The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Here are some things I don't understand.

1) Why would congress pass an Act (FISA) that limited government surveillance beyond the bounds of the constitution. Especially when it comes to foreign nationals and calls outside the United States? The answer is probably that Congress did a lot of stupid things in response to Watergate.

2) If FISA or some other act did such a thing, why didn't the Patriot Act reverse those parts of FISA? Who dropped the ball on that one? Seems to me pretty obvious who dropped the ball on that one.

3) If the NSA computerized system sometimes picks up domestic calls between US citizens, then why don't they say that those were a mistake and they were working on the problem.

4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

1. There are any number of reasons, ranging from distrust of those law enforcement agencies to a lack of clarity in the law. At the heart of it, however, was the Church Committee Report, which detailed abuse after abuse of governmental agencies engaged in espionage. It was one of those events Congress politically had to respond to, like the 9/11 Report or Enron - they HAD to do something.

2. The Patriot Act did - FISA limited permitted survellants to foreign powers and their agents, which had already been expanded to cover agents of foreign terrorist groups, but the Patriot Act extended it to also cover "lone wolves" that were engaged in terrorism but couldn't be connected to a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act, however, did not change the provision that limits those who can be surveilled (here or abroad) to non-US Persons.

3. They can. I'm not sure it solves the issue legally, but this strikes me as a moral response.

4. I think your point 4 raises the fundamental question. Most of us are willing to give government some leeway, but when an argument is made that government has unlimited authority to do what it wants without limitation, most of us will take offense. I think the Administration needs to, and is trying to, be clear that they respect a system of limited government. But they have put themselves in a position where it is hard to see that their legal arguments do not effectively eliminate any such limitations.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Here are some things I don't understand.

3) If the NSA computerized system sometimes picks up domestic calls between US citizens, then why don't they say that those were a mistake and they were working on the problem.

There's the problem that Bush reauthorized the "mistakes" more than 30 times.

4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

Ben Franklin agreed with you. See my sig line for details.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
There's the problem that Bush reauthorized the "mistakes" more than 30 times.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 Prev | Next

This is the biggest problem I have with the entire process. 30 reauthorizations means reauthorization every couple of weeks, and the only place in FISA I find something that has a period of about two weeks is here:

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war


Release date: 2005-03-17

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Now, in that little clause, as I read it, the fifteen days follows "a declaration of war by the Congress" rather than the Presidential authorization. It seems clear to me that only one authorization is allowed.

I would hope that people in the executive branch would have a basic command of grammar. Particularly Republicans.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I hope you take the red pill.

New rule: From now on, Spanky must preface all of his posts with the word "Whoa!" He must also type them using his best Keanu voice.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 Prev | Next

This is the biggest problem I have with the entire process. 30 reauthorizations means reauthorization every couple of weeks, and the only place in FISA I find something that has a period of about two weeks is here:



Now, in that little clause, as I read it, the fifteen days follows "a declaration of war by the Congress" rather than the Presidential authorization. It seems clear to me that only one authorization is allowed.

I would hope that people in the executive branch would have a basic command of grammar. Particularly Republicans.

My wife has a nephew, let's call him "Jailbird." He also thinks that the rules that apply to everyone else don't apply to him. He also has a history of fondness for cocaine.

He's been diagnosed a sociopath. However, unlike some sociopaths, he's never really managed to either restrain his more grandiose impulses nor has he enticed other, more balanced people to act as his handlers.

The biggest problem we've always had with him is, how do you get someone to follow the law when they've been relatively successful in finding people to run interference for him all his life?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would be ban torture overseas? Why would we ban assassinations of foreign leaders? There are things the constitution does not bar, but it might nonetheless be good policy not to permit.

I should have been more specific. I have no problem with the government listening in on calls made by foreign nationals, or calls that originate or end up outside of US borders. When I ship something in or out of the United States, or when I go in and out of the United States the US Government has authority to search that stuff without a warrant. The government also has a right to keep tabs on any foreign nationals in the United States. I think all that is good for national security and doesn't threaten civil liberties. I think the same should apply to communication. And I don't understand why it doesn't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
New rule: From now on, Spanky must preface all of his posts with the word "Whoa!" He must also type them using his best Keanu voice.

Given how he likes to stalk, can you imagine if he could get control of travelling in the Matrix? Heavy! Bitches would be giving it up.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
New rule: From now on, Spanky must preface all of his posts with the word "Whoa!" He must also type them using his best Keanu voice.

Whoa Dude, that was like really immature and not at all funny

[Tyrone Slothrop]

OK, Spanky, here's a response to your free market screed of a few days ago.

I don't consider myself an environmentalist. For example I think the Global warming thing is a bunch of hype. I think people's property rights are constantly being infringed up by evironmental laws and regulations. These regulations amount
to government takings without just compensation.

Please see that whether this is true or not depends (in part) on what property rights you started with. At common law, you don't have the right (broadly speaking) to use your property to harm others. For example, if you burn leaves on your property such that you smoke your neighbor out of his house, he can sue you under a nuisance theory. Environmental laws take this principle, and apply it in the context of what we now understand about how the world works. If you never had the right to use your property to harm others, it's not a taking to prevent you from doing this now in a more subtle way.

The reason why Free Markets are great is because free markets are the best way to create the most efficient markets. Efficient markets benefit everyone involved in them.

First, we have a conceptual problem, about what you mean by "free markets." No market is free of government regulation, in the sense that the common law (at the least) governs the conditions under which people exchange goods and services.
It defines who owns what, and how they can be exchanged. And what people can do in the absence of such deals (tort law). In this sense, no market is free, except maybe those in Somalia right now, and no one thinks that model works particularly well.

Moreover, if we assume that the government defines who owns what and how it can be exchanged, neither statement is always true. Markets sometimes fail, for predictable reasons. Participants lack information, or abuse a commons, or there is a monopoly, etc. Setting aside blatant redistribution, much government regulation is a response to perceived market failure.

When government messes with the markets it creates distortions and resources are not allocated well.

Sometimes. But sometimes government intervention makes markets work better. For example, the Truth-in-Lending Act arguably makes credit markets work better because consumers have adequate information to assess the products they buy.

If markets are to work efficiently people and companies need to be responsible for material they dispose of. People say that zero emmission cars are not cost efficent. That is only because people that drive emission cars are not either forced to put a bag over their exhaust pipes to collect the exhaust and then store the bags on their property, or forced to pay a fee for dumping their crap in the public airways. If the true cost of running an internal combustion engine were worked into the cost of running it, people would be looking at alternatives.

Here, you are describing a form of market failure begging for government action: Consumers externalize part of the cost of operating vehicles by polluting the air.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Whoa Dude, that was like really immature and not at all funny

dissent.
SS is funny because he's immature. What his post was, was not nice. But I will commit to this SPank- I will coerce him to become as nice next year as i was this year. Kumbahfuckingyah

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Spanky
4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

You wouldn't care one bit unless you had something to hide.

What the hell is your real name? Akbar Muhammad?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, Spanky, here's a response to your free market screed of a few days ago.



Please see that whether this is true or not depends (in part) on what property rights you started with. At common law, you don't have the right (broadly speaking) to use your property to harm others. For example, if you burn leaves on your property such that you smoke your neighbor out of his house, he can sue you under a nuisance theory. Environmental laws take this principle, and apply it in the context of what we now understand about how the world works. If you never had the right to use your property to harm others, it's not a taking to prevent you from doing this now in a more subtle way.

If you use your property to harm others something is exiting your property and effecting someone elses. You are responsible for your property and everything that exits it. If smoke is leaving your property and going into your neighbors property you are infringing on his property rights. The stuff I was talking about is if the government decides that your property is a wetland and says you can't build on it. That is a taking without just compensation. Or if you own a shop and the government decides your area is now not zoned for commerical use. These things should be compensated (not prevented - I believe in the power of eminent domain - just compensated).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop First, we have a conceptual problem, about what you mean by "free markets." No market is free of government regulation, in the sense that the common law (at the least) governs the conditions under which people exchange goods and services.
It defines who owns what, and how they can be exchanged. And what people can do in the absence of such deals (tort law). In this sense, no market is free, except maybe those in Somalia right now, and no one thinks that model works particularly well.

Moreover, if we assume that the government defines who owns what and how it can be exchanged, neither statement is always true. Markets sometimes fail, for predictable reasons. Participants lack information, or abuse a commons, or there is a monopoly, etc. Setting aside blatant redistribution, much government regulation is a response to perceived market failure.

If regulations are instituted to make the markets more efficient I have no problem with them. For example information usually makes a market perform better. But the market is almost always a better determiner of price, demand and need than the government is.

[i]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [/iSometimes. But sometimes government intervention makes markets work better. For example, the Truth-in-Lending Act arguably makes credit markets work better because consumers have adequate information to assess the products they buy.

Again - making the markets more efficient. Sometimes the government intervens for reasons other than making the markets more efficient. When this is done for health, safety or environmental reasons, that is fine, but any other reason is usually bad.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here, you are describing a form of market failure begging for government action: Consumers externalize part of the cost of operating vehicles by polluting the air.

Your problem is that you equate free markets with anarchy. They are two different concepts. The term market implies that you have a functioning market that requires a system of government. Without a government to enforce the rules of the "market" you don't have one. The strongest simply gets the goods. You need a respect for private property and contract law which the government needs to enforce. The first step in creating an efficient market is a respect for property rights. Without property rights you get no market. Externalities are an infringement on property rights. The most basic rule of markets. If you are dumping stuff off your property (be it a gas, liquid or solid) you are infringing either on your neighbors property rights, the public's property rights or both. The government needs to start enforcing property rights for individuals and for public property.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dissent.
SS is funny because he's immature. What his post was, was not nice. But I will commit to this SPank- I will coerce him to become as nice next year as i was this year. Kumbahfuckingyah

I guess I am not very funny because that post was supposed to be a joke.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
You wouldn't care one bit unless you had something to hide.

What the hell is your real name? Akbar Muhammad?

I don't care how much you defend him in your stupid columns, your man Delay is going down.

[Spanky]

Well. Go Figure. George Will agrees with me:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

and Ann Coulter does not:

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


I think I am in good Company.

Chalk up two for Spanky.