Defeatocrats Imploding

[Guest Truth Squad]

The question is why they should get a warrant in order to listen in on a conversation between two foreigners whose conversation just happens to pass through an American switchboard.

That’s a dishonest attempt to reframe the issue. It’s not just “foreigners” being spied on. Every American’s phone calls, internet communications, etc., were collected.

As for the telecoms, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There’s no good faith when the government is breaking the law.

I’m glad you think FISA requires warrants. That’s how it should be, and was. There were no warrants when the telecoms just turned over our personal data to the government. That's why the telecoms should be sued and Bush and Cheney should go to prison. You're not even smart enough to realize you just admitted that they broke the law. That’s why Bush wants this law changed retroactively, to cover up his criminal activity.

Stupid premise, stupid question. The government doesn't need this legislation in order to abuse its power.

That remark is disingenuous. Your argument, precisely, is that government is going to abuse us anyway, so let’s legalize the abuse. Really, Bryan, are you stupid or just blind? And don’t try telling us it’s not one of the other. Both, maybe.

As to the rest of it, read The New York Times or other reputable newspaper, and grow up. The world doesn't conform to your bizarre imagination.

Patriot, having no choice, was true to form. Ignorant as a rock and twice as stubborn.

[Bryan]

That’s a dishonest attempt to reframe the issue. It’s not just “foreigners” being spied on. Every American’s phone calls, internet communications, etc., were collected.

Whether you happen to be aware of it or not, the FISA bill recently up for renewal was intended to address the fact that foreigners calling one another may have their call routed through the U.S.

My point is not undermined by your ignorance.

In Pakistan, where U.S. agents collect intelligence on al-Qaida and the Taliban, the number of cell phone users there grew from fewer than 3 million in 2003 to nearly 50 million last year, according to USA Today.

Much of this communication is routed through U.S. carriers and equipment, triggering protection under domestic wiretapping laws such as requirement for search warrants.

http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/viewpoint...4&zoneid=34

Under the original FISA legislation, the NSA would need a warrant to eavesdrop on a call between two terrorists in Pakistan whose call happened to be routed through the United States.

As for the telecoms, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There’s no good faith when the government is breaking the law.

Apparently you've assumed that the law was broken. That hasn't been determined. The law is murky because of the questionable constitutionality of the original FISA, along with the president's Article II powers. The companies would be prosecuted for breaking the law retroactively, in effect.

I’m glad you think FISA requires warrants. That’s how it should be, and was.

Except under wartime conditions, and we're currently under an AUMF.

There were no warrants when the telecoms just turned over our personal data to the government.

That's not the type of surveillance FISA was written to address. Democrats and reputable papers like the New York Times frequently confuse NSA wiretaps with the government's use of programs to detect the use of keywords in communications to find likely suspects.

That's why the telecoms should be sued and Bush and Cheney should go to prison. You're not even smart enough to realize you just admitted that they broke the law.

Thanks, since that implies a negative deficit.

That’s why Bush wants this law changed retroactively, to cover up his criminal activity.

How would the ability to sue telecoms uncover Bush's criminal activity more than suing the government? At least you're consistently making no sense.

The government can't possibly sort through all that information, but what it can do is misuse its power to persecute innocent people. With all the history of governmental abuses of power, why can't you see that?

Stupid premise, stupid question. The government doesn't need this legislation in order to abuse its power.

That remark is disingenuous. Your argument, precisely, is that government is going to abuse us anyway, so let’s legalize the abuse. Really, Bryan, are you stupid or just blind? And don’t try telling us it’s not one of the other. Both, maybe.

The original "question" posited that if the government has so much information that it can't possibly look at it all then it will end up persecuting innocent people. The government has plenty enough information to do that already, and it doesn't stand to reason that information the government doesn't have time to examine will be used to persecute innocent people.

I think you must be both blind and stupid not to see the sense of criticizing Guest's ridiculous question.

As to the rest of it, read The New York Times or other reputable newspaper, and grow up. The world doesn't conform to your bizarre imagination.

I do read the New York Times and other supposedly reputable newspapers. They make mistakes all the time and feed you a distorted picture of the news. If you were paying attention you'd know that. The Washington Post is better than the NYT, by the way.

[Guest Radagast]

2) The telecoms should have immunity because their cooperation with the program is voluntary. If they stand to lose millions of dollars because of lawsuits then they won't cooperate, and your chances of suffering a terrorist attack increase. As for their cooperation being illegal--the government is assuring the companies that the program is legal. It would be courts that might find the program illegal, in which case the companies would only find that their actions were illegal retroactively. In other words, the companies act on good faith. The immunity for the companies leaves the government as the responsible party. The government may still be sued. Why that's not good enough is the question.

The only way this matter will be resolved is when we have a Justice Dept. that is willing investigate this entire matter. The purpose of most of these lawsuits is not to squeeze the Telecoms for money. The civil suits were filed because there did not seem to be any other way to force the question. The question is: Did the Bush Administration violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution? If they did, than I'm sure if the Telecoms were willing to name the officials who told them to violate the law, they would be allowed to cop a plee. If you give them immunity now you could jeopardize any future criminal action. In my view, that is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

Much of what BushCo has done over the past seven years will not adjudicated until after his Justice Dept. is gone. It may be that a court will decide that laws were violated or maybe not. However, an argument could be made that BushCo is trying to buy off a potential witness against it.

[Guest Guest]

Whether you happen to be aware of it or not, the FISA bill recently up for renewal was intended to address the fact that foreigners calling one another may have their call routed through the U.S.

My point is not undermined by your ignorance.

In Pakistan, where U.S. agents collect intelligence on al-Qaida and the Taliban, the number of cell phone users there grew from fewer than 3 million in 2003 to nearly 50 million last year, according to USA Today.

Much of this communication is routed through U.S. carriers and equipment, triggering protection under domestic wiretapping laws such as requirement for search warrants.

http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/viewpoint...4&zoneid=34

Under the original FISA legislation, the NSA would need a warrant to eavesdrop on a call between two terrorists in Pakistan whose call happened to be routed through the United States.

Apparently you've assumed that the law was broken. That hasn't been determined. The law is murky because of the questionable constitutionality of the original FISA, along with the president's Article II powers. The companies would be prosecuted for breaking the law retroactively, in effect.

Except under wartime conditions, and we're currently under an AUMF.

That's not the type of surveillance FISA was written to address. Democrats and reputable papers like the New York Times frequently confuse NSA wiretaps with the government's use of programs to detect the use of keywords in communications to find likely suspects.

Thanks, since that implies a negative deficit.

How would the ability to sue telecoms uncover Bush's criminal activity more than suing the government? At least you're consistently making no sense.

Stupid premise, stupid question. The government doesn't need this legislation in order to abuse its power.

That remark is disingenuous. Your argument, precisely, is that government is going to abuse us anyway, so let’s legalize the abuse. Really, Bryan, are you stupid or just blind? And don’t try telling us it’s not one of the other. Both, maybe.

The original "question" posited that if the government has so much information that it can't possibly look at it all then it will end up persecuting innocent people. The government has plenty enough information to do that already, and it doesn't stand to reason that information the government doesn't have time to examine will be used to persecute innocent people.

I think you must be both blind and stupid not to see the sense of criticizing Guest's ridiculous question.

I do read the New York Times and other supposedly reputable newspapers. They make mistakes all the time and feed you a distorted picture of the news. If you were paying attention you'd know that. The Washington Post is better than the NYT, by the way.

Bryan, you seem to be constitutionally incapable of any self-evaluation. Whenever you get creamed in an argument, you just re-invent the argument after the fact.

Case in point: Foreign calls routed through the US may have been a part of the recent bill, but that is not the point of the discussion. The points of the discussion are (1) every American’s privacy has been invaded, (2) the Bush administration does not care about individual rights, (3) the Bush administration is power-mad, the very predicate of tyranny and (4) the Bush administration wants telecom immunity because if they don’t get it, private attorneys are going to be uncovering the administration’s criminal activities. (That’s what telecom immunity has to do with uncovering or not uncovering Bush’s criminal conduct.)

If the government has identified those hypothetical Pakistanis, then its search is focused. You haven’t addressed why the government can’t get a warrant for a search, even if they do the search first on an emergency basis so as not to miss an important transmission, then go to the FISA court within 48 hours to legitimate it. You can’t have it both ways. If the government has its attention focused on those transmissions, then there’s no reason to be listening in to Aunt Millie’s romantic liaisons. And if they are listening in to Aunt Millie’s personal affairs, they’re wasting their time. They simply don’t have the human resources to do that.

What they can do with that kind of license is abuse it. That’s the point. That’s why checks and balances are needed. That’s why warrants are necessary. That’s why the Bush administration doesn’t want the accountability of a warrant. They want free license to spy on anyone, anytime, regardless whether it has to do with national security, or merely political views they don’t agree with, or merely people they don’t like. That’s the point of governmental accountability. If you destroy that, which you seem hell-bent on doing, then you destroy the essence of freedom on which our country was built.

All prosecutions are retroactive. The laws were in effect, and the companies broke them. You don’t know what you’re talking about. That seems to be a consistent theme whenever you try to write anything about the law.

[Bryan]

The only way this matter will be resolved is when we have a Justice Dept. that is willing investigate this entire matter. The purpose of most of these lawsuits is not to squeeze the Telecoms for money.

Let's be real. That's a big part of it. The squeeze for money is intended to intimidate the companies from withdrawing their assistance to the program. And here's an important point: In a civil suit like this, a terrorist organization could bring the suit just as easily as nutcases from the ACLU. Albeit not openly--they'd have to use a proxy.

The civil suits were filed because there did not seem to be any other way to force the question.

That kind of overlooks the fact that the president's programs have had bipartisan oversight through congressional committees, and leaves unanswered why the question needs to be forced in the first place.

Is it possible that the motivation is primarily political?

The question is: Did the Bush Administration violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?

Whether they did or not, the telecoms are spending money defending themselves.

If they did, than I'm sure if the Telecoms were willing to name the officials who told them to violate the law, they would be allowed to cop a plee. If you give them immunity now you could jeopardize any future criminal action. In my view, that is exactly what Bush is trying to do.

So you think his idea that the companies will be discouraged from cooperating if they are faced with lawsuits is just made up? It's just a cover to protect him from prosecution? Does that view really make sense?

Much of what BushCo has done over the past seven years will not adjudicated until after his Justice Dept. is gone. It may be that a court will decide that laws were violated or maybe not. However, an argument could be made that BushCo is trying to buy off a potential witness against it.

You might as well argue that 9-11 was an inside job.

Here's what you're failing to realize: The federal government is absolutely chock full of lifetime employees who are not necessarily Bush supporters (chances are they are not, by a wide margin). The only place where Bush can exercise power without a bevy of potentially hostile witnesses looking on is within the White House staff itself, since that's the only area where the administration does its own hiring according to its own whims. There is very little exercise of power without going through the executive agencies, such as the CIA, NSA, Department of State, etcetera. There's no lack of witnesses. That rationale doesn't cut it. You had it right when you supposed that it was the only thing some thought they could do about the program was to name the companies in the suit (to intimidate them into ceasing their cooperation).

Lawsuits aren't cheap. That's where somebody is using money to influence policy, if you have the eyes to see it.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you seem to be constitutionally incapable of any self-evaluation. Whenever you get creamed in an argument, you just re-invent the argument after the fact.

Thanks for that fallacy of poisoning the well. It helps your pathetic side hide the fact that they're the ones who altered the argument. Then when I explain their misperception we get someone like you to pop up to proclaim victory.

Case in point: Foreign calls routed through the US may have been a part of the recent bill, but that is not the point of the discussion.

It because a point of discussion when some nitwit on your side claimed that my point was a "dishonest way to reframe the issue."

It's simply a fact that the new FISA bill corrects that problem with the old FISA bill. I'll refresh your memory:

Guest:

(1) Why can't the government get a warrant for wiretapping?

Bryan:

They can. The question is why they should get a warrant in order to listen in on a conversation between two foreigners whose conversation just happens to pass through an American switchboard.

The Truth Fairy:

That’s a dishonest attempt to reframe the issue. It’s not just “foreigners” being spied on. Every American’s phone calls, internet communications, etc., were collected.

The points of the discussion are (1) every American’s privacy has been invaded, (2) the Bush administration does not care about individual rights, (3) the Bush administration is power-mad, the very predicate of tyranny and (4) the Bush administration wants telecom immunity because if they don’t get it, private attorneys are going to be uncovering the administration’s criminal activities. (That’s what telecom immunity has to do with uncovering or not uncovering Bush’s criminal conduct.)

1) If you think that a person's privacy is automatically invaded because the government electronically scans phone conversations for keywords then you might as well get yourself a prayer rug and scope out the direction of Mecca right away. You will guarantee that terrorists can plan attacks with no realistic chance of catching them. But at least the government won't know at what time you're leaving to visit Aunt Agatha. Is this really what progressives have in mind when they repeat their mantra: "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY"? Of course, they usually change the phrasing so that it doesn't it doesn't seem quite as silly applied to this:

"the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantle...nce_controversy

2) Really? How do you know? What's the evidence? Did you discover it while lucid dreaming?

3) ... BDS.

4) Like I explained to Radagast, there are plenty of cheerfully hostile witnesses within the executive branch from which the activities are directed. The real story is that certain monied folks want to stop the programs by intimidating the telecoms. And if they can secure big bucks in the process that's just gravy. The notion that witnesses are required from the telecoms is ludicrous. If the government were sued then individuals from the telecoms could certainly be subpoenaed without necessitating financial liability on the part of the company.

If the government has identified those hypothetical Pakistanis, then its search is focused.

How are they supposed to identify them? By their handwriting?

You haven’t addressed why the government can’t get a warrant for a search, even if they do the search first on an emergency basis so as not to miss an important transmission, then go to the FISA court within 48 hours to legitimate it.

The Bush administration says that the process is too cumbersome, and I frankly don't know the details as to why. One thing to remember is that there is probably more than one program going on. One that looks for patterns in the raw data and another that secures wiretaps, at minimum. I would guess (it's not entirely a guess) that former program has drawn resistance from at least one FISA judge insisting on probable cause. That undermines the effectiveness of the data mining in locating targets for an actual wiretap.

You can’t have it both ways. If the government has its attention focused on those transmissions, then there’s no reason to be listening in to Aunt Millie’s romantic liaisons. And if they are listening in to Aunt Millie’s personal affairs, they’re wasting their time. They simply don’t have the human resources to do that.

The way you write makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about. The last thing the NSA wants to do is listen to Aunt Millie's personal affairs (unless she needs enough fertilizer for her backyard garden to build a bomb big enough to destroy the Pentagon).

You should consider the possibility that the NSA program is designed to detect and conduct surveillance of terrorist communications.

What they can do with that kind of license is abuse it. That’s the point.

That's the point that richly deserves ridicule. If the program as such doesn't constitute abuse then you have no reasonable argument against it. Everything the government does legally may be abused. Does that make you an anarchist? It should, if you're consistent.

From the sound of it, it seems like you want the terrorists in Pakistan to be able to have their call routed through the US and leave the government with no way to detect their communication except by identifying the terrorists using means other than their phone communications to detect them. You want the government to fight terrorism with one arm tied behind its back on the off chance that Aunt Millie will accidentally drop some jihadist lingo into her description of her chicken casserole recipe.

That’s why checks and balances are needed.

Congressional committees were briefed on the programs.

That’s why warrants are necessary.

Constitutionally, warrants are not necessary. Warrants are one protection against "unreasonable" searches. Some nutcases think that datamining for jihadis is unreasonable. People like that do not take Islamic extremism as a real threat, as far as I can see.

That’s why the Bush administration doesn’t want the accountability of a warrant. They want free license to spy on anyone, anytime, regardless whether it has to do with national security, or merely political views they don’t agree with, or merely people they don’t like.

Strip away the BDS rhetorical excess and you're almost correct. The Bush administration does want to be able to mine data to find jihadists and subsequently listen to their conversations without needing to establish probable cause. They want to conduct what they see as reasonable searches in order to combat a serious threat.

For some who don't perceive jihadists as a real threat, the measures don't seem reasonable. For BDS sufferers, the measures don't seem reasonable. For some utterly sincere* civil libertarians, the measures don't seem reasonable. And perhaps for some political opportunists, attacking the program seems like a good way to undermine the Bush administration.

*those civil libertarians are also nutcases, in my opinion

That’s the point of governmental accountability. If you destroy that, which you seem hell-bent on doing, then you destroy the essence of freedom on which our country was built.

Again, select congressional committees were briefed on the programs. That provides bipartisan accountability, and before you complain that it isn't enough you should think about what it means to have wide accountability for defense programs that derive much of their effectiveness from secrecy.

All prosecutions are retroactive. The laws were in effect, and the companies broke them.

You're dodging the point. It is only after the court rules the program illegal that it becomes illegal, and the telecoms have reason to believe the government when it tells them that a program is legal. The "ignorance of the law is no excuse" isn't an argument, it's a hand-wave of the reality of the situation.

Suppose you were approaching a stop sign and a policeman in the intersection waved you through. When you slowed down, he blew his whistle at you and looked irritated. So through the intersection you go. Nurse Cratchet sees what transpires from her house on the corner and calls the City Council, bent on seeing that the law is upheld. You get ticketed for running the stop sign.

You know better than to run a stop sign!

You don’t know what you’re talking about. That seems to be a consistent theme whenever you try to write anything about the law.

Yeah--tell me truthfully that you know that the NSA program is probably data-mining: "(1) every American’s privacy has been invaded"

And then try to give a real example where I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan, you seem to be constitutionally incapable of any self-evaluation. Whenever you get creamed in an argument, you just re-invent the argument after the fact.

Case in point: Foreign calls routed through the US may have been a part of the recent bill, but that is not the point of the discussion. The points of the discussion are (1) every American’s privacy has been invaded, (2) the Bush administration does not care about individual rights, (3) the Bush administration is power-mad, the very predicate of tyranny and (4) the Bush administration wants telecom immunity because if they don’t get it, private attorneys are going to be uncovering the administration’s criminal activities. (That’s what telecom immunity has to do with uncovering or not uncovering Bush’s criminal conduct.)

If the government has identified those hypothetical Pakistanis, then its search is focused. You haven’t addressed why the government can’t get a warrant for a search, even if they do the search first on an emergency basis so as not to miss an important transmission, then go to the FISA court within 48 hours to legitimate it. You can’t have it both ways. If the government has its attention focused on those transmissions, then there’s no reason to be listening in to Aunt Millie’s romantic liaisons. And if they are listening in to Aunt Millie’s personal affairs, they’re wasting their time. They simply don’t have the human resources to do that.

What they can do with that kind of license is abuse it. That’s the point. That’s why checks and balances are needed. That’s why warrants are necessary. That’s why the Bush administration doesn’t want the accountability of a warrant. They want free license to spy on anyone, anytime, regardless whether it has to do with national security, or merely political views they don’t agree with, or merely people they don’t like. That’s the point of governmental accountability. If you destroy that, which you seem hell-bent on doing, then you destroy the essence of freedom on which our country was built.

All prosecutions are retroactive. The laws were in effect, and the companies broke them. You don’t know what you’re talking about. That seems to be a consistent theme whenever you try to write anything about the law.

When are we ever going to read anything more than Bush is this, Bush is that. The Loony Left

bloggers have gotten so predictable and boring.

[Guest Keith]

When are we ever going to read anything more than Bush is this, Bush is that. The Loony Left

bloggers have gotten so predictable and boring.

Maybe that is because Bush is the worst president this country has ever known.

[Guest LOL]

The "Super Delegates" will spell the end of the Defeatocratic party as we know it. When it gets to

convention time with Obama holding a slight lead in delegates, the "Supers" ( most of which are in

Billory's pocket) will make the Ice Queen the winner. When that happens it will destroy the

Defeatocrats (not a bad thing). Obama's supporters will scream racism (even though the rules

clearly give the Supers the right to choose). The resulting uproar will give McCain the White House.

When that happens, all the Loony Lefties will be throwing themselves into the Passaic River and

Brian and I will be throwing a large party (no Kool-Aid allowed).

Sounds like you're putting your dreams into words. Let me try your own worst nightmare on you: Clinton wins with an increased Democratic majority in the Senate and House AND three supreme court justices retire during her first term. Who'll be jumping in the river then?

[Guest a proud american]

I'll take the other side of that Wisconsin forecast; it'll be very close but Clinton will not lose -- if she loses -- by more than 4%.

I agree Clinton wins Ohio and Texas. But even if Obama's momentum swings either of those states to him, mathematically he still can't get to the required number of delegates without the superdelegates. We're on a path to a Convention floor fight unless the Michigan and Florida delegate problem is resolved.

Clinton no more "bent" the rules than did Obama. Neither one campaigned in either Florida or Michigan but both had their surrogates actively working the electorate. In Michigan, Obama-paid literature pushed the "none of the above" selection on the ballot since only Clinton's name was on the ballot there. Both the Obama and Clinton names appeared on the ballot in Florida and there was a record Democratic voter turnout. I agree with you that the rules are the rules. The only way out is a new election in Michigan and Florida. But, because the rules are the rules, keep in mind that the superdelegates can vote for whomever they want, right? (Most Obama people want the rules enforced with Florida and Michigan but then are willing to dispense with the rules when it comes to the superdels. How convenient.)

I agree with your analysis of the polarization of party politcs.

Don't forget, I've got Clinton ahead on March 5 and you have Obama ahead in delegates on that date.

The polls in both Texas and Ohio have shown that Obama has narrowed the gap to single digits. Since I believe texas is a proportional vote state, Clinton can win but still not get all the delegates. I believe its the same in Ohio.

Chuck Todd from MSNBC does delegate counting of each candidate, using mathmatical formulas based on the vote of each state. Currently, he has Obama with a 200-300 vote margin, minus the super delegates. When they are added, its much closer, but none of the pledged delegates are committed to the candidates with the exception of a few, but one has already switched to Obama.

With regards to Florida, the Legislature moved the primary up, not the Democrats since they are in the minority. With regards to Michigan, if they made the decision against party rules than they should not be seated.

Once Pennsylvania is done, there will be a clearer picture of who is ahead in both the delegate count and popular vote. When that occurs, then I believe the super delegates will fall in line with the winner.

The most troubling thing about Mc Cain isn't his voting record. Those who serve with him and know him best are worried about his temperment. He is known to go off on people who disagree with him and that could be a problem. And to be fair, these aren't comments coming from the Democrats, they're coming from Republicans who deal with him on a regular basis. But each candidate running has strong and weak points so it shouold be exciting.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for that fallacy of poisoning the well. It helps your pathetic side hide the fact that they're the ones who altered the argument. Then when I explain their misperception we get someone like you to pop up to proclaim victory.

It because a point of discussion when some nitwit on your side claimed that my point was a "dishonest way to reframe the issue."

It's simply a fact that the new FISA bill corrects that problem with the old FISA bill. I'll refresh your memory:

Guest:

(1) Why can't the government get a warrant for wiretapping?

Bryan:

They can. The question is why they should get a warrant in order to listen in on a conversation between two foreigners whose conversation just happens to pass through an American switchboard.

The Truth Fairy:

That’s a dishonest attempt to reframe the issue. It’s not just “foreigners” being spied on. Every American’s phone calls, internet communications, etc., were collected.

1) If you think that a person's privacy is automatically invaded because the government electronically scans phone conversations for keywords then you might as well get yourself a prayer rug and scope out the direction of Mecca right away. You will guarantee that terrorists can plan attacks with no realistic chance of catching them. But at least the government won't know at what time you're leaving to visit Aunt Agatha. Is this really what progressives have in mind when they repeat their mantra: "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY"? Of course, they usually change the phrasing so that it doesn't it doesn't seem quite as silly applied to this:

"the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantle...nce_controversy

2) Really? How do you know? What's the evidence? Did you discover it while lucid dreaming?

3) ... BDS.

4) Like I explained to Radagast, there are plenty of cheerfully hostile witnesses within the executive branch from which the activities are directed. The real story is that certain monied folks want to stop the programs by intimidating the telecoms. And if they can secure big bucks in the process that's just gravy. The notion that witnesses are required from the telecoms is ludicrous. If the government were sued then individuals from the telecoms could certainly be subpoenaed without necessitating financial liability on the part of the company.

How are they supposed to identify them? By their handwriting?

The Bush administration says that the process is too cumbersome, and I frankly don't know the details as to why. One thing to remember is that there is probably more than one program going on. One that looks for patterns in the raw data and another that secures wiretaps, at minimum. I would guess (it's not entirely a guess) that former program has drawn resistance from at least one FISA judge insisting on probable cause. That undermines the effectiveness of the data mining in locating targets for an actual wiretap.

The way you write makes it look like you have no clue what you're talking about. The last thing the NSA wants to do is listen to Aunt Millie's personal affairs (unless she needs enough fertilizer for her backyard garden to build a bomb big enough to destroy the Pentagon).

You should consider the possibility that the NSA program is designed to detect and conduct surveillance of terrorist communications.

That's the point that richly deserves ridicule. If the program as such doesn't constitute abuse then you have no reasonable argument against it. Everything the government does legally may be abused. Does that make you an anarchist? It should, if you're consistent.

From the sound of it, it seems like you want the terrorists in Pakistan to be able to have their call routed through the US and leave the government with no way to detect their communication except by identifying the terrorists using means other than their phone communications to detect them. You want the government to fight terrorism with one arm tied behind its back on the off chance that Aunt Millie will accidentally drop some jihadist lingo into her description of her chicken casserole recipe.

Congressional committees were briefed on the programs.

Constitutionally, warrants are not necessary. Warrants are one protection against "unreasonable" searches. Some nutcases think that datamining for jihadis is unreasonable. People like that do not take Islamic extremism as a real threat, as far as I can see.

That’s why the Bush administration doesn’t want the accountability of a warrant. They want free license to spy on anyone, anytime, regardless whether it has to do with national security, or merely political views they don’t agree with, or merely people they don’t like.

Strip away the BDS rhetorical excess and you're almost correct. The Bush administration does want to be able to mine data to find jihadists and subsequently listen to their conversations without needing to establish probable cause. They want to conduct what they see as reasonable searches in order to combat a serious threat.

For some who don't perceive jihadists as a real threat, the measures don't seem reasonable. For BDS sufferers, the measures don't seem reasonable. For some utterly sincere* civil libertarians, the measures don't seem reasonable. And perhaps for some political opportunists, attacking the program seems like a good way to undermine the Bush administration.

*those civil libertarians are also nutcases, in my opinion

That’s the point of governmental accountability. If you destroy that, which you seem hell-bent on doing, then you destroy the essence of freedom on which our country was built.

Again, select congressional committees were briefed on the programs. That provides bipartisan accountability, and before you complain that it isn't enough you should think about what it means to have wide accountability for defense programs that derive much of their effectiveness from secrecy.

All prosecutions are retroactive. The laws were in effect, and the companies broke them.

You're dodging the point. It is only after the court rules the program illegal that it becomes illegal, and the telecoms have reason to believe the government when it tells them that a program is legal. The "ignorance of the law is no excuse" isn't an argument, it's a hand-wave of the reality of the situation.

Suppose you were approaching a stop sign and a policeman in the intersection waved you through. When you slowed down, he blew his whistle at you and looked irritated. So through the intersection you go. Nurse Cratchet sees what transpires from her house on the corner and calls the City Council, bent on seeing that the law is upheld. You get ticketed for running the stop sign.

You know better than to run a stop sign!

You don’t know what you’re talking about. That seems to be a consistent theme whenever you try to write anything about the law.

Yeah--tell me truthfully that you know that the NSA program is probably data-mining: "(1) every American’s privacy has been invaded"

And then try to give a real example where I don't know what I'm talking about.

Bryan, you write: “The Bush administration says that the process is too cumbersome, and I frankly don't know the details as to why.” So what you’re telling us is that you trust the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House. We don’t. Why do you accept an argument, which could be spelled out if it was true, all the while admitting that you do not know the basis for the argument, or even if there is a basis? You just flat-out admitted that your whole argument is nothing more than taking Bush’s word for it. Why not just declare him dictator for life and have done with it?

Here’s what it all boils down to, quoting from your post: “. . . the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. . . .” In a system of checks and balances, an agency of the Executive Branch cannot be solely entrusted with that power. Doing so is an invitation to tyranny. Under our system, the courts must be involved to balance the executive branch and prevent abuses of power. That is and always has been the law, and the issue. The president does not have the power to circumvent the Constitution by executive order. That’s why this is criminal activity, and an impeachable offense.

No one from our side is saying don’t intercept communications. But even by the standard you quoted from Wikipedia, identification of a party is presumed. You and the Bush administration are arguing that it’s OK for them not just to monitor “any party,” but to monitor everyone. There are two reasons why that’s wrong. (1) It violates the Fourth Amendment, and (2) it’s not reasonably aimed at defending us against terrorism. The government doesn’t have the resources to examine everyone’s records. But by having everyone’s records, they can persecute whomever they like. We simply can’t give that kind of power to the executive and still live in a democracy. It doesn’t make us safer. It only makes us more vulnerable to our own government. A legitimate anti-terrorism strategy would include the courts. There’s absolutely no reason not to involve the courts.

You admit the point with this: “The last thing the NSA wants to do is listen to Aunt Millie's personal affairs (unless she needs enough fertilizer for her backyard garden to build a bomb big enough to destroy the Pentagon).” Exactly. You just answered your own questions, and admitted the crux of the argument. The government knows Aunt Millie isn’t a threat. So why are they tapping into her records? The danger is that they'll do it because she holds political opinions they don't like - that they'll have the contempt for people on the political left that has been displayed over and over on this forum, including by you. From J. Edgar Hoover through Richard Nixon, our government already has a long history of that. Don't you learn anything from history?

The government also knows where the threats are. Go after those. That will be the most effective way to defend us against terrorism.

You’re arguing for a rule that says “. . . the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, anyone and everyone at any and all times and places.” That’s what they’ve done. If that’s what they meant, why didn’t they say it? Simply, it is because they know it is illegal, and didn’t wish to admit they were doing it.

Anyone could easily guess what you think of civil libertarians. [*those civil libertarians are also nutcases, in my opinion] So now, in addition to admitting away your whole argument, you’ve also admitted the reason for your argument: you have a visceral disdain for the civil liberties on which our country was founded. In other words, your argument here is what your argument is on everything else: a product of your biases, and nothing more.

Finally, you write this: “It is only after the court rules the program illegal that it becomes illegal.” As has been said to you many times before, every time you try to discuss the law, you reveal that you have no idea what you’re saying. The program is illegal because it violates the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourth Amendment. It’s not a close question. The only question is whether the law will be enforced, or whether we Americans are going to be intimidated by fear to hand our democracy over to an immature and irresponsible man who should never have been entrusted with the power of the presidency, much less the power of what he has turned the presidency into.

I am genuinely worried about a nuclear bomb blowing up a major American city. I have no confidence in this administration to protect us. You're impressed by the chest-puffing. I'm not. If this administration was serious about combatting terrorism, it wouldn't have wasted our entire military effort in Iraq; it would have safeguarded our ports; it would be working aggressively with other nations to strike terrorist operations militarily. Those would be main foci of our efforts, and it's not happening. I want a government that actually protects us, not one that just pretends to act like it.

[Guest Guest]

When are we ever going to read anything more than Bush is this, Bush is that. The Loony Left

bloggers have gotten so predictable and boring.

You are such a dimwit. What you just said, without even realizing it, is that every argument critical of Bush looks exactly the same to you. Of course it does. The instant you see it's critical of Bush, you ignore it. You're not evaluating the arguments. You're not processing them, which is why all your posts look exactly the same.

You've been posting repeatedly without saying anything at all. You just did it again. That's what's predictable and boring.

Not that you'll get that either. You'll never get it. You're too stubborn and too unwilling to think.

[Guest BushBacker]

Maybe that is because Bush is the worst president this country has ever known.

No, that honor belongs to Bubba (although Monica wouldn't agree).

[Guest Keith]

No, that honor belongs to Bubba (although Monica wouldn't agree).

We could list thier presidential missteps and accomplishments side by side and they would speak fro themselves. I think we all know who would come out looking like he had no business holding office. Your boy at best is horribly unqualifed and at worst a traitor and should be treated as such to the fullest extent of the law. Would you be supportive enough of GW as to share a jail cell with him to keep him company?

[Guest Loki]

We could list thier presidential missteps and accomplishments side by side and they would speak fro themselves. I think we all know who would come out looking like he had no business holding office. Your boy at best is horribly unqualifed and at worst a traitor and should be treated as such to the fullest extent of the law. Would you be supportive enough of GW as to share a jail cell with him to keep him company?

Bowling for Campaign dollars from China is treasonous, IMHO. And that wasn't Bush. Your boy obstructed justice and lied to Congress, (which apparently is punishable in Roger Clemens case), and should have been treated as such to the fullest extent of the law. "I'm done with this guy."-- Vincent Gambini

[Guest How Daring of You]

Ok ... in order to boost by lagging predictions I will predict that Obama will win Wisconsin by more than 4%.

However, Clinton will win both Texas and Ohio. The question is how much will Obama cut into her lead in the next two weeks? If I'm wrong and Obama wins either State, than it's over but I don't think that will happen. Clinton has spent too much time, money and effort in Texas and Ohio.

As far as Michican and Florida ... they knew the rules ... they went against the rules ... Clinton at least 'bent' the rules in courting their vote while Obama, Edwards and Richardson abided by the rules. I honestly don't know how you can allow their delegations to vote at all. At this point the waters are poisoned since, of course, Clinton would be their choice simply because she courted them. Unless Obama has it wrapped up by June, I'm sure there will be a floor fight over this at the convention.

Over the decades that I have been involved in politics, the primary elections have become more and more polorized. Conservatives dominate the Republican Primary while Liberals dominate the Democratic Primary. In the General Election, the moderate factions of each party and the Independents have a larger say. McCain and either Clinton or Obama will begin to drift back to the middle after they have their nominations. I guess all I'm saying is that it will be a whole different world in September than it is now so hold onto your hat. Old Rad ain't even thinkin about predicting that one.

Hats off to you, Radagast. It's a gloomy day for Clintonistas. Your call for March 5 looks really, really good this morning. Anyways, I'll stick to my earlier call (am I a masochist?) and say Clinton will be ahead on March 5. I know, I know, that means she'd have to win by very large margins in Ohio and Texas. I still think, yes she can, yes she can.

(On a side note, what's with all the recent angry and way too long postings on Bush that have been added to this thread? I think, Radagast, we're getting constructively evicted.)

[Guest Twizzler]

No, that honor belongs to Bubba (although Monica wouldn't agree).

The American people don't agree either. Neither do historians. No responsible person calls Clinton the worst president in our history. Tens of millions of Americans, including well-respected people from all walks of life, say that Bush is the worst president we've ever had.

[Guest Twizzler]

Bowling for Campaign dollars from China is treasonous, IMHO. And that wasn't Bush. Your boy obstructed justice and lied to Congress, (which apparently is punishable in Roger Clemens case), and should have been treated as such to the fullest extent of the law. "I'm done with this guy."-- Vincent Gambini

Nice try, but no one bought it. The fact is that Clinton balanced the budget and kept us mainly out of war. He made real progress toward economic stability, and Bush destroyed everything.

As for violating the law, Bush's criminality goes to the heart of our constitutional system. There's no point explaining it to you, because you're not listening. The historical record is clear enough.

[Guest Keith]

Bowling for Campaign dollars from China is treasonous, IMHO. And that wasn't Bush. Your boy obstructed justice and lied to Congress, (which apparently is punishable in Roger Clemens case), and should have been treated as such to the fullest extent of the law. "I'm done with this guy."-- Vincent Gambini

Clinton never was "my boy" but if you want to compare Clinton and Bush I think a case can be made that Bush has done much more damage to this country. Clinton, Bush or any president should be held accountable under the law. Sadly we can't seem to make that happen and for that I balme Congress. Bush is the president now so he will be the subject of my ire. I love how any criticism of Bush always leads right wingers to bring up Clinton. What's up witht that? Clinton has been gone for quite sometime now - let it go.

[Guest Guest]

When are we ever going to read anything more than Bush is this, Bush is that. The Loony Left

bloggers have gotten so predictable and boring.

When the idiot is back in his Texas village doing what he does best, shoveling BS.

[Bryan]

Bryan, you write: “The Bush administration says that the process is too cumbersome, and I frankly don't know the details as to why.” So what you’re telling us is that you trust the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House. We don’t.

I don't trust people who think that Bush is the biggest liar ever to occupy the White House.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82352

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82375

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82376

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82425

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82432

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82591

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=82619

Why do you accept an argument, which could be spelled out if it was true, all the while admitting that you do not know the basis for the argument, or even if there is a basis?

I believe I've already answered that question (in the post to which you replied).

You just flat-out admitted that your whole argument is nothing more than taking Bush’s word for it. Why not just declare him dictator for life and have done with it?

Hmmm. Why are you ignoring what I wrote about the rigid standard of proof in at least one FISA court?

Here’s what it all boils down to, quoting from your post: “. . . the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S. . . .” In a system of checks and balances, an agency of the Executive Branch cannot be solely entrusted with that power.

That's why I also wrote about congressional oversight via select committees. For some odd reason you're not addressing that point.

Doing so is an invitation to tyranny. Under our system, the courts must be involved to balance the executive branch and prevent abuses of power.

That's not what the Constitution says.

That is and always has been the law, and the issue. The president does not have the power to circumvent the Constitution by executive order. That’s why this is criminal activity, and an impeachable offense.

Maybe you should read the Bill of Rights. You know, to see what it says.

No one from our side is saying don’t intercept communications.

I don't know that for sure, but for sure many on your side do not want the NSA to be able to use phone records to target suspects. That means that untold terrorist communications that we could listen to will be outside the reach of our intelligence services.

It shouldn't be hard to figure out, even for Democrats.

But even by the standard you quoted from Wikipedia, identification of a party is presumed.

Because it says "any party"?

I'm not following you.

You and the Bush administration are arguing that it’s OK for them not just to monitor “any party,” but to monitor everyone. There are two reasons why that’s wrong. (1) It violates the Fourth Amendment, and (2) it’s not reasonably aimed at defending us against terrorism. The government doesn’t have the resources to examine everyone’s records. But by having everyone’s records, they can persecute whomever they like. We simply can’t give that kind of power to the executive and still live in a democracy. It doesn’t make us safer. It only makes us more vulnerable to our own government. A legitimate anti-terrorism strategy would include the courts. There’s absolutely no reason not to involve the courts.

You need to define what you mean by "monitor everyone" because your ambiguity seems intended to make it seem as though data mining compromises everyone's privacy to the level of literal eavesdropping.

You admit the point with this: “The last thing the NSA wants to do is listen to Aunt Millie's personal affairs (unless she needs enough fertilizer for her backyard garden to build a bomb big enough to destroy the Pentagon).” Exactly. You just answered your own questions, and admitted the crux of the argument. The government knows Aunt Millie isn’t a threat. So why are they tapping into her records? The danger is that they'll do it because she holds political opinions they don't like - that they'll have the contempt for people on the political left that has been displayed over and over on this forum, including by you. From J. Edgar Hoover through Richard Nixon, our government already has a long history of that. Don't you learn anything from history?

Do you know what data mining is? Because I can't distinguish your argument from that of a total idiot.

The government doesn't "know" who Aunt Millie is when they're data-mining. They know who Aunt Millie is if she drops enough key terms to make it sound like she's a terrorist ("Yes, and I'll need five tons of fertilizer for my backyard garden. And could you also send a few detonators?").

The government also knows where the threats are. Go after those. That will be the most effective way to defend us against terrorism.

Yeah, they'll know where the threats are. Just like they know where Bin Laden is and where the WMDs were. It's amazing the confidence you have in our intelligence community to do its job with one hand tied behind its back.

You’re arguing for a rule that says “. . . the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, anyone and everyone at any and all times and places.” That’s what they’ve done. If that’s what they meant, why didn’t they say it? Simply, it is because they know it is illegal, and didn’t wish to admit they were doing it.

Apparently your computer has a virus that alters text when you cut and paste it.

"the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantle...nce_controversy

My computer doesn't have that problem, fortunately.

Anyone could easily guess what you think of civil libertarians. [*those civil libertarians are also nutcases, in my opinion] So now, in addition to admitting away your whole argument, you’ve also admitted the reason for your argument: you have a visceral disdain for the civil liberties on which our country was founded. In other words, your argument here is what your argument is on everything else: a product of your biases, and nothing more.

Non sequitur. My statement was particular to a specific segment of civil libertarians ("those").

Finally, you write this: “It is only after the court rules the program illegal that it becomes illegal.” As has been said to you many times before, every time you try to discuss the law, you reveal that you have no idea what you’re saying. The program is illegal because it violates the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourth Amendment. It’s not a close question.

It is a close question, actually. Lawyers who aren't also mindless leftist nutcases on the side recognize the historical scope and legal recognition of the president's Article II powers. Cass Sunnstein of the University of Chicago law program wrote as much, and he's a recognized top rank legal scholar and a liberal to boot.

The only question is whether the law will be enforced, or whether we Americans are going to be intimidated by fear to hand our democracy over to an immature and irresponsible man who should never have been entrusted with the power of the presidency, much less the power of what he has turned the presidency into.

I am genuinely worried about a nuclear bomb blowing up a major American city. I have no confidence in this administration to protect us. You're impressed by the chest-puffing. I'm not. If this administration was serious about combatting terrorism, it wouldn't have wasted our entire military effort in Iraq; it would have safeguarded our ports; it would be working aggressively with other nations to strike terrorist operations militarily. Those would be main foci of our efforts, and it's not happening. I want a government that actually protects us, not one that just pretends to act like it.

Then vote for the Democrats. We can have Mexicans (and whoever else gets into Mexico) streaming freely over our border to help safeguard our ports.

Your party won't be able to reconcile national security with its ideology. Looks like you'll insist on learning it the hard way.

[Guest Kearny Senior]

You are such a dimwit. What you just said, without even realizing it, is that every argument critical of Bush looks exactly the same to you. Of course it does. The instant you see it's critical of Bush, you ignore it. You're not evaluating the arguments. You're not processing them, which is why all your posts look exactly the same.

You've been posting repeatedly without saying anything at all. You just did it again. That's what's predictable and boring.

Not that you'll get that either. You'll never get it. You're too stubborn and too unwilling to think.

Gobbly Gook

[Guest Guest]

Gobbly Gook

Good job proving the point.

[Guest Kraving the Kool Life]

Gobbly Gook

Could that be gobbledygook?

I think gobbly gook is the congealing fat at the bottom of the roasting pan on Thanksgiving.

Sorry, couldn't, just couldn't leave it alone. Thanks for the yuckles KS.

[Guest Truth Squad]

That's not what the Constitution says.

OK, so you don't think the Constitution sets up a system of checks and balances, with its division of powers among the three branches of government. So keep writing. All you're telling us is that your ideology is completely contrary to virtually everyone's understanding of the Constitution, and more than 200 years of history. In other words, all you're telling us is how radical you are.