link. (I assume it is to the case that forbade Truman to nationalize the steel mills during the Korean war.)

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/15/2006 @ 11:03pm

348. You know what I was writing earlier, on Ari's blog, about Conservatives and their language issues? You know, that they sitting over there on the one side and the English language sitting way over there on the other side don't make such good companions? Well, NACL, um, well...hmm...how do you say? um, well he kind of created, like, the most retarded attempt at attack poetry since, umm, well, like ever. I mean, like, totally unreadable. Like, really NACL, you kind of should have had Mom read over your verse before hitting submit.

     I mean...wow. Hallmark and Manson all in one. Sweet and insane. And available in your local Sam's Club at low, low prices.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 05/15/2006 @ 11:13pm

349. NACL

     Actually, it's bigger than the Youngstown case. As has been pointed out on this thread, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 forbade the phone companies from complying with the NSA request. There is nothing in a declaration of war that constitutes an implied repeal of pre-existing laws. I defy you to come up with one SCOTUS precedent that says that.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/16/2006 @ 08:32am

350. .

     BRUNOWE 05/16 @ 08:32am

     Actually, it's bigger than the Youngstown case. As has been pointed out on this thread, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 forbade the phone companies from complying with the NSA request.

     If it is bigger than the Youngstown case, how much bigger? And how far did that Steel Mill strike case go in the first place in crimping a president's war waging powers?

     As to your 1986 privacy law, my googling tells me about two laws, US Code #2702 and #2703 within the Stored Communications Act. It prohibited telephone companies from disclosing customer information to the government without a court order, unless the request comes from a law enforcement agency.

     Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, the purging of customer information from those records was insufficient and NSA does not fall into the category of a policing organization, and so, that SC Act was violated.

     But by whom? If the law was broken it was broken by the telephone companies. Not by the govt.

     There is nothing in a declaration of war that constitutes an implied repeal of pre-existing laws. I defy you to come up with one SCOTUS precedent that says that.

     Not a repeal maybe, but a war situation can make certain laws mute or inapplicable. I pasted up elsewhere part of a transcript wherein a panel of FISA judges advised the senate that the FISA procedures can't regulate the president in the current situation. We know Lincoln even suspended Habeas Corpus, one of our legal ssystem's stanchions.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/16/2006 @ 10:28am

351. NACL:

     Your analysis of Sections 3702 and 3703 is wrong. Section 2712 sets forth a right of action against the US government.

     § 2712. Civil actions against the United States

     (a) In general.--Any person who is aggrieved by any willful violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U. S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action in United States District Court against the United States to recover money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50, the Court may assess as damages--

     (1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever amount is greater; and

     (2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.

     (b) Procedures.--(1) Any action against the United States under this section may be commenced only after a claim is presented to the appropriate department or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as set forth in title 28, United States Code. ...

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2006 @ 11:37am

352. Not a repeal maybe, but a war situation can make certain laws mute or inapplicable. I pasted up elsewhere part of a transcript wherein a panel of FISA judges advised the senate that the FISA procedures can't regulate the president in the current situation. We know Lincoln even suspended Habeas Corpus, one of our legal ssystem's stanchions.

     And several Federal Courts at the time (Ex parte Merryman, et al.) held that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional. I rather doubt you can cite a case where the courts have upheld a unilateral Executive flouting of the laws on American soil. As to the panel, you've misinterpreted it, as Lillian pointed out in response to someone else on this thread: Posted by LILLIAN 05/12/2006 @ 4:00pm

     If it is bigger than the Youngstown case, how much bigger?

     By bigger, I meant that you are now saying that a declaration of war permits the President to disregard any law at his discretion.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/16/2006 @ 5:45pm

353. Sorry, I meant section 2702 and 2703.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/16/2006 @ 6:01pm

354. .

     BRUNOWE 05/16 @ 5:45pm

     I meant that you are now saying that a declaration of war permits the President to disregard any law at his discretion.

     I have not said or implied that. I suggested that when a president is commanded by a resolution of Congress to be CinC and to do everything reasonable and necessary to keep the nation from harm, then it becomes reasonable to ignore a statute which doesn't help but impedes or complicates the job of defending the country.

     And several Federal Courts at the time (Ex parte Merryman, et al.) held that Lincoln's action was unconstitutional.

     Bear in mind, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney, while not for secession, was a supporter of the South. He was pro slavery. His notorious Dred Scott decision had four years earlier sought to definitively settle the slavery issue in favor of the South. His ruling on the writ ignored that the country was at war. Lincoln replied that he refused to endanger the country and all its laws, "lest one (law) be violated."

     Taney held the suspension unconstitutional on the grounds, the Constitution specifically assigns the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to Congress. (Congress subsequently voted to let Lincoln's suspension stand until 1865.)

     I rather doubt you can cite a case where the courts have upheld a unilateral Executive flouting of the laws on American soil. As to the panel, you've misinterpreted it, as Lillian pointed out in response to someone else on this thread: Posted by LILLIAN 05/12/2006 @ 4:00pm

     The extract from the transcript I posted, NACL 05/12 @ 12:58 am, in the "Defending the Constitution" thread proves, Lillian cherry picked. The gist and conclusion of that hearing was summarized by Senator Spector speaking to the FISA panel.

     "CHAIRMAN SPECTER: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

     [No response.]

     Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/17/2006 @ 12:57am

355. .

     HMAN23 05/16 @ 11:37am

     Your analysis of Sections 3702 and 3703 is wrong. Section 2712 sets forth a right of action against the US government.

     I didn't analyze anything. I noted that there is a Stored Communication Act which makes it illegal for telephone companies to share their records containing private customer information with the govt. I opined that if such information was nevertheless divulged (without a subpoena), it seems to me that it is the companies who violated the law, not the govt. Is the issue more complicated than that? Probably.

     As I think about it, you do raise an interesting point. People whose privacy was violated by the govt are apparently entitled to up to $10,000 in compensation. Suppose my telephone record was among those divulged to the govt, and suppose you are my lawyer and I asked you to get me that $10,000, would you tell me, I had a case? How would you proceed? How would you convince a court that my privacy was injured?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/17/2006 @ 01:12am

356. I suggested that when a president is commanded by a resolution of Congress to be CinC and to do everything reasonable and necessary to keep the nation from harm, then it becomes reasonable to ignore a statute which doesn't help but impedes or complicates the job of defending the country.

     Again, the Congress did NOT say that the President should do "everything reasonable and necessary", it authorized him to use all necessary force. That is a declaration of war, not a blanket licence to ignore whatever laws he sees fit to ignore--which is exactly what you are implying. A DoW doesn't repeal statutes on the books nor does it give the President the right to set them aside.

     The comments on Taney are irrelevant to the fact that he was right on the law on this particular case. Further, the ruling didn't ignore that the country was at war--nothing in a war situation prevents Congress from suspending the writ.

     CHAIRMAN SPECTER: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

     Yes, but that doesn't say that FISA impinges on his constitutional authority.

     Posted by brunowe at 05/17/2006 @ 09:48am

357. NACL - So, you "opined" instead of "analyzed." My mistake.

     I cannot set out your full hypothetical defense in one post. The difficult thing would be to obtain positive information that YOUR specific information was targeted or collected, in light of the fact that the government is not revealing any specifics like that.

     If you could get that information, the other elements would not be too hard to prove. The information was disclosed and it was willful. As far as proving damages, I do not know for sure, but reading the statute, it seems that if there is a willful disclosure, you have been damaged pre se , and are entitled to a minimum of $10,000 plus costs and attorneys' fees.

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/17/2006 @ 12:32pm

358. per se

     Posted by Hman23 at 05/17/2006 @ 12:32pm

359. .

     HMAN23 05/17 @ 12:32am

     The difficult thing would be to obtain positive information that YOUR specific information was targeted or collected, in light of the fact that the government is not revealing any specifics like that.

     YOU'RE IN COURT

     Judge: What's your beef?

     HMAN: The govt invaded my client's privacy by receiving private information about him from the telephone company. According to the Stored Communication Act he is entitled to recover $10,000 plus legal expense (in this case of $499,000 in unmarked bills please).

     Judge: Counselor, on what evidence do you suggest the govt has information relating to your client?

     HMAN: We have the govt's concession that it received his telephone number along with the numbers he dialed most frequently which included his grandmother, his bookmaker, his religious guide in India, and the daughter of his tobacconist.

     Judge: Were those people identified to the govt by name?

     HMAN: No, just their phone numbers. The govt however could easily discover the names via a reverse directory.

     Judge: Do you have any reason to believe the govt did that?

     HMAN: I have no way of knowing.

     Judge: Yes you do. If the govt investigated your client it would have opened a file on him. The court can require the govt to reveal whether such a file was created. If it was then the case revolves around a warrant. If one was secured you have no case. If there was no warrant, you have a good case. Satisfied?

     HMAN: That may satisfy the matter if there was a file. But we claim compensation even if no file bearing our name was ever opened. The statute holds that we may recover because of the mere willful disclosure of our telephone number.

     Judge: How do you know it was your telephone number?

     HMAN: Because when dialed that number rings my client's telephone.

     Judge: But the govt never rang it (if no file was established.) All the govt knew was that its computer contained several million numbers. Just as it knows that the Timbuktu telephone book contains the numbers of all Buktus. One of the numbers was your client's but the govt did not know that and did not connect it to him not knowing his name. It made no use of the information. It was less useful than a telephone book. (Pages in a telephone book, even if the numbers are never dialed, can at least be cut up and used as toilet paper.) Can there be privacy infringement when the information received did not so much as identify the victim by name?

     Do you wish to appeal?

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/17/2006 @ 3:15pm

360. .

     BRUNOWE 05/17 @ 09:48am

     Congress did NOT say that the President should do "everything reasonable and necessary", it authorized him to use all necessary force. That is a declaration of war, not a blanket licence to ignore whatever laws he sees fit to ignore--which is exactly what you are implying.

     You think a war resolution authorizes the president to use all necessary force to protect the country, but not to do everything reasonable and necessary that does not involve force?

     Yes, but that doesn't say that FISA impinges on his constitutional authority.

     If you will use the link I supplied you will see that the FISA judges thought it did.

     .

     Posted by nacl at 05/17/2006 @ 3:23pm