Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
As I understand it, the FISA court of appeals said there was no reason for the wall even before the Patriot Act. That ruling won't really be challengeable until the first time evidence gathered through a FISA warrant/tap is used against someone in a criminal prosecution, and they challenge it under the 4th amendment. And that assumes they'll ever know, since it's like to be hard to show the fruit came from a poisoned tree.

I posted a link to the actual opinion. What you are referring to was dicta, not a ruling. The court's ruling applies only to FISA as amended by the Patriot Act, because this was the issue before the court. Anything the court said about FISA pre-Patriot Act was dicta.

The Patriot Act has sunset provisions in it and there are numerous bills in congress seeking to weaken the Patriot Act.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
This article explains it:

Read the whole article and the articles/court opinions I link to here if you want to know more.

Thanks, but I don't.

My point from the first post was that this is now in the public consciousness. I have not read one article saying it was advisable to support the wall in 1995 or 2001. Do you think that the "Senate cabal" that the article names will be able to pass a law reinstituting the wall after the wall has been treated like a case of herpes over the past week (I don't want it....she had it....but he had it too...)?

If your answer is yes, do you think that the unfettered discussion and reporting that supposedly will result from Gorelick's recusal will change that answer?

Gorelick is an articulate person who has a great deal of experience in the matters before the commission. I understand the feelings of those who say she's a partisan hack, but I can asure you there are others who feel that way about other commissioners. I don't see the value of losing her expertise (and her participation in all of the Commission's interviews and hearings up to now) based on a perceived conflict of interest in something that all parties seem to agree was a bad thing.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Since some have given credence to memos supposedly leaked from al Qaeda in Iraq, I thought people might be interested to see this story about a memo which was obtained by the village voice from a foreign intel service. It kind of reminds me of the "self-scouting" that is done by sports teams sometimes, except this time it's being done by the CPA.

I'm not sure there's anything in here that could not have already been suspected, although I did find this interesting:

Fanning the embers of distrust is the U.S.'s failure to acknowledge that the constituencies of key Governing Council members "are not based on ideology, but rather on the muscle of their respective personal militias and the patronage which we allow them to bestow," according to the memo's author. Using the Kurds as an example, he reveals that "we have bestowed approximately $600 million upon the Kurdish leadership, in addition to the salaries we pay, in addition to the USAID projects, in addition to the taxes which we have allowed them to collect illegally." To underscore the point, the author adds that he recently spent an evening with a Kurdish contact watching The Godfather trilogy, and notes that "the entire evening was spent discussing which Iraqi Kurdish politicians represented which [Godfather] character."

I assume this means Hank has become fed up with our movie illiteracy and is now posting over at kurdtalkers.com.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Someone remembers that Ashcroft brought up the wall only because Ben-Veniste was yelling about the CIA not telling the FBI about two terrorists in the country, and Ashcroft was pointing out that they couldn't tell that, because of the wall. (This crap about Ashcroft bringing this up sua sponte as a cheap shot is crap, just like the "Rice was only asked about the title of that memo, not the memo itself" line was crap.)

Ashcroft brought up the memo, declared it declassified and announced tha the author was a member of the commission during his prepared remarks, not in response to a question from a commissioner. That suggests to me that this was intended, and not in response to the yelling of a commissioner during the hearing. But maybe I'm just not following your meaning.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Thanks, but I don't.

You and several other Dems on this board like to spout off about this topic but you haven't even read Gorlick's memo or the court opinions. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother interacting with you all.

Gorlick's memo, if you bother to read it, clearly states that her wall went beyond what was required by the law. She said her purpose for imposing this on our intelligence agencies was to prevent there being even an appearance of impropriety. WTF?

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
My point from the first post was that this is now in the public consciousness.

Thank you, John Ashcroft for imprinting this issue into the public consciousness.

The most important thing the Commission can do is to make it extemely clear to everyone that the Patriot Act is necessary and should not be weakened.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I have not read one article saying it was advisable to support the wall in 1995 or 2001.

Then you haven't been reading the articles that I have posted in the past or even the ACLU brief I posted.

The ACLU is just one group that supports overturning the Patriot Act and putting the wall back up.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you think that the "Senate cabal" that the article names will be able to pass a law reinstituting the wall after the wall has been treated like a case of herpes over the past week (I don't want it....she had it....but he had it too...)?

Again, thank you John Ashcroft. I agree. Ashcroft doing what he did was not a partisan act. He did more to ensure that the wall won't go back up than anyone on that Commission for sure.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Gorelick is an articulate person who has a great deal of experience in the matters before the commission. I understand the feelings of those who say she's a partisan hack, but I can asure you there are others who feel that way about other commissioners. I don't see the value of losing her expertise (and her participation in all of the Commission's interviews and hearings up to now) based on a perceived conflict of interest in something that all parties seem to agree was a bad thing.

The value of getting her off the Commission is that her presence on the Commission is likely to inhibit the other members on this issue. The reality is that when people are working together, they develop personal as well as professional relationships with each other. This makes it much harder for them to investigate each other. They get to hear her side of the story more often and in more detail (and not under oath). Unless you think they are not discussing it with her. From what they have said publicly, the other commission members have discussed this extensively with her. Just not under oath and not where anyone else could hear what she is saying to them.

There are other people who have just as much if not more expertise in this area who could replace her.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ashcroft brought up the memo, declared it declassified and announced tha the author was a member of the commission during his prepared remarks, not in response to a question from a commissioner. That suggests to me that this was intended, and not in response to the yelling of a commissioner during the hearing. But maybe I'm just not following your meaning.

Again, thank you John Ashcroft for giving this issue the attention that it deserves and for helping to solidify in the public consciousness how much damge the wall did pre-9/11.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
Again, thank you John Ashcroft for giving this issue the attention that it deserves and for helping to solidify in the public consciousness how much damge the wall did pre-9/11.

Very -- uh -- responsive.

Anyway, good thought, but I think it looks even better with the pom-poms.

"Again, thank you John Ashcroft for giving this issue the attention that it deserves and for helping to solidify in the public consciousness how much damge the wall did pre-9/11!"

There. Much better.

[Atticus Grinch]

In a unique melding of science and politics, preliminary MRI research is showing that people respond to "their" candidate using parts of the brain identified with emotion, and respond to "the other guy" using parts of the brain identified with reasoning ability.

This seems consistent with the Confirmation Bias thesis, which would predict that the rational function of the brain would be applied in order to defeat non-adopted positions and beliefs, but is not employed to test the positions or beliefs already held by the subject.

No word yet on which, if any, aspect of brain function is employed by Penske's socks.

Carry on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Very -- uh -- responsive.

Anyway, good thought, but I think it looks even better with the pom-poms.

"Again, thank you John Ashcroft for giving this issue the attention that it deserves and for helping to solidify in the public consciousness how much damge the wall did pre-9/11!"

There. Much better.

It is a little astonishing that Ashcroft couldn't find a good way to raise this issue in the public consciousness until he testified in front of the commission. He's not known as a guy who has a hard time getting in front of a TV camera. In fact, "Ashcroft is known as an inveterate news hound who never misses a chance to appear before the TV cameras or call a press conference." Odd, then, that he would risk making it look like his selfless act of public-consciousness-raising had something to do with defending himself.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Not Me
You and several other Dems on this board like to spout off about this topic but you haven't even read Gorlick's memo or the court opinions.

I'm not sure what you of all people mean by "spouting off". I just don't get why this is anything but a blame game. You haven't done much to convince me otherwise, the awesome power of the ACLU's legal reasoning notwithstanding. If the wall gets torn down legislatively, I will eat my proverbial hat.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother interacting with you all.

You should probably keep that question in mind when you wonder why I haven't read all the links you have posted.

Thank you, John Ashcroft for imprinting this issue into the public consciousness....
Again, thank you John Ashcroft. I agree. Ashcroft doing what he did was not a partisan act. He did more to ensure that the wall won't go back up than anyone on that Commission for sure.

I assume you mean, "more to ensure that the wall won't go back up" in the time since his office reaffirmed the wall in 2001?

Then you haven't been reading the articles that I have posted in the past or even the ACLU brief I posted.

The ACLU is just one group that supports overturning the Patriot Act and putting the wall back up.

Not knowing who these other groups are, I'd just like to make it clear that every proposal to roll back the Patriot Act does not include reinstituting the wall. Or do you disagree with that statement?

The point is not that some group supports the wall. The point is that it is popularly perceived as detrimental to our national defense. That I'm afraid, was made clear before Ashcroft made his bid for Not Me's version of Profiles in Courage. That's why the Patriot Act took it down. I don't see how Gorelick's participation changes that popular perception, even if she's bending the ears of the Commission morning noon and night about how her memo was a work of genius.

BTW, loved that Bush spoke at a fundraiser for Specter yesterday and gave your exact talking points, despite the fact that Specter is a member of the "Senate cabal" seeking to roll back the Patriot Act.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG3N67NR51.DTL

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
pom-poms.

If you are talking about me, this is more like it:

http://naflianna.tripod.com/pics/cheerleader.jpg
[SPREE - cleavage ]

N.B. -- Link appears to be busted. -- T.S.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
In a unique melding of science and politics, preliminary MRI research is showing that people respond to "their" candidate using parts of the brain identified with emotion, and respond to "the other guy" using parts of the brain identified with reasoning ability.

This seems consistent with the Confirmation Bias thesis, which would predict that the rational function of the brain would be applied in order to defeat non-adopted positions and beliefs, but is not employed to test the positions or beliefs already held by the subject.

No word yet on which, if any, aspect of brain function is employed by Penske's socks.

Carry on.

Does the study allow for anomaly, or must we accept the polygamy arguments as rational to accept this theory?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
polygamy

You have an unnatural fixation on polygamy.

[viet_mom]

This is a link to an interesting case that shows the importance of making sure you are disconnected by picking up the phone again and hearing the comforting dial tone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not Me keeps saying that "Gorlick's memo, if you bother to read it, clearly states that her wall went beyond what was required by the law."*

In Gorelick's piece in the Washington Post, she said:

(a) the procedures known as the "wall" started under the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments;**

(b) she wrote a memo pertaining to two specific cases in March, 1995;

(c) the Clinton DOJ policy was set forth in a subsequent memo in July, 1995;

(d) Gorelick apparently was involved in that policy, but it is distinct from the memo you have discussed;***

(e) the Clinton DOJ policy "codified" prior practice, but did not make it more difficult to share information;***

(f) The W. DOJ reaffirmed the July 1995 policies in August, 2001;

(g) Gorelick's memo was less stringent than the policy adopted in 1995 and continued in 1996; such that

(h) "Had my memo been in place in August 2001 -- when, as Ashcroft said, FBI officials rejected a criminal warrant of Moussaoui because they feared "breaching the wall" -- it would have allowed those agents to obtain a criminal warrant without fear of jeopardizing an intelligence investigation."

(i) Gorelick's memo established procedures that were less stringent than those which preceded or followed.****

Which, if any, of this do you disagree with? Please specify the paragraph and your source, just so that we're clear.

* I wouldn't propose that others are too inattentive to read her memo when you can't even be bothered to spell her name right.

** See also your so-called primer (certainly a misnomer, but whatever), which says that "courts rewrote FISA, grafting onto it a so-called "primary purpose" test requiring the government to establish not only probable cause that it was targeting operatives of a foreign power but also that its real reason for seeking surveillance was counterintelligence, not criminal prosecution."

*** Source for these is this NYT article, not Gorelick's piece.

**** Not in the above-cited sources, but logically follows from c, e, f, and g.