Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I live and work and in the San Francisco Bay Area. An Area owned by the Democrats. If Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsome or Willey Brown made such a threat I might get nervous, but I don't think these guys can touch me. As long as I don't accept any hunting invitations I should be fine.

In any event, I can't leave the arena. If I left the Arena what would I do for excitement. If the stakes weren't high what fun would it be to play the game?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

And even if it didn't, I have trouble believing that, had the FISA court been around in 1942, that it would not have issued a warrant if the government had come to them (assuming that technology even existed then) with even marginal evidence that Nazi spies were calling people in Florida.

Presumably, the government actually has some basis to believe there is something worth tapping before committing the resources to do it.

Of course, there's always the "urgency" issue, but one could argue that this is addressed by the fact that you can get the warrant after-the-fact.

Still, though, Club's horror-story approach ("what if this was the Nazis in WWII!?!") has its appeal. It's not far off from Cheney's statement that we could have prevented 9/11 with warrantless wiretaps -- because apparently the government sought to wiretap one of the 9/11 hijackers, and that was among to .000000001% of warrant requests that FISA rejected, right? (Or maybe they didn't really have enough basis even to request a warrant, but Cheney figures that if they had just tapped a whole buncha phones they would have found someone, somewhere, who was talking about the plot?)

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

That's peacetime thinking. We're fighting a war here, one necessary to ensure our basic way of life. We don't have time for that rule of law, separation of powers, what about the constitution shit.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

its about leadsership. your guys would do polls to figure out what to do-Bush took the bull by its horns to defend us. I'd rather be safe and secure and not under attack by jihadists making long distance plans than to be dead but have a bunch of polls results showing ma and pa kettle in Okliehoma were for or against wiretapping.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

you think the serb may have been packing???

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

BTW, is it Tom Campbell, and is he at all like the previous Tom Campbell. And if so where can I send a donation?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Here is the guy you want to contact if you want to donate:

Tracy L. Hickman, Esq.
Director of Marketing & Public Relations
Bassi Martini Edlin & Blum, LLP
351 California Street, Suite 200
SF CA 94104
415-609-3511 Direct Line
415-397-1339 Fax
tlhickman@bmeblaw.com

Here is some information:

Tom Campbell
Conservative Republican Leader for
Texas’s 22nd Congressional District
“It’s time to get back to the business that’s important to us.”
- Tom Campbell
Tom Campbell…Profile
Family
• Married to Shauri Green Campbell for 28 years
• Five children who attended Fort Bend public schools
• Longtime resident of Sugar Land, Texas
Professional
• Graduate, Baylor Law School
• Member, American Bar Association and Texas Bar
• Former small business owner and founding partner of
Campbell George & Strong, LLP
• Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
Community Involvement
• Hurricane Rita and Katrina and Allison relief volunteer
• Coordinated manning of Salvation Army
food bank operation
• Board member, Galveston Bay Foundation
• Boy Scout leader
Public Service and Political Experience
• Appointed by President George H.W. Bush
as General Counsel of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
• National Director, Rapid Response for the
George Bush presidential campaign
• National Director, Rapid Response program for
the Robert Dole campaign
Tom Campbell…The Nation’s Most
Important and Closely Watched GOP
Primary Contest
This year’s midterm election is critical for Republicans in Congress
and key to maintaining the GOP majority, especially in the House.
Democrats, hoping to take back Congress, are mounting an
aggressive, no-holds-barred campaign with a message as simple as
A,B,C,D: Abramoff, Bribery, Corruption, and DeLay.
The scandal of abuse, corruption, and special favors for
disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former DeLay staffers --
which has surrounded Tom DeLay – threatens to damage
Republicans’ credibility and voters’ trust. Since his indictment,
and with disclosures imminent from Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay
has become a political liability for House Republicans running
for reelection and a target for Democrats eager to regain control
of Congress on a platform of ending heavy-handed political
bossism, abuse in office, and corruption. Congressman H
2
Christopher Shays, one of Tom DeLay’s Republican colleagues,
has said, “Tom [DeLay]…is hurting the Republican Party, is hurt-ing
this Republican majority and is hurting any Republican who is
up for reelection.”
This is why the nation’s eyes are on conservative Republican
Tom Campbell and his primary bid to replace Delay and represent
Texas’s 22nd Congressional District. A recent poll by the Houston
Chronicle found that if DeLay won the primary, his Democrat
opponent would defeat him handily in the general election, costing
Republicans the loss of a critical seat needed to preserve the GOP
majority in the House. Likewise, if DeLay wins the primary and
Democrats continue to pound away at him and Republicans on
corruption scandals, he will drag down other Republicans – and
could cause the loss of GOP control of the House.
The 22nd Congressional District and Republicans everywhere
need Tom Campbell to win.
Tom Campbell is the only candidate with integrity, principled
leadership, and a common-sense conservative agenda who has
the kind of experience in Washington that will allow him to hit
the ground running. He can keep Texas’s 22nd Congressional
District in Republican hands. Tom’s primary victory will also
help secure a Republican majority in the House. He will act
with civility, decency, and integrity on behalf of the people of
the 22nd, and restore public trust in government.
Tom Campbell will work with House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
the new House Majority Leader, and other lawmakers in a
strengthened, morally centered House GOP majority to move
ahead on an agenda of pro-family, pro-business, pro-security,
pro-growth initiatives that will serve the residents of the 22nd
District of Texas.
Tom Campbell…On the Issues
As a true conservative, Tom Campbell believes in the principles of
limited, transparent and honest government, and he will work to:
• Help restore civility and decency to government
• Uphold the highest standards of personal integrity
and professional conduct in public office
• Focus on our concerns and priorities and get results
• Reduce taxes on our families and individuals
• Cut paperwork and taxes for small business owners
• Protect 2nd Amendment rights
• Defend traditional marriage
• Protect the sanctity of life
• Support quality education
• Strengthen national security
Tom Campbell…What The Media and
Others Are Saying
Tom Campbell is a “credible threat to the embattled former
Majority Leader.”
Time Magazine Online. 1/7/2006
Among those vying for Delay’s seat is a Sugar Land lawyer who
holds an impressive Republican resume.
MSNBC. 1/14/2006
“While two of DeLay’s challengers aren’t considered to have
much credibility - one is making his fourth attempt to unseat
Delay and the other has lived overseas much of her adult life -lawyer
Tom Campbell of Sugar Land holds an impressive
Republican resume.”
Washington Post, Seattle Times,
The Herald Democrat, CBS News. 1/12/2006
“Tom Campbell comes armed with a sparkling resume and a
BlackBerry brimming with high-level political contacts.”
Houston Press. 12/29/2005
www.CampbellCongress.com Poll shows embattled DeLay trailing in Texas race
Sixty percent of those polled said they viewed Delay unfavorably
and 28 percent said they viewed him favorably. Ninety-one percent
said they had a lower opinion of DeLay than they did last year.
“Those are the kinds of signs that no candidate wants to have,
especially one who still has legal battles coming up before the
primary,” said Rice University political scientist Bob Stein.
Reuters. 1/14/2006
Support for DeLay decreases in 22nd District, only
half of those who voted for him in ’04 would do
so again, poll finds
Only half of those who cast ballots for DeLay in 2004 said they
would do so again.
Houston Chronicle. 1/15/2006
DeLay’s future in limbo from scandals, court case
“He’s been damaged,” said John Fortier, political expert from the
American Enterprise Institute. “He’s not indispensable and as a
wounded leader, ostensibly, he puts Republicans in a worse position.”
Fox News. 1/17/2006
Barely one of every five of former House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay’s constituents would vote for him if the election were
held now, according to a poll released Saturday.
Seattle Times. 1/15/2006
Tom Campbell…The Polls Point to a
Campbell Election Victory on March 7th
Congressman DeLay emerged from the 2004 election with a
paltry and unimpressive 55-percent victory. Since then, DeLay’s
favorable ratings among registered voters have eroded steadily
and dramatically while his unfavorable ratings continue to soar.
Key milestone events – DeLay’s indictment, Abramoff’s guilty
plea, DeLay’s resignation as House Majority Leader, and an
ever-expanding ethics scandal – have caused the greatest
movement in the favorable and unfavorable ratings.
First, a Zogby Poll reported that only 38.4 percent of the district
would support DeLay in an election. At the same time, his
unfavorable ratings began to climb, reaching 44 percent well
before his indictment.
Later, a Gallup Poll showed further slippage in DeLay’s favorable
ratings among voters; this time only 36 percent said they would
vote for him in the next general election. Meanwhile, his unfa-vorable
ratings rose by eight points to 52 percent, signaling
major political danger for the indicted Majority Leader among
voters.
And a recent poll conducted by the Houston Chronicle found
that, following DeLay’s permanent resignation from his House
leadership position, only 22 percent would vote for him in the
next general election. The same survey found that DeLay’s
unfavorable ratings have skyrocketed to 60 percent. Support for
DeLay has collapsed; in fact, only half of those who cast ballots
for him in 2004 said they would do so again. And while one-fourth
of the 2004 DeLay voters are not sure whom they will
support this year, almost 20 percent are backing other candidates.
One of the most striking and disturbing findings of the poll is
that voters favor a Democrat over DeLay to win the general elec-tion
should DeLay capture the GOP primary. In the general
election, should he win, DeLay would face former U.S. Rep.
Nick Lampson, who is unopposed in his own party’s primary.
Lampson scored highest among respondents in a probable slate
of November candidates. If the general election took place
today, DeLay would garner 22 percent of the vote, Lampson 30
percent, and former Republican Steve Stockman, who has filed
as an independent, 11 percent.
Tom Campbell is the credible and politically viable challenger in
the GOP primary field who can beat DeLay and keep Texas’s
22nd Congressional District in Republican hands.
H
3
www.CampbellCongress.com
Authorized and paid for by Campbell for Congress
Bill Moore Treasurer. P.O. Box 2217. Sugar Land, Texas 77487
1

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

does he wear a neckercheif?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I don't think I disagree with you, but I take some comfort in the fact that members of congress were informed regarding the program, and I am sympathetic to the argument that it needed to be kept secretive for ops purposes.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I think the probable cause burden was probably the reason they didn't want to go to the FISA court. Again, I'm not totally comfortable with this, but I do believe that our ability to have a country in which civil rights flourish is directly dependent on our ability to maintain our country - meaning that civil rights don't mean shit if we're speaking Arabic.*

*Gratuitous hyperbole

It wasn't kept entirely secret. And I submit that if the members that were briefed thought it was that big of any issue, they had avenues available to them to stop it.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

if you can speak Arabic you don't need civil rights or FISA so much, Bush and the Feds can't understand those calls.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

The burden is extremely low in the FISA courts. Only 4 rejections, none upheld on appeal.

What worries me is that they were afraid they couldn't meet even that burden.

These were trolling efforts. They monitored outgoing and incoming phone calls to the US. Because it's NSA, they presumably have software that listens to the words and has triggers for certain words/sounds (along with algorithms based on location, etc.). The interesting ones are routed to analysts.

BTW, if I were a computer science guy and into artificial intelligence and such, the NSA would sure seem to be a cool place to work.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

So you don't think it was even remotely targetted?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

My sense is (and I confess to not having read everything) is that one of the concerns Bush has with FISA is that the statute requires specific identification of a target to get a FISA warrant. That doesn't work so well when you don't know the targets in the first place.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Probably so.

I think the fallacy is in thinking that involving other branches of government puts you on the path to speaking Arabic.

What avenues, given that it was illegal for them to tell anyone?

Bush is Genius?
 

But if there is a Congressional law saying Middle Eastern entities are de facto suspious, wouldn't that be probable cause to troll through all calls into and out of those countries?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Sure, per the algorithms.

Which means they probably had some hits and a lot more misses, and until they listened in on all of the pieces of information that the algorithms pulled out, they weren't going to know which were hits and which were misses.

So some guy's conversations over the course of a few weeks with his brother in Beirut about whether or not to put mom in a nursing home would have been followed up on for a while until the NSA guys figured out if he was a hit or a miss.

The question is how often do the algorithms pick up hits? My guess is not often enough to be able to go to a judge and say "we have modeling evidence that conversations at xyz time from abc place, with the words 'coherent' and 'broccoli' will lead to al Qaida operatives more than half the time. We need to follow up on this guy for a few days." Hell, until they tried out the modeling, they were not going to even know how often they would pick up hits.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Maybe, but the point I'm making is that I, and a majority of the country, are not holding our civil rights as absolute/are comfortable with some infringement depending on the severity of the circumstances.



If Bush was violating the constitution, I imagine it wouldn't be illegal for them to come out with that. They also could have threatened to cut funding.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Are the very few people who knew about this stuff actually the ones who come up with budgets? It seems like it would be different committees. Also, this seems like an area that wouldn't really be a line-item funding thingy, plus, how do you single out something you can't say to be denied funding, when the budget for the agency goes to a lot of things that can't be disclosed in any detail at all?

You seem very naive here.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Maybe, but the point I'm making is that this is not about civil rights, it's about the constitutional separation of powers and whether the President can simply ignore the law and the courts when he wants to.

You would imagine wrong. There's nothing that I know of in the federal code that says that you can reveal classified information because you think another government official is violating the Constitution. Hell, Rockefeller couldn't even talk to a staff lawyer to get legal advice about the situation.

Maybe you're not following. They couldn't tell anyone. A subset of "anyone" is "other Congressmen."

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

No, I would ask the secret court for a warrant. Not so tough.

can't think of funny re. line :(
 

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=951

This link has a declassified summary of an al queda foot soldier's opinion of bin Ladin. Parts of it read like how you guys see W. It's sort of funny.

• PERHAPS, BROTHER ABU MATTAR HAS WARNED YOU THAT HIS OPINION HAS
  CHANGED A LOT SINCE HE GOT OUT OF HIS PREVIOUS SITUATION. HE HELD ME
  RESPONSIBLE BY SAYING TO ME: FEAR ALLAH BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE
  AMONG THE BRETHREN WHO IS NOW IN THE EXTERIOR AND THE WHOLE MATTER IS
  ON YOUR SHOULDERS. I HAD THIS MATTER ON MY MIND, BUT I AVOIDED IT
  BECAUSE THE TEACHER (TN: BIN-LADIN) CORRESPONDS DIRECTLY WITH YOU
  (AND THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS HIS ABSOLUTE HABIT THAT HE WILL NOT
  ABANDON. IF SOMEONE OPPOSES HIM, HE IMMEDIATELY PUTS FORWARD ANOTHER
  PERSON TO RENDER AN OPINION IN HIS SUPPORT, CLINGING TO HIS OPINION
  AND TOTALLY DISREGARDING THOSE AROUND HIM, SO THERE IS NO ADVICE NOR
  NOTHING) . THE CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU SEE ARE NOTHING, BUT AN OUTCOME OF THIS
  ONRUSH. VERY REGRETTABLY, HAD I TALKED BEFORE THE DISASTERS OCCURRED
  -AND I DID TALK -I WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A COVETOUS PERSON,
  BUT NOW THAT THE MATTER HAS BECOME A REALITY, I HAVE ABSOLVED MY
  CONSCIENCE. HE (TN: THE TEACHER) PUSHES YOU RELENTLESSLY AND WITHOUT
  CONSIDERATION AS IF HE HAS NOT HEARD THE NEWS AND AS IF HE DOES NOT
  COMPREHEND THE EVENTS. TO ABSOLVE MY CONSCIENCEB EFORE ALLAH, AND TO
  ANNOUNCE MY INNOCENCE IN FRONT OF ALLAH, I SAY TODAY WE MUST
  COMPLETELY HALT ALL EXTERNAL ACTIONS UNTIL WE SIT DOWN AND CONSIDER
  THE DISASTER WE CAUSED.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

as usual, you seem very naive here.

I wonder how waiting for a warrant to listen to Mussiaou and the other September 11 hijackers is working out for the majority of people in the world trade on September 11.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I thought you could apply after the fact.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

and yet it still probably would have been to their benefit if someone had been leading the charge to listen to these guys back in 2000 when a lot of planning was going on. your pov is probably some consolation though, your caring side is showing again.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You can.

Of course, the joke of it is (if it's a joke) was that NSA intercepted communications that, in retrospect, were a tip-off something big was going to happen. They just didn't realize it in time (I think they were caught the day before or maybe a couple of days).

eta: link to WaPo story

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

There you go again - the discussion was about getting a warrant under FISA. Be a man, put another in the L column, and move on.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

yes, good one. not as funny as "bush is dumb" but still better than SS's best material.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Are you suggesting that they sought a warrant and were denied one? Or are you just a fucking idiot?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I agree absolutely. It would have been good if, in the first 9 months of 2000, before the 9/11 attacks that occurred in 2000, someone had been leading the charge to investigate and listen in on al Qaeda. Especially after that report came out, in the summer of 2000, that al Qaeda was "determined to strike within the US. Unfortunately, the government sat on its hands throughout 2000, and then, on 9/11/2000 we were attacked.

Still, though -- it seems to me that the problem was in not using the intelligence that was available, throughout the first 9 months of 2000. Not that anyone was "waiting to get a warrant"

If you have any basis for saying that the problem was that they were worried that they couldn't get a warrant, I would like to hear it. But I think it was simply that the federal government was not bothering to investigate at all, and that this is why there was no effort to do a damn thing throughout the first nine months of 2000 despite the warnings that came in the months before 9/11/2000.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

Bush is Genius?
 

Apparently it is to some people.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Was one applied for? Before September 12, 2001?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

You know I have a soft spot for process arguments.



I can't believe this is true . . . that you can't disclose confidential info if an illegal action is being committed. But hell, I'm not about to do the research.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

How would Rockefeller even know whether it was illegal without talking to a lawyer, which he wasn't allowed to do?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I think you're overstating this a bit. Rockefeller has the relevant security clearance. So do other members of the intelligence committee. So do some of the staff. He could talk to any of them without concern for violating a statute or losing his clearance. (So, I'm baffled by his claim that there were no counsel for him to speak with--as ranking member he ought to do a better job of hiring.)

Rockefeller did not write his note as an opinion piece. It was solely to document his concerns. The rest is fluff. And by concerns I mean "the unwillingness of the administration to brief congress more thoroughly."

But anyway, what are we arguing about? If Bush sees a problem with FISA, he should go to Congress with a proposal for reform. If necessary, do it on the q.t.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

this response would be of some value* if al qaeda first came into being on January 20, 2001. too bad, for the dead of September 11, it was in existence and plotting the september 11 attacks for years prior to the execution. things like FISA and other erros and omissions of those years set up Bush et al. to be fall guys of responsbility.

of course, I understand you have to maintain their defense of FISA etal. now in orderr to maintain Bush's fault.

edit : *it is also of value for Wonk, Ty and fringey to use as authority on other boards and blogs that they post.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

don't be naive like Sidd. it was one of many rationalized hurdles that others put in place to prevent the executive from protecting us. Bush becomes damned if he does or doesn't, but I would rather be alive with bugs on my calls to Islamabad then dead of a second or third round of attacks, eg a NW Air flight into the RenCen.

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

Okay, we know where you stand on the liberty vs. security scale. So what are the limits of the President's authority? Any?

Port (yes, whine) Issue
 

I think you and I agree that whatever was said when a few Senators and Representatives were briefed did not cure the separation-of-powers problems with what the Executive Branch was doing. I gather that club felt otherwise.

I did understand Rockefeller to have been saying that he was not permitted to speak to anyone else about his concerns, and I will confess that I don't know enough about the law there to understand why this might be so, but that I took him at his word.