Punishing the Guilty
 

The more appropriate question is "if they always get them, then why would they not bother going for warrants this time?" And I can't see a real lawyer being satisfied with the rationale that the Executive Branch can lawfully say "sorry, these are just too sensitive to follow the law."

If the taps are that sensitive, it's more likely that they are for people who no reasonable person could believe is a legitimate target.

Punishing the Guilty
 

All of which further underlines my argument that the subjects were too sensitive and the G couldn't risk a leak is total bullshit.

Seriously, I know you live for stirring the pot, but can you actually make this argument and keep a straight face?

Punishing the Guilty
 

And yet, he got more votes than anyone who ran against him. Unlike....


But I guess you still hold the fantasy that his election didn't "count", somehow.

Punishing the Guilty
 

It's just more evidence that he suffers from a Messiah Complex. You're either for him or against him and if you are against him, you are an enemy of all that is right and good and true. Just like Jebus.

Punishing the Guilty
 

I didn't mean we'd all know, or that loads of top secret information would be disclosed -- just that we (or at least the Congress) would have a better idea if there is some investigation of what was done and why.

BTW -- this is hardly breaking as a liberal/conservative issue. The Washington Times today had two more or less opposite opinion pieces on its editorial page.

Bruce Fein -- not my idea of a "Michael Moore liberal" really ripped the President a new asshole. Included a couple of fun inflammatory statements --

"According to President George W. Bush, being president in wartime means never having to concede co-equal branches of government have a role when it comes to hidden encroachments on civil liberties."

and

"President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses."

also

"The president maintained that, 'As a result [of the NSA disclosure], our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk.' But if secrecy were pivotal to the NSA's surveillance, why is the president continuing the eavesdropping? And why is he so carefree about risking the liberties of both the living and those yet to be born by flouting the Constitution's separation of powers and conflating constructive criticism with treason?"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/bfein.htm

Punishing the Guilty
 

Similar to this Newsweek piece linked on Drudge:

• Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.
  
  No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
  but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
  
  The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
  
  No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

Punishing the Guilty
 

It seems to me that the real danger in letting this story out is that those wire taps are likely going to get even more scrutiny, from more people, than they ever would have if they'd gotten a damned warrant. I can't imagine that this is the sort of thing that can get by without a congressional hearing.

Oh, and this pisses me off too
 

And not only for the stupid waste of resources.:

Grazie!
 

Graz -- Austrian hometown of the Governator -- gets letter from Gov saying his name must be removed by year end from all buildings and his name can no longer be used by town to help tourism, after councilmen start petition to remove Gov's name from some ampitheatre or something b/c they're upset Gov let Tookie die.

I don't care about the political party, I just love this type of "fuck you" to people who are sweet on raising a ruckus without first weighing the possible consequences. Europeans can be such fools! Let them rename the buildings "Tookie", someone you know they'd never want roaming THEIR little narrow, pristine streets.

The letter supposedly started "Dear Mister Mayor". Damn, couldn't Arnold in a nod to the season have said

"Dear Burgemeister Burger:"

Bah Humbug.
http://www.misfittoys.net/forsale/sclaus/actberger.jpg

Punishing the Guilty
 

I haven't been following this. Is this a joke? I assume Bin Ladin is not in the United States. The NSA only needs to get warrants for phone calls within the US. If it outside the US (or an international call) they can listen in on anyone they want. Correct?

Grazie!
 

I believe that this gentleman is "Burghermeister Meisterburgher."

And I agree.

S_A_M

Punishing the Guilty
 

If what you are asserting is true there is no doubt my phone is tapped. I feel sorry for the schlep from the NSA that has to listen to my boring phone calls.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Spanky --

Balt was mistaken. The President was using a rhetorical device called an analogy. The Osama bin Laden calls were not related to this issue at all.

P.S. I think that the NSA needs to get warrants to monitor phone calls beginning or ending in the United States, even if those calls are going to or coming from overseas.

The FISA, etc. does not apply to calls taking place entirely outside the U.S.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Well, you have traveled extensively overseas, haven't you? Ansd you definitely hate America.

But we'll never know . . .

Punishing the Guilty
 

See I thought they only needed to get a warrant if both callers where in the US. Once one part of the communiation is outside they US then they don't need a warrant. I think the same is true of international mail.

Grazie!
 

Oh wait. You know what? I totally take back what I said!! I feel bad for the Burghermeister of Graz. In fact to celebrate the caring christmas season, I will be volunteering to tear off his lederhosen and fuck him two ways to Sunday. Oh Tannenbaum!

Grazie!
 

Mmmmmm, fucking.

Grazie!
 

Mmmmmmm, men in lederhosen.

The issue seems pretty simple to me.

1) The NSA can tap all the calls they want outside of the United States.

2) The NSA can tap any calls that originate outside of the United States or end outside the United States. If you, or your packages have no rights when entering or exiting the United States, why should your communication? If people are getting upset about eavesdropping on such calls they are making mountain out of molehills.

3) If the NSA is tapping phone calls the orginate and end in the United States (and there are no exigent circumstances - mainly they don't have time to get a warrant - but that shouldn't prevent them from getting a warrant if the tap continues) then the NSA and the Bush Administration are out of line. As far as I am aware, there is no national security exception to the Bill of Rights. If the New York times new of such violations and took a year to report it, that is a little scary. If this is what is happening the New York Times should have exposed it and the administration needs to be stopped. There is no excuse for domestic phone taps without warrants.

Is it more complicated than that?

Not really, except I'm not sure you're completely right on #2--Ithink they can tap it, but not record/transcribe the U.S. caller's part of the conversation. And on 3, the argument is that there is a national security exception that makes the taps reasonable in a post-9/11 world. Not saying they're right, just that the argument may be more nuanced than there's no exception to the bill of rights--obviously there are limits when there is a clear and present danger, or an imminent threat, and so forth.

No. We might quibble a bit on (2), but no.

I understand the operational distinction you've drawn between #2 and #3, but why are my rights restricted more in the former than the latter? If I'm an American citizen, and I'm talking not to Betty in New England but Fred in England, what justifies the different result? If I'm understanding it correctly, the FISA law currently doesn't make that distinction.

1) Your rights don't extend beyond the border. I am sure England would have no trouble tapping that same international call. Any government has a right to inspect anything that goes in or out of the country. If you are sending a signal (that is what communication is) then the US government should be able to check it out if it leaves the country or originates outside of the country. It works with letters, I don't see how other forms of communication should be different. It seems as though the Federal Courts don't agree with me.

2) From my perspective 9-11 didn't change the Constitution. Events can't change the Constitution, only the people can. Unless the US passes a constitutional amendment that includes a clause about martial law in time of emergency, nothing has changed. Domestic surveillance without a warrant on US nationals is just illegal. It seems silly to argue about it. Does anyone disagree with what I just said in this paragraph?

Grazie!
 

Now that you have killed MURDERED my libido, I may get some work done.

Presumably the President, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales and a bunch of lawyers supporting their arguments.

Dick Cheney also I think, and quite vocally.

It does make that distinction.

FISA implements a higher burden when the object of the surveillance is a US citizen, regardless of their location. FISA has a lower burden for surveillance of non-US citizens in the US. FISA has no limits outside the US, other than regarding US citizens.

No, other than that #3 is laughable and incorrect.

Jamie Gorelick, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994:

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed [Clinton] had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime.

Bi-Partisan September 11 Commission, reporting on April 14, 2004:

The 9/11 Commission Report was issued on July 22, 2004. This phrase is not in that final report - I scanned the entire thing, but I guess I could have missed it. Where did you get this quote?

Ah. Yes, I was reading into Spanky's recitation the precept that those communications involved US citizens (which I thought was the point). Upon rereading it, it sounds like Spanky's drawing lines based purely on geography, not by whether a participant is a US citizen.

I am not Raggedy Ann Coulter (though I am probably another of Penske's socks) but the quote is from a report done by the Commission's staff and presented in different contexts - at hearings, testimony and briefings. I believe members of the Commision have reiterated this blurb in a way that shows they support it. Byron York, National Review White House Correspondent reported yesterday that the statement was made by Commission members who were briefing the press on some of their preliminary findings in April 2004. Google some of the text.

I don't know about foreign nationals in the United States. I can see how one could argue that you don't need a warrant for them.

But if a call is placed by one US citizen to another US citizen in the United States there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to tap that call you either need a warrant or exigent circumstances. If the administration is arguing otherwise, which I think they are, they have their collective heads up their asses. Any argument they make is going to be (for lack of a better word) silly.

How can anyone disagree with that?

It may be illegal but I think the point is that the President doesn't trust the timeliness or effectiveness of the warrant process in cases where: (1) there's a belief that a conversation will spill important information; but (2) you don't have enough to seek a warrant yet. In other cases, it's a fishing expedition - the person you are tapping is acquainted with someone who might have information on terrorist acts or training or planning and you listen in for possible leads. Not enough for a warrant so you don't seek one out. But you don't want to haul the eavesdropee into detention for questioning - eavesdropping in that case is less invasive to the guy and a lot more effective since the guy doesn't know he's being tapped.

Is all this stuff illegal? Yes. But if I were a second term president, though, I'd be tapping as I deem best because -- fuck my ratings - the only thing I DON'T want in my legacy as Prez is that blood ran in the streets of the U.S. as part of a plan hatched right over U.S. phone lines by someone on U.S. soil and I didn't do anything to tune into it because my suspicions weren't enough to warrant a warrant. As long as my advisors can come up with some shaky argument that I can say I *thought* this stuff was okay. What do I care. 25 years after Watergate, Nixon's legacy became a lot better than the expected "fuckhead who perpetrated Watergate". So a few Muslims phone calls were tapped without going through the usual channels. The fallout is not going to be that big a deal.

People in Glass houses.......
 

I don't like US immirgation policy, especially with Mexico (if it were up to me we would have an open border), however, what business is it of the government of Mexico? What gives them the right to complain? It is up to the US to decide when where and how we let people into our country, is it not? This is really nothing for the Mexican country to weigh in about.

In addition, I don't get how they can be so self righteous when the reason these people are flooding across the border is because of the screwed up economic policy they have had in their country for the past one hundred and fifty years.

If they would manage their economy better these people would not have to leave their homes.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK9N0G6.html

The fact that the US citizen is placing a call to another US citizen does not make the privacy expectation "reasonable." The privacy expectation is only reasonable if there have been no circumstances involving the caller or recipient of the call that would support a successful tap request in the courts. If those circumstances exist, and a warrant is obtained, the speakers may have an expectation of privacy but the law still allows their privacy to be infringed upon. Just arguing semantics here. Which I normally don't do but I raise the issue because I've seen the rantings of defendants who were OUTRAGED that their privacy was infringed upon during the investigate process, as if they had the right to plan crimes without anyone daring to listen in.
I doubt they have their heads up their asses and know full well what the law is. It's the ability to make colorable claims that they acted in good faith that is the key. Since they already got what they wanted (tapping without a warrant, for as long as they could without being found it) I don't think they care if their justification sounds silly.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Say the Constitution says you can''t fish there, and say you take an oath (on a Bible) to uphold the Constitution. What then?

Punishing the Guilty
 

anyone who litigates, for real cases, don't even answer hypos. The constitution ain't involved, it's a statute. But maybe you can find a blog quote to explain otherwise.

And you know the Chin died today right? and you know this Southern/GGG sock has apparently died also?

At the risk of failing to STP, there are two distinct legal issues here: one is whether the program violated the Fourth Amendment rights of people whose calls were intercepted, and the other is whether the people running the program violated FISA, etc.