![]() |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Quote:
|
$5 tomatoes
Pete from A Perfectly Cormulent Blog cracks me up.
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
$5 tomatoes
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Anyways, if you accept that the Admin only does it if there is a clear tie to AQ (and I know none of you guys accept much about the admin), and there are some 1500 per year that go through the normal path, isn't it possible that the ones where they don't follow are just too sensitive to risk the chance of the Judge leaking it? I mean, I not Spanky anti-press, or even expect the press to keep stuff quiet, but there seems to be a lot of leaks of things that probably shouldn't have leaked. If they have a possible tap on some line where an AQ guy has been communicating to the US, and they know its live, I don't know that I want that risked (regardless of how many vowels are in his last name Ty). I know you guys are better lawyers than the way you analyze stuff here. If the admin is actually getting 1500 warrents a year, it's not like they need to go looking for more. Why potentially or arguably cross a line, unless there is a really good reason to, and the only really good reason I can imagine is the info CAN'T get out, under any circumstance. Sorry Wonk, I just don't see a dept getting 1500 warrents wanting more, and chasing some where they lack a good reason. If there is no good reason, why risk this controversy? The standards are not that high if they're 1500-0. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/ (actually 1700-0) |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
And the Judges are picked by the Chief Justice so I'm not too concerned about Al Queda infiltration. Remember the Supreme Court is simply a tool of the far right branch of the Republican party. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
And, yes, they go to the judge's house all the time to get these things approved. And yes, they sometimes have to modify them to get acceptance. DOJ, I understand, who actually seeks the warrants actually imposes a bit of a check itself on the FBI--they feel some duty to have a basis for the application, which the FBI does not believe it has to have. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
BTW -- the "retroactive approval" provision in FISA allows approval of a warrant up to 72 hours after the tap begins. The WaPo article on the story today quotes administration officials as saying that they needed "more agility" than FISA provides, and that most taps under the Bush program last for only "a few days or hours" and are approved by a "shift supervisor." Gosh, that is comforting. I see no sign of a need to bypass the FISA procedures. S_A_M |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
This certainly happens in some criminal courts, I can say from experience. What also happens is that warrants are issued, but in a more limited form than requested. More importantly, it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion that seeking warrants shouldn't be necessary, or that law enforcement would never overreach, from the fact that most, or even all, applications for warrants are granted. People behave differently when they know that their actions are subject to review. Very few people will drive over the speed limit, or break a store window, if a police cruiser is in plain view. Does that mean that police oversight is unnecessary to prevent speeding or burglary? |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
If you accept this, you would have to question the assumption quoted above (and I know none of you guys accept much about the NYTimes) |
Darwin 1, Intelligent Design 0
Penn judge rules against (former) school board (aka hell-bound perjurers).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/...olution_debate |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
As to the criminal question, there is always a magistrate on duty (or on call) for warrants, and you can generally get said warrant within a couple of hours if you have the basis and do the paperwork right. It can be done over the phone -- but the Judge has to trust you not to lie to them (of course). As to the rationale -- I have to believe that it is primarily administrative convenience, Hank. Anything else raises real questions about the scope of the taps/grounds for the warrants -- which we just don't know, and won't have any idea of until the Specter hearings. No one from the government has yet argued that any of this intelligence is too sensitive to risk sharing with these federal judges with Top Secret clearances, who already review hundreds of classified requests each year. The president says it is "shameful" to disclose this, and just aids the enemy. Well, almost everyone thinks that they personally have good judgment and can be trusted to do the right thing. I know, for example, that I would make an excellent King, and I may have even made the same decision as Bush. However, this case is a classic example of the benefits of having a free press, three branches of government with checks and balances, and means to pull someone up short when they ignore some of those. S_A_M |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Do you remember the Douglas Brackman rant on the airplane- "Things just have to make sense to me....." - airplane stuck on tarmac? Anyway that what throws me here- the standard for the warrent is obviously low. How could any tap that excites NSA enough that it justifies going outside the procedure not meet the standard? It's like the "Bush lied" to get us into Iraq argument- why would he? And for those of you who don't buy into the "too senstive explaination" look at SAM's post above- "I guess we'll all know what the taps are for once Spector's investigation is over." WTF? |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
I know you're a better lawyer than the way you're analyzing stuff here. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Actually I think this law would allow tapping a US citizen's phone w/o warrent if done outside the US. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Like, if they gave me access to the right system, and I knew I wasn't being checked on, I'd totally look up that-bitch-I-hate's comp. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
I question whether Nixon could have gotten a warrant for everyone on his "enemies" list. Given Bush's view that everyone who questions him, or any aspect of his tactics or his execution of the plan for postwar Iraq (assuming there ever was a plan, beyond sweets and flowers), is "with the terrorists", I have similar questions about him. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Oh, and prissy bitch makes: Prissy Bitch Salary= Fringey Salary + $50,000 |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
There was a guy on NPR this morning who talked a little bit about communications where both parties are outside of the US but somehow or another the conversation gets routed through US owned lines. Even then, it's not a big deal to get a warrant. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
I think she makes more than $50k more than I do. Probably double. |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
Sounds like she's fucking someone important- does she have big breasts? |
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
Punishing the Guilty
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com