House Approves Wiretap Bill

iceaura

08-05-07, 05:13 PM

Well, when I see American citizens being prosecuted en masse and/or jailed and/or disappearing off the streets of my hometown, then I'll fret. You're actually planning to worry about shutting the barn door only after the horse disappears?
I'm the last person to believe that the US government is only up to good things when left on its own-- but our entire intelligence community has been hampered for decades by mountains of red tape and pathetic limits to its ability to gather and act upon intelligence. Utter and complete bull. The intelligence community of the US has had far too little oversight, and been able to cowboy around with far too little accountability, for the good of the country.

The CIA does not even have to submit a budget to Congress - something the Constitution would normally be thought to require.

They blame their failures - which are numerous - on red tape, but even a cursory look at the actual events reveals not bureaucratic hampering but carelessness and arrogance in unilateral, unsupervised, unaccountable ventures far beyond their charters or legitimate purposes. And neglect of their ordinary responsibilities.

As LONG as none of that information can be used in a court of law against an American citizen (which it can't), then I don't give a damn if they monitor the porn I download or the phone sex I have. Once you allow them such a free hand, you have absolutely no control over what they use the info for. They can use it to obtain search warrants, whose findings can be used in court, or inform the activities of various officials, who do have court access. They can hand it to your personal enemies. They can then deny their surveillance ever existed.

And of course the various branches of government have other priorities than fighting terrorists. Terrorists are not that much threat to the US executive branch itself. Having given up oversight and control, you will just have to accept their distribution of efforts - you won't have any way of knowing what it is, actually. This administration, for example, is very interested in providing competitive advantages to Chevron and Bechtel and Halliburton, goals that could be well furthered by such a spy program. Even more urgently, this administration is concerned with defeating its political rivals and consolidating its hold on power - wiretaps that legally never have to be accounted for can be very useful, in such a project.

And personally, you may find that you have an interest not only in your own privacy, but that of your lawyer, your doctor, the judge that decides your case, the banker that handles your loans, your relatives, various credit card company officials who have access to your account, local candidates for office that you happen to favor but the State does not, etc. Getting crossways with a government that has unlimited surveillance powers over your community, and no accountability ever, exposes you to a myriad of disagreeable possibilities. You may find immediate cooperation with such a government - all of it, including local zoning officials and the like - to be quite the wisest course of action.

At that time, you may find yourself fretting a bit. Should you wish to fret in advance, consider this: in the past few years, federal prosecutors have accused about 280 local public officials of various crimes. Of that total, about 40 were Republicans.

superstring01

08-05-07, 05:55 PM

You're actually planning to worry about shutting the barn door only after the horse disappears?

No, but when you are the one making the accusations, you have to demonstrate the harm. You have not done so with any degree of authority.

Utter and complete bull. The intelligence community of the US has had far too little oversight, and been able to cowboy around with far too little accountability, for the good of the country.

Okay. Says you. Everything I've read published from newspapers to books by insiders says the same thing: our LIBERAL government doesn't have the stomach to deal with real threats and wants an inherently dark and disturbing entity such as the CIA to operate like it were run by Aunt Bea.

The CIA does not even have to submit a budget to Congress - something the Constitution would normally be thought to require.

The budget IS submitted to Congress-- but only the Appropriations, Homeland Security, Select Intelligence, and National Security & Military Oversight Committees have oversight over the various intelligence budgets. The CIA's is intentionally parceled between the several different "areas" and then submitted, in secret, to those committees, who then approve them and filter them through various channels, which are then "re-united" and fed to the CIA's various offices and departments independently. Congress itself has, quite constitutionally, done this for national security reasons (a record IS kept, but is NOT published under Article I, Section 5, Paragraph Three of the Constitution which you claim is being circumvented).

They blame their failures - which are numerous - on red tape, but even a cursory look at the actual events reveals not bureaucratic hampering but carelessness and arrogance in unilateral, unsupervised, unaccountable ventures far beyond their charters or legitimate purposes. And neglect of their ordinary responsibilities.

I won't deny the CIA's failures, which are indeed, numerous. But three things come to mind: ONE-- you only hear of the failures, not the successes; TWO-- you have no clue what "ventures" have gone far beyond their charter and THREE-- it's a human entity, it's bound to fail, that you cannot accept this and then turn it around and make it look like they are running around like cowboys is ridiculous. It's easy to be a monday mornign quarterback from behind the comfort of a desk and say, "WOW, those CIA guys are evil fuckups!" The fact is, all you have is unsupported speculation.

Once you allow them such a free hand, you have absolutely no control over what they use the info for. They can use it to obtain search warrants, whose findings can be used in court, or inform the activities of various officials, who do have court access. They can hand it to your personal enemies. They can then deny their surveillance ever existed.

Sure you do-- because apparently, nothing the CIA ever does is right, so what are you worried about?

This administration, for example, is very interested in providing competitive advantages to Chevron and Bechtel and Halliburton, goals that could be well furthered by such a spy program.

I'm okay with that. Part of the CIA's job is to secure American dominance. If we stopped spying on foreign corporations, then we'd be one of the few world powers that didn't and our companies would be at a decisive disadvantage. The DGSE (France) has been caught red-handed, for years, bugging the First Class section of Air France in order to record foreign executives in conversation.

Even more urgently, this administration is concerned with defeating its political rivals and consolidating its hold on power - wiretaps that legally never have to be accounted for can be very useful, in such a project.

Quite an accusation. I assume you can prove, or even substantiate in the slightest, what you say.

And personally, you may find that you have an interest not only in your own privacy, but that of your lawyer, your doctor, the judge that decides your case, the banker that handles your loans, your relatives, various credit card company officials who have access to your account, local candidates for office that you happen to favor but the State does not, etc. Getting crossways with a government that has unlimited surveillance powers over your community, and no accountability ever, exposes you to a myriad of disagreeable possibilities. You may find immediate cooperation with such a government - all of it, including local zoning officials and the like - to be quite the wisest course of action.

Part of intelligence is acting intelligently and having all the information. I'm okay with the gathering and holding of all that information. It cannot be used on a court of law, so who cares. The only people that I know of who should be running scared are non citizens and terrorists. And if it can be used to get a warrant (another stretch), then I'm fine with that too-- it's hard to get a conviction on a person without there actually being proof of a crime. If there is a crime committed, I see no reason why that person should get away with it, no matter who gathered the information.

At that time, you may find yourself fretting a bit. Should you wish to fret in advance, consider this: in the past few years, federal prosecutors have accused about 280 local public officials of various crimes. Of that total, about 40 were Republicans.

Would it make you feel better if they wrongfully accused some Republicans to balance things out for you? If not, then you're going to have to do better than just tossing around the claim that "not enough of the EVIL Republicans have been prosecuted to make you feel good" argument.

~String

madanthonywayne

08-05-07, 06:17 PM

I'm for the utter and absolute extermination of terrorists. I prefer that they disppear-- no trial, no information. I want their families and friends to suffer never knowing whatever happened to them. There one day... gone the next. Nothing else. I'm all about the US government spying on every other person on Earth, listening to their calls, monitoring their email, and listening to their most private conversations to the point where they don't itch without the NSA having a hardcopy of how they scratched that itch. I'm okay with the NSA listening in on every single radio communication on Earth (domestic or not) and having programs that "trip" when words or word combinations are used. I'm all about every domestic-to-international call tapped and recorded.

As LONG as none of that information can be used in a court of law against an American citizen (which it can't), then I don't give a damn if they monitor the porn I download or the phone sex I have.

Bravo. Very well said.

I would prefer that we deal with terrorists like pirates: summary execution. There should be no need for Guantanomo Bay. JUST KILL THE BASTARDS.

iceaura

08-05-07, 06:32 PM

No, but when you are the one making the accusations, you have to demonstrate the harm. ? Your comment was that you were not going to fret until after the government started rounding people up. I think if you are going to wait until then you may as well not fret at all - it won't do you any good, at that point.

The "accusation" I am making is that unsupervised, warrantless, unaccountable, oversight-free government surveillance is extremely vulnerable to abuse, on the one hand,

and I will add: without legitimate purpose, on the other. What is the problem with getting a warrant, which can be done retroactively and secretly even now?
Okay. Says you. Everything I've read published from newspapers to books by insiders says the same thing: our LIBERAL government doesn't have the stomach to deal with real threats and wants an inherently dark and disturbing entity such as the CIA to operate like it were run by Aunt Bea. If everything you've read says that our government since the inception of the CIA has been "liberal", your reading list is pretty narrow.
Sure you do-- because apparently, nothing the CIA ever does is right, so what are you worried about? I wasn't concerned only with the CIA - and the relevant point is not that the CIA does nothing right, but that they often do wrong.

Secret police in the service of the executive branch of a government are not trustworthy entities. Aren't you calling yourself a libertarian?
I'm okay with that. Part of the CIA's job is to secure American dominance. That is false, in the first place, and irrelevant, in the second: the advantages desired are over US companies, as well.
Part of intelligence is acting intelligently and having all the information. I'm okay with the gathering and holding of all that information. It cannot be used on a court of law, so who cares. You don't care that your lawyer and the judge could be blackmailed in an eminent domain case involving your house?

Check out the hate mail, threatening calls, and back door attempts to influence his decision Reggie Walton was subjected to in the Scooter Libby trial, and tell me there is no potential for misuse of unaccountable executive branch surveillance of judges, say. The only people that I know of who should be running scared are non citizens and terrorists. And "the terrorists" are, of course, whoever the surveillance team wants them to be. Quakers, for example, under Nixon (and W). Democrats? If there is a crime committed, I see no reason why that person should get away with it, no matter who gathered the information. The people who wrote the US Constitution, and included in its provisions a complete ban on unreasonable, warrantless search and seizure by the government, disagree with you there. They feared uncontrollable government far more than they feared a few unprosecuted criminals.
Would it make you feel better if they wrongfully accused some Republicans to balance things out for you? The subject was potential for misuse of surveillance capabilities, if they are not subject to oversight and accountable to judicial - and eventually public - authority. That stat was evidence.

countezero

08-05-07, 07:20 PM

My offer is still open, since you seem to know so much about intelligence work...

nietzschefan

08-05-07, 07:26 PM

They play for the same team, demicans and republicrates, time for the herd to "wake up".

superstring01

08-05-07, 08:08 PM

My offer is still open, since you seem to know so much about intelligence work...

Please do.

~String

countezero

08-06-07, 12:58 AM

I was talking to Ice. He quit the other thread when confronted with facts. I doubt he wants to relive that ignominy here.

Back to the topic, based on my reading of the Times today, the taps in question were largely international-to-international calls that are routed through the U.S. and international calls placed to the US from hotbeds abroad. If that's the case, then past presidents have done far worse than intercept those calls, illegally or otherwise...

A case in point: Let me quote to you from Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA: "In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of the CIA became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic (spying) operation, code-named CHAOS. ... The agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations. ... At (President Johnson's) command ... the National Security Agency turned its immense eavesdropping powers on American citizens."

joepistole

08-06-07, 02:00 AM

Amendment to Eliminate Graft & Corruption

Revision of Election Rules:

All elections for federal office will use the Borda Count method to tabulate election winners. Each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner. This method allows electors to come to a concensus in selection of the best cannidate for office.

Campaign Finance:

In order to qualify for any federal election, a canidate must submit a nonimination petition to the Treasury Secretary with the signatures of at least ten percent of the citizens to be represented by the petitioner if elected. Petitioners, signatories, must be citizens of the United States and a citizen can only sign one petition for a specific canidate per office per election.

All elections for Federal Office will be fully financed by the Federal government. Each election, congress shall fund each canidate for the Senate and House of Representataives at rate of ten dollars per person represented by the position. Congress shall fund each presidential canidate 20 million dollars per election. These amounts may be inflation adusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index with a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Any unused campaign funds will be returned to the treasury after conclusion of the election.

Network News Organizations are required to provide at least 10 hours of free debate/exposure time to all registered canidates for office each federal election cycle. Debate questions must be selected from citizen input and represent the issues at hand. Questions must be kept secret from the canidates prior to debates, and canidates nor their representatives will have no hand in determining the debate formats or the questions to be asked of them.

Sixty days prior to each election, the federal government will distribute campaign packages to the electors. These packages will consist of information about each canidate, provided by each canidate for public office. Each canidate for public office will be given two pages to represent their positions and credidentials to the electors.

Swift Boat Provision/Fear Mongering/Dirty Tricks Provision:

Any funds spent to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information will be taxed at fifty percent to the party making such donations.. Any such organizations or individuals receiving such funds will need to fully disclose their funding sources 360 days prior to running any mass communications. It is important to fully disclosed sources and amounts of these funds before and each time these communications are presented to voters, funding sources, names and amounts, must also be disclosed to the voters and included in each communication to the voters. And the voters must have reasonable time to read and understand the disclosure. In addition, organizations or individuals collecting funds for this purpose must pay a tax on donated funds received equilivant to seventy five percent of the amount donated. Laundering these donations through other parties or organization is expressly forbidden and is punishable by imprisoment of not less than 100 years.

An agency or individual will be found to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information when the advertisments paid for or sponsored by the individual or organization invoke fear of a candiate or an issue as measured by a statistically valid random sampling of voters and by failing to disclose all relevant facts or by including facts in their arguments which are not true and can be proven as untrue or cannot be proven to be truthful in a trial by jury of 11 unbiased citizens.

Examples of Dirty Tricks Advertising:
• Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
• Medicare Prescription Drug Program

Exceutive Privilage:

Congress shall have all rights to investigate the executive and judical branches of government. No branch of government shall have the right of privilage, including executive privilage, that shall prevent or block such branch or agency from disclosing material requested by the Congress or a committee theirof.

Pardons:
The president cannot pardon a member of his/her staff or administration. Neither can a president commute a legally imposed sentence for a member of his staff or administration. Pardons for offencences arising out of service in the executive branch of government can only be pardoned with a 2/3 affirmative vote of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 afirmative vote of the Senate.

Gifts:

No member of congress, president, or member of the judicial system may accept anything of value from any special interest group under any circumstance. Under no circumstances will any federal employee be permitted to accept compensation for travel, education, or any funding or anything of value from a party advocating for legislation. Neither can a member of congress, president, Judge of the Supreme Court accept travel on private conveyances and pay commercial rates. If private coveyances are used, elected officials must pay full cost of their for their travel and for the travel of any family members. If a private conveyance is used the government employee or canidate for office must pay the prorated cost of the conveyance…that part of the expense that can be reasonably attributed to the usage by the federal employee or canidate.

Further, family members (spouses, brothers, sisters, children and parents) and members of congress, president or members of the Supreme Court and there direct staffs are NOT allowed to work and receive compensation as an advocate (Lobbist) for special interests having business before the congress for a period of ten years following the last day said member served as a member of Congress, president, or Supreme Court Judge.

superstring01

08-06-07, 02:19 AM

I'd go along with most of that!

~String

countezero

08-06-07, 02:33 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?ei=5065&en=4e05f95a4b60ac78&ex=1187064000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

iceaura

08-06-07, 02:52 AM

Back to the topic, based on my reading of the Times today, the taps in question were largely international-to-international calls that are routed through the U.S. and international calls placed to the US from hotbeds abroad. If that's the case, then past presidents have done far worse than intercept those calls, illegally or otherwise... And since you don't know what W's taps are, or who was tapped, or what else happened in connection with them, you're free to dismiss the fact that W simply overrode specific Congressional law and lied to Congress about it directly, for no apparent motive except seizure of power: something more serious in its implications - worse - than Johnson did in this: A case in point: Let me quote to you from Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA: "In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of the CIA became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic (spying) operation, code-named CHAOS. ... The agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations. ... At (President Johnson's) command ... the National Security Agency turned its immense eavesdropping powers on American citizens." Johnson's doings were bad - but they were both more urgently motivated (riots, draft, war) and less in conflict with specific law (the grey area around "national security", that FISA specifically addressed).

And as has already been pointed out to you (in that other thread, contrary to your lying reference) they weren't even necessarily all that different from W's in scale: running surveillance on 300,000 people is a small operation now, with modern tech. W's tapping operation appears to be much bigger, if you just count instances of surveilled conversation, than Johnson's.
btw string, if you recall: I'm the last person to believe that the US government is only up to good things when left on its own-- but our entire intelligence community has been hampered for decades by mountains of red tape and pathetic limits to its ability to gather and act upon intelligence. ”

Utter and complete bull. The intelligence community of the US has had far too little oversight, and been able to cowboy around with far too little accountability, for the good of the country. Check out the book count quotes above, apparently missing from your reading list so far?

countezero

08-06-07, 04:12 AM

And since you don't know what W's taps are, or who was tapped, or what else happened in connection with them

I thought the Times article explained pretty well what they are. Did I or it go wrong some place?

you're free to dismiss the fact that W simply overrode specific Congressional law and lied to Congress about it directly, for no apparent motive except seizure of power:

First of all, I haven't dismissed it. I've attempted to put it into a context in the course of challenging your assertion that this is the worst illicit act by the intelligence communities against Americans. Secondly, claiming that Bush or anyone else in the administration did this "for no apparent motive except the seizure of power," is just fucking ridiculous. He did it because the US is engaged in a worldwide war on terror and he wanted to collect better SIGINT from abroad. And it wasn't even his idea:

"Tenet talked to General Michael Hayden, the director of NSA, shortly after the attacks. "Is there anything more you can do?" he asked. "Not within my current authorities," Hayden answered. Tenet then ... invited (Hayden) to come down and talk to the administration about what more could be done. Hayden came up with a plan to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists within the US without judicial warrants. It was arguably illegal but arguable justified on a theory of "hot pursuit." ... President Bush ordered him to execute the plan on Oct. 4, 2001. It had to be done, Hayden said. "I could not not do this." (Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, 483).

Johnson's doings were bad - but they were both more urgently motivated (riots, draft, war) and less in conflict with specific law (the grey area around "national security", that FISA specifically addressed).

What about illegal do you not understand? The first part of my quote said it was illegal and everyone at the time, from Johnson on down, knew it was and didn't care (much like the Bush's, per your argument). Also, what Johnson did was totally different in one important aspect. He was actually spying on Americans, not just listening to phone calls going to and from international sources, but spying on them in person, tracking their movements and keeping them under personal surveillance.

Let's go further back. Under the first CIA director (during Ike's administration): "The agency had set up clandestine prisons to wring confessions out of suspected double agents." Does that sound familiar? Except, even the Bush's aren't doing the following: "(The inmates) were among the first known human guinea pigs under a program code-named Artichoke ... a 15 year search by the CIA for ways to control the mind." (64-65).

In 1962, Kennedy told CIA director McCone to "set up a domestic task force to stop the flow of secrets from the government to the newspapers. The order violated the agency's charter. ... Long before Nixon had his "plumbers" unit of CIA veterans to stop news leaks, Kennedy used the agency to spy on Americans. (193).

And as has already been pointed out to you they weren't even necessarily all that different from W's in scale: running surveillance on 300,000 people is a small operation now, with modern tech. W's tapping operation appears to be much bigger, if you just count instances of surveilled conversation, than Johnson's.

So show me some numbers from Bush? Regardless, you're arguing degree here. Johnson was less guilty because he broke the laws less times. That's pretty shaky...

iceaura

08-06-07, 05:48 AM

I thought the Times article explained pretty well what they are. Did I or it go wrong some place? Neither you nor it know what they are. You can't. There are indications that the tapping was domstic as well as international, for example, and without a serious investigation there is no confidence otherwise.
I've attempted to put it into a context in the course of challenging your assertion that this is the worst illicit act by the intelligence communities against Americans. No. My assertion was that W's doings here amounted to (possibly) the worst crime committed by any President. That's different.
And as has already been pointed out to you they weren't even necessarily all that different from W's in scale: running surveillance on 300,000 people is a small operation now, with modern tech. W's tapping operation appears to be much bigger, if you just count instances of surveilled conversation, than Johnson's. ”

So show me some numbers from Bush? Regardless, you're arguing degree here. When editing quotes, honest people insert marks where they have removed material. The actual quote from me is this: And as has already been pointed out to you (in that other thread, contrary to your lying reference) they weren't even necessarily all that different from W's in scale: - - -
And I am asserting a difference in kind, not degree. There was no FISA law, and far more urgent cause, when Johnson ordered his surveillance. Johnson did not go before Congress and specifically deny breaking a Congressional law designed specifically to prevent what he was doing. AFAIK he did not specifically deny exactly what he was doing in speeches to the American people.

And this is just impossibly lame: Hayden came up with a plan to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists within the US without judicial warrants. It was arguably illegal but arguable justified on a theory of "hot pursuit." ... President Bush ordered him to execute the plan on Oct. 4, 2001. It had to be done, Hayden said. "I could not not do this." The FISA court and warrant setup was designed for exactly that: hot pursuit. There is no delay, not five minutes, in setting the tap. FISA warrants can be, and routinely are, obtained retroactively - the tapping agency had three days, the FISA judge is on duty 24/7, there was no reason of speed or flexibility to avoid obtaining a warrant.

So what was the real reason? The only problem with FISA warrants that I can see is that they leave a paper trail. This administration hates paper trails, transcripts, etc - to modest to take credit for all that anti-terrorism effort, I guess.

countezero

08-06-07, 11:23 AM

Neither you nor it know what they are. You can't. There are indications that the tapping was domstic as well as international, for example, and without a serious investigation there is no confidence otherwise.

If I don't know and the Times (who broke the story) don't know, then how do you know? Can you show us any proof about the "indications" you seem to know about? Or is this another one of your gut feelings confirmed by your secret flame? I'm sure you can tell us...

No. My assertion was that W's doings here amounted to (possibly) the worst crime committed by any President. That's different.

And I gave you three specific examples of where other presidents did similar — if not worse — offenses that show your assertion for the poppycock it is. You've chosen to ingore them or overlook them, probably because the context I'm giving makes your remarks look even more cock-eyed than usual. Anyway, in case you forgot, here they are again:

"Also, what Johnson did was totally different in one important aspect. He was actually spying on Americans, not just listening to phone calls going to and from international sources, but spying on them in person, tracking their movements and keeping them under personal surveillance. ... Let's go further back. Under the first CIA director (during Ike's administration): "The agency had set up clandestine prisons to wring confessions out of suspected double agents." Does that sound familiar? Except, even the Bush's aren't doing the following: "(The inmates) were among the first known human guinea pigs under a program code-named Artichoke ... a 15 year search by the CIA for ways to control the mind." (64-65). ... In 1962, Kennedy told CIA director McCone to "set up a domestic task force to stop the flow of secrets from the government to the newspapers. The order violated the agency's charter. ... Long before Nixon had his "plumbers" unit of CIA veterans to stop news leaks, Kennedy used the agency to spy on Americans. (193)."

To that, I will add the CIA/FBI program of openning every piece of international mail that entered this country, which ran for years and years.

When editing quotes, honest people insert marks where they have removed material.

Yes, I am so dishonest. Quick, find some rope and string me up, I didn't use ellipses.

Frankly, I'm sick of you impugning my honesty (based on nothing other than your obvious dislike for me and my failure to always agree with your self-conceived brilliance) and I'm not going to repeat your childish attacks on me. Sorry.

And I am asserting a difference in kind, not degree. There was no FISA law, and far more urgent cause, when Johnson ordered his surveillance.

If all you're asserting is legal stipulations, then your argument has little meat. All of the acts I detailed above were illegal when they were carried out, as I have pointed out to you at the time and time again. You also seem to be edging toward the Democratic camp, IE at first you're morally outraged at the offense of "spying on Americans," then it's just the illegality of it that bothers you. In other words, if there's a law saying it's OK, you're OK with it? That's not the view you put forward in other posts.

Johnson did not go before Congress and specifically deny breaking a Congressional law designed specifically to prevent what he was doing. AFAIK he did not specifically deny exactly what he was doing in speeches to the American people.

I don't know. I'd have to look into that. Johnson was never outted, that's for sure. If he was, being a politician, I'd wager he'd lie, too. But other American presidents have lied to the American Republic about ongoing intelligence operations. A brief summation would read like this: Ike lied about U-2 flights, Kennedy lied about attempts on Castro's life and the Bay of Pigs, Johnson lied (or at the very least misrepresented) American involvement in Laos and Cambodia and Reagan lied about Iran-Contra. Some perspective from you would be nice.

And this is just impossibly lame: The FISA court and warrant setup was designed for exactly that: hot pursuit. There is no delay, not five minutes, in setting the tap. FISA warrants can be, and routinely are, obtained retroactively - the tapping agency had three days, the FISA judge is on duty 24/7, there was no reason of speed or flexibility to avoid obtaining a warrant.

Tell it to Hayden. I didn't say it. He did.

All in all, I actually tend to agree with you about the warrantless wire-taps. Where we disagree is that I don't see this as a power grab by the Whitehouse (that's just a dumb assertion on your part) and that I don't see this as the most diabolical act in American history by a sitting president and the intelligence community, because it's not — not by a long shot.

iceaura

08-06-07, 04:02 PM

If I don't know and the Times (who broke the story) don't know, then how do you know? I don't, and never said I did. You said you knew, not me. But still you rant, and insult, and lie: you cannot post in reply to me without doing that. Why not put me on ignore, as you falsely claimed to have done twice now?
And I gave you three specific examples of where other presidents did similar — if not worse — offenses that show your assertion for the poppycock it is. You've chosen to ingore them or overlook them, I did not overlook, or ignore - I argued against, repeatedly and in some detail, and you cannot have failed to read those repeated posts directed to you. You lie, again, in other words. You have asked me to point these lies out to you, remember.
Frankly, I'm sick of you impugning my honesty (based on nothing other than your obvious dislike for me and my failure to always agree with your self-conceived brilliance) More insults, no content. I am impugning your honesty becuase you keep lying about what I've posted. If you get sick of being called on your repeated lies, unwarranted insults, and rants, maybe you will either quit them, or do what you twice promised and quit replying to me - you're just wasting bandwidth, as is.

This, for example, is the sum total of your actual replies to what I've posted here (insults, lying misrepresentations, rants, and irrelevancies subtracted): Where we disagree is that I don't see this as a power grab by the Whitehouse (that's just a dumb assertion on your part) and that I don't see this as the most diabolical act in American history by a sitting president and the intelligence community, because it's not — not by a long shot. Now I actually posted some argument and support for my "dumb assertion", which stands so far. And quite a bit more is available - the deliberate expansion of powers for the "unitary executive" has been an explicit policy of this administration. So - ?

superstring01

08-06-07, 04:07 PM

I don't, and never said I did. You said you knew, not me. But still you rant, and insult, and lie: you cannot post in reply to me without doing that. Why not put me on ignore, as you falsely claimed to have done twice now?

He has. I convinced him to take you off, both times. I wish it were for purely altruistic motives, but I did so due to the fact that I enjoy your repartee more than anything else out there.

The net result is the same, and your asertion that he lied is very much untrue.

~String

iceaura

08-06-07, 04:28 PM

He has. I convinced him to take you off, both times. I wish it were for purely altruistic motives, but I did so due to the fact that I enjoy your repartee more than anything else out there. Sorry to hear that. I don't, and if that's what's involved in this waste of pixels other options will have to be explored.
The net result is the same, and your asertion that he lied is very much untrue. Hmmmm. I don't see where suborned promise breaking is any less false than ordinary.

superstring01

08-06-07, 09:14 PM

Sorry to hear that. I don't, and if that's what's involved in this waste of pixels other options will have to be explored.
Hmmmm. I don't see where suborned promise breaking is any less false than ordinary.

From as much of an unbiased oppinion as I can muster (I will admit to being pals with Counte for the sake of honesty), I think you've been caught obfuscating on more than one occasion. Your denial of that fact, convenient avoidance of Counte's substantiated points, and vociferous accusation of Counte's impropriety does not necessarily alter that reality.

~String

iceaura

08-06-07, 10:21 PM

From as much of an unbiased oppinion as I can muster (I will admit to being pals with Counte for the sake of honesty), I think you've been caught obfuscating on more than one occasion. Nope. I mean haven't been caught.

Unless you can substantiate?
convenient avoidance of Counte's substantiated points, None of the relevant ones. Substantiating irrelevancies, while blowing off the sense of the argument, has been one of his stunts. This very thread exemplary.
vociferous accusation of Counte's impropriety I got fed up. He can't deal honestly, and I am going to call him on it, and keep calling him on it, as may be convenient for me. You will note the specific examples, substantiated on the spot, right here in this thread - not general accusations, not sandbagging threads later, eh? It isn't much work, for me.

So don't bother with the cute shit about "entertaining", and let the man put me on ignore. Because this is apt to get very old, very repetitive, very thorough, and very dull, thread by thread, otherwise.

Now: the assertion is that this administration's deliberate defiance and felony viiolation of explicit and specific Congressional law in secret, continued in public even after exposure without curb, in matters which bear directly on secret police abuses typical of coups and the like in near places and recent times, without even faux justification in real emergency, in the context of an explicit "unitary executive" policy of expanding executive power and elimination of oversight advanced also in many other areas, in the context of a fascistic and insular cabal of loyalists monopolizing executive power without taking actual roles in governance, and in several of these attributes unique in American history, constitutes on some reasonable scale of evaluation the worst crime ever committed by an American president.

superstring01

08-06-07, 10:29 PM

Now: the assertion is that this administration's deliberate defiance and felony viiolation of explicit and specific Congressional law in secret, continued in public even after exposure without curb, in matters which bear directly on secret police abuses typical of coups and the like in near places and recent times, without even faux justification in real emergency, in the context of an explicit "unitary executive" policy of expanding executive power and elimination of oversight advanced also in many other areas, in the context of a fascistic and insular cabal of loyalists monopolizing executive power without taking actual roles in governance, and in several of these attributes unique in American history, constitutes on some reasonable scale of evaluation the worst crime ever committed by an American president.

That was the most majestic run-on that I've ever read.

~String

countezero

08-07-07, 03:21 PM

I don't, and never said I did.

Bullshit. You said: "There are indications that the tapping was domstic as well as international, for example, and without a serious investigation there is no confidence otherwise."

That's an assumptiont. You're free to believe that assumption if you want to, but I ask the question again, how can you expect me to believe it if — again, according to you — nobody is capable of understanding what really happened right now? It looks and sounds like you've already made up your mind, in absence of any reasons for doing so...

You said you knew, not me.

Bullshit. You said I did not know and the Times did not know. Prior to that, I wrote, "I thought the Times article explained pretty well what they are. Did I or it go wrong some place?" I also followed this up with a quotation from Legacy of Ashes that discussed the program. That's two sources. You have none. And for somebody who drones on and on about reading comprehension, you seem to have trouble following my various arrangements of words and discerning their meaning...

I did not overlook, or ignore - I argued against, repeatedly and in some detail, and you cannot have failed to read those repeated posts directed to you.

You made an argumen that LBJ didn't break the law because FISA wasn't around at the time. I've pointed out numerous time that he, the CIA and the NSA did break the law, regardless of the lack of FISA. You've either ignored that or attempted to dismiss it with rationalizations about LBJ being threatened by war and civil unrest and having national security concerns, all of which are things the most dedicated Bushie could say. The law is the law. LBJ broke it, just as all the other people I listed did. You haven't even discussed them.

Now I actually posted some argument and support for my "dumb assertion", which stands so far.

That's laughable. Your argument might stand in the universe you occupy by yourself, but it's been supported by nothing here but your subjective judgments. And this might surprise you, because I know deep down you think you're the smartest guy in every room, but other people don't have to agree with you and other people aren't always wrong when they choose not to agree with you...

And quite a bit more is available - the deliberate expansion of powers for the "unitary executive" has been an explicit policy of this administration. So - ?

I'm not arguing that's not the case. All I am saying is that other presidents have done the same or more. Bush hasn't authorized the CIA to conduct secret wars, or topple regimes or knock-off any world leaders, which plenty of other presidents did in places like Idonesia, Cambodia, Iran, Cuba, etc...

superstring01

08-07-07, 07:46 PM

Nope. I mean haven't been caught.

Unless you can substantiate?

I have no need to. I'm not arguing a case of law, I'm expressing an opinion and although I know it won't adjust your opinion of me or of yourself, I am comforted by the humorous knowledge that you are so totally cemented in your closed ideologies that even if a new and contrasting idea were to bite you in your liberal ass, you'd reject it out of hand. You so god damned sure of what you know that you cease opening that little box you've built around yourself to let any light in and expose you to something new.

I have yet to see you admit a correction when one is pointed out to you, I can remember any number of occasions where Counte as admitted to a mistake. And while I can't possibly know everything you've typed, I'm pretty sure from the sampling that I've seen that you don't even posses the simple capability of saying, "Hey! Thanks for teaching me something new." You're an ideologue, and the problem with ideologues is that they stop seeking the truth, no matter what it is, and only seek a truth that seeks to reaffirm their worldview.

Could I be the same thing? Could Counte? Sure-- but I can admit this: your rantings alone have opened my eyes to many things worthy of further investigation-- things that stood in contrast to a previously held maxim. But a maxim, I have realized, should never be so immovable that it ceases to serve a truly agnostic purpose.

I got fed up. He can't deal honestly, and I am going to call him on it, and keep calling him on it, as may be convenient for me. You will note the specific examples, substantiated on the spot, right here in this thread - not general accusations, not sandbagging threads later, eh? It isn't much work, for me.

I see you do the same thing. The only difference is, you refuse to admit it. Numerous relevant facts have been posited before you and you've slyly avoided further comment and have, instead, moved on to other more savory points for which you have better and more detailed information to offer.

So don't bother with the cute shit about "entertaining", and let the man put me on ignore. Because this is apt to get very old, very repetitive, very thorough, and very dull, thread by thread, otherwise.

No. I find it entertaining. I also am enjoying your little tantrum here. In keeping with your passionate liberal mentality, you resort to vitriol when the gears stop to function in a way that furthers your desires. There's nothing "cute" about it or your constant flow of piss & vinegar. You've more than met your match with Counte, and out of childish frustration you've thrown a liberal tantrum and begun slinging mud in the hopes that you can sully Counte's "SciForums" rep, thus winning your ego points in the eyes of our members. You've become querulous in the absence of actual real tactics and as you put it, "...this is apt to get very old, very repetitive, very thorough, and very dull..."

...in matters which bear directly on secret police abuses typical of coups and the like in near places and recent times, without even faux justification in real emergency

Similar to coups, eh? Care to back that up with hard evidence? Name one American citizen outside of John Walker Lindh (who, BTW received a Federal trial with all the representation he could ever desire) who has been arrested and imprisoned a la "secret police typical of coups"? Spare me the rant and the supposition and the extrapolation of what may or may not happen: provide names & dates.

constitutes on some reasonable scale of evaluation the worst crime ever committed by an American president.

Without demonstrating some actual damage done to specific citizens (other than your hurt feelings), you're going to have a tough time there.

Again. There is no way I can defend Bush as a good president. He sucks and there are obviously better people for the job. But being a failure on most fronts doesn't make him the tyrant you paint him to be.

~String

Tiassa

08-07-07, 08:53 PM

That was the most majestic run-on that I've ever read.

How does it stack up against English translations of Don Quixote, or perhaps the opening sentence of Mailer's Harlot's Ghost?

iceaura

08-07-07, 10:10 PM

=count] Bullshit. You said: "There are indications that the tapping was domstic as well as international, for example, and without a serious investigation there is no confidence otherwise."

That's an assumptiont. No, it isn't. It's an observation. Look up "assumption" in the dictionary. You made an argumen that LBJ didn't break the law because FISA wasn't around at the time. I made no argument that LBJ didn't break the law of the time. I argued that W broke more, and more specific, explicit, directly indicative, laws of this time, with worse motives and with less excuse. The difference is one of kind.
You said you knew, not me. ”

Bullshit. You said I did not know and the Times did not know. ? You said you knew, I pointed out that you didn't. Neither of your sources has any way of knowing what you claim they have told you, and you have no reason to take even the assertions you allege for them as granted.
All I am saying is that other presidents have done the same or more. Bush hasn't authorized the CIA to conduct secret wars, or topple regimes or knock-off any world leaders, which plenty of other presidents did in places like Idonesia, Cambodia, Iran, Cuba, etc... I pointed out that other presidents have not done the same - with the example of FISA, the context of post Vietnam and Iran Contra governance, the difference in kind of the lies to Congress, etc - and that "more" is beside the point. My entire argument is that this marks a difference of kind, not degree. Your counterexamples of degree, not kind, do not answer. .

(And they are shaky: there is some kind of crap going on in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Colombia, Venezuela, Uzbekistan and environs, et al, after all).

I see you do the same thing. The only difference is, you refuse to admit it. Barring a single example being provided, as has not been so far by either of you, I'm just going to call bullshit. On that and your whole little essay. I didn't start the shitflinging, the insults, the ranting, the lying, or the bogus misparaphrasing of simple English prose the two of you have made into some kind of style, and I'm a long way from being the most arrogant person involved here - or even the one most in tantrum mode. My sweet, reasonable side is easily tapped - just don't lead off your first and every reply with namecalling, insults, and lying misrepresentations of my posts, with the apparent goal of diverting whole arguments to discussion of my faults and character in general. Don't waste the time.
Without demonstrating some actual damage done to specific citizens (other than your hurt feelings), you're going to have a tough time there. Sigh. Very slowly now: harm done has not been established, and is not part of the argument. It is irrelevant. Does not matter. I think it wildly improbable that no harm has been done, but even in that odd and very lucky case my assertion is supported by exactly the supports offered so far.

Damage done by LBJ is irrelevant. The lack of proof of damage done by W in this particular arena is irrelevant. None of that matters, to this argument. How many times do I have to repeat that? If you want to start some other argument, compare presidents on some other scale, have at it - but don't drag me into it, here, on this. OK?
I have yet to see you admit a correction when one is pointed out to you, By whom? You and Count haven't managed that yet. Tiassa has, Andre has, SAM has, it doesn't appear to be all that difficult for some - but you would have to read what I post, and not substitute in paraphrase what I'm supposed to have meant according to an apparently quite juvenile set of stereotypes ("liberal ?")

Still entertained?

Look at the very first lines of this post. What is the problem there? Is it that Count doesn't know what an assumption is? Unlikely. So why am I assigned assumptions not otherwise visible ? Because you two jackasses are obsessed with character and personality and who's more arrogant than whom, and the actual meaning of what I post just blows on by, replaced with what would best fit a character you have invented.

superstring01

08-07-07, 10:56 PM

Barring a single example being provided, as has not been so far by either of you, I'm just going to call bullshit. On that and your whole little essay. I didn't start the shitflinging, the insults, the ranting, the lying, or the bogus misparaphrasing of simple English prose the two of you have made into some kind of style, and I'm a long way from being the most arrogant person involved here - or even the one most in tantrum mode. My sweet, reasonable side is easily tapped - just don't lead off your first and every reply with namecalling, insults, and lying misrepresentations of my posts, with the apparent goal of diverting whole arguments to discussion of my faults and character in general. Don't waste the time.

First off, if you can point on where in this thread there was name calling and insults I'd like to see them. I re-read this entire thread and I can find no place where you were called names. It's wholly appropriate to call a person's objectivity and intellectual ability into play, it is not, however, acceptable to call people jackasses because they happen to disagree with you, your style and your smug attitude. You may think us/me smug, and you are allowed to say as much, where and when it applies.

You are hardly a stranger to insults, misrepresentation and avoidance of counterpoints.

Sigh. Very slowly now:

And yet you whine about other people's attitudes toward you? Gimme a break. So you don't like the fact that I think you're full of shit. So you don't like the fact that I don't buy one ounce of what you say and so you can't stand the fact that I'm asking you questions outside your argument, then guess what, if they can't stand up to scrutiny you dislike or object to, then they aren't valid at all. Do you think that I'm the only person (say, in the court of public opinion or on a real court of law) that's going to ask you these same questions?

harm done has not been established, and is not part of the argument. It is irrelevant. Does not matter. I think it wildly improbable that no harm has been done, but even in that odd and very lucky case my assertion is supported by exactly the supports offered so far.

Then, pray tell, how do you even have an argument if "no harm has been done"?

Damage done by LBJ is irrelevant. The lack of proof of damage done by W in this particular arena is irrelevant. None of that matters, to this argument. How many times do I have to repeat that? If you want to start some other argument, compare presidents on some other scale, have at it - but don't drag me into it, here, on this. OK?

Your' own statements (and, again, I've re-read them all) were: " No more serious crime has been committed by an American president - probably not even this one."

"The main problem with this administration is that it pays little attention to FISA regulations anyway - so this law, in the absence of oversight and so forth, is unenforceable."

Which again is speculation. Though the president has petitioned for looser FISA restrictions (and gotten them-- where, again, I see no harm), I have found zero hard evidence that he has engaged in domestic spying or the sake of spying (say, for political reasons) or any of the claims you make. In every case your assertions are based upon unsupported reports and claims made by unnamed insiders. How is that proof?

By whom? You and Count haven't managed that yet.

Oh... how about your bogus claim: "The CIA does not even have to submit a budget to Congress - something the Constitution would normally be thought to require." Which, it clearly does, but does so in secret, which IS kept in the Congressional Journal, but isn't released to the whole of the Senate or House of Representatives-- something that the Constitution allows. (a) you were totally wrong in your statement (a lie? an omission? an error? you pick) and (b) when provided the information contrary to your point you (as usual), avoided that point, failed to mention it and/or offer me a correction (which, obviously, you can't because you were wrong). You wonder why you are questioned as such? Look a little closer to home.

and not substitute in paraphrase what I'm supposed to have meant according to an apparently quite juvenile set of stereotypes ("liberal ?")

I forgot, you've judged the American terms "liberal" "leftist" "right wing" and "conservative" to be immature and unacceptable. I'm glad we have you to govern these terms for us. But again, that's outside the argument at hand. For the sake of the discussion--and you may hate this-- you're a liberal and, FINE, I'm a nasty conservative.

Still entertained?

More so than ever.

Because you two jackasses are obsessed with character and personality and who's more arrogant than whom, and the actual meaning of what I post just blows on by, replaced with what would best fit a character you have invented.

Sigh. Again, after re-reading all my posts, I can see none where I called you names and insulted you for the sake of insult. I've re-read Counte's posts and have found none that sit outside what is acceptable (to say, "man, you are misrepresenting the truth" Or "you clueless as to the facts..." is acceptable within the course of argument, but in your erudite style of debate, you (as I earlier pointed out) resort to name calling. [I]Maybe if you swear this time around it'll make you look good.

Sorry. Since it was directed at me, and since I really don't care (and am well aware that you won't either) I won't bother with the whole "I'm gonna issue you infractions" thing-- because I think you realize the childishness of the statement. But, if you have a beef and feel the need to swear at me, put it in a PM. Otherwise, leave the name calling out of the forum.

~String

countezero

08-08-07, 12:04 AM

No, it isn't. It's an observation. Look up "assumption" in the dictionary.

My dictionary says it's a statement "accepted as true without proof." To repeat (again), you said: "There are indications that the tapping was domestic as well as international, for example, and without a serious investigation there is no confidence otherwise." It would be an observation if you had proof. You've been asked to show proof of this two or three times now, and you haven't. Therefore, you're assuming to believe something you have no proof of, which is fine. Just don't ask others to go down that path with you.

I made no argument that LBJ didn't break the law of the time.

In another thread, you wrote this: "Johnson was before FISA, acting when the legal loophole allegedly existed. Granted it was always dishonest, but after FISA it is also defiant in a new and different way."

There was no "legal loophole." The CIA and the NSA charters prevent them from spying on Americans. So by ordering the CIA and the NSA to spy on Americans Johnson was breaking the law.

I argued that W broke more, and more specific, explicit, directly indicative, laws of this time, with worse motives and with less excuse. The difference is one of kind.

I fail to see how is one law is any more or less specific than another. Both are laws and should be obeyed. You can talk about the seriousness of the laws, but their relative explicitly hardly seems worthy of consideration.

The "worse motives" and "less excuse" is a crock, though. Bush, like Johnson before him, has expressed that he feels there is a clear and present danger facing the U.S. The difference is now that threat is through international terrorists. So pretending like Bush did this because he's a power-hungry despot is just flat out wrong, in my opinion. You've also failed to address the post that attributes the entire idea for the wiretapping program came from former NSA director Gen. Hayden, not Bush.

You said you knew, I pointed out that you didn't. Neither of your sources has any way of knowing what you claim they have told you.

No, I didn't. I pointed to a story I read and you accused me and it of not knowing everything about the wiretaps. I never said I did. All I know is what I've read. I'm not clairvoyant. If you know more, produce something compelling that will educate me. Otherwise, quit playing these word games.

you have no reason to take even the assertions you allege for them as granted.

I find the sources credible, whereas you've produced nothing other than your bias and your inclinations that refutes them. The Times broke the wiretapping story, so it stands to reason they have good enough sources to successfully follow the story and explain its inner-workings to people. The Legacy of Ashes book is based on tens of thousands of declassified documents and thousands of hours of personal interviews, all of which are footnoted in detail. If you like, I can dig up the footnotes for the material you question and pass them on...

I pointed out that other presidents have not done the same - with the example of FISA, the context of post Vietnam and Iran Contra governance, the difference in kind of the lies to Congress, etc - and that "more" is beside the point.

You're factually correct. No president after FISA was passed, so far as I know, turned the American intelligence apparatus on Americans. However, I do not think that was not your original claim in this and other threads. Per my reckoning, you've made outrageous claims that: "No more serious crime has been committed by an American president - probably not even this one." I think that opens to context up to the entire history of American intelligence, and if it does, Bush clearly isn't the worst, in my opinion...

(And they are shaky: there is some kind of crap going on in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Colombia, Venezuela, Uzbekistan and environs, et al, after all).

Like what?

Barring a single example being provided, as has not been so far by either of you, I'm just going to call bullshit.

Well, that's mature of you (and inaccurate). I've cited two primary sources in this thread. You've cited none.

You and Count haven't managed that yet.

Actually, I have. I recently pulled posts when you and Sam pointed out to me that I had been insulting (and I had). I recently apologized and corrected myself in a thread started by Ganymede after he corrected an oversight of his. I apologized once to Diamondhearts for misrepresenting a remark of his. In the John Edwards thread, where I have attracted the ire of Tiassa, I apologized for posting a statement I later discovered was an error by me, based on my abbreviated reading and my failure to understand something clearly.

Despite what you think or what you try to portray me as, I believe in honesty and fair play. Both are requirements in my job every day. And I try to bring the same diligence I exercise at work to my off-the-cuff debates here. If I fail to do that occasionally, it is not from desire or a lack of trying. Nor is it from deficiency of character.

pjdude1219

08-08-07, 12:20 AM

iceaura

08-08-07, 12:46 AM

! OK, I see that I do owe you guys an apology.

I had come to the conclusion that count, first, and now string, second, were pulling my chain deliberately - that your pretended "misunderstandings" and absurd paraphrases were intentional. I thought bad things about you, because of that.

Based on the two most recent posts, I see I was wrong. You are completely sincere. My anger has proven to be baseless, I am sorry about it and embarrassed, and I will not call you any more names or accuse you of lying.

I do think it would be better if you put me on ignore, however. Really. And I'm sure others here would agree.

superstring01

08-08-07, 12:52 AM

Well I can't put you on ignore... I'm a mod.

And though I sense a "it's-not-their-fault, they're-just-stupid-and-I'm-not-arguing-with-stupid" sort of tone, I'll take you at your word and just exit this conversation.

Also, there is no misunderstanding, there is however a disconnect between the percieved nubbin of the matter. If that can't be settled, then there is no reason for debate.

~String

countezero

08-08-07, 12:37 PM

An interesting letter I came across on a blog from US Rep. Hoekstra:

Mr. Bill Keller
Executive Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Dear Mr. Keller:

It has been my practice not to deal with the New York Times after its recklessness in repeatedly disclosing highly classified intelligence programs to enemies who seek to attack our nation and because of what I believe was a lack of honesty and integrity in its dealings with me as Chairman of the Committee at that time.

However, I believe that your editorial this morning “The Fear of Fear Itself”, and an article that ran yesterday purporting to describe legislation to clarify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) I supported in the House of Representatives to address an urgent intelligence gap so mislead the American people as to require urgent correction. The only real basis for “fear” here is the scare tactics being perpetuated by the Times, which has knowingly and willfully misrepresented the new law to scare the American people.

Before moving to a point-by-point rebuttal based on the actual text of the new law, extensive experience with FISA, and knowledge of the actual facts at issue not available to the Times, I would like to also address two broader points. First, the legislation was intended to address significant and substantial intelligence gaps that have arisen at a time of enhanced threat of terrorist attack on the United States. The need for the bill was urgent and obvious. DNI McConnell repeatedly emphasized that “we are missing a significant portion of what we should be getting” to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Bipartisan recognition of the need for this bill is why it passed both the House and the Senate so quickly.

And the recently released key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate clearly emphasized that the United States is in a time of enhanced threat from Al Qaeda, which still is planning “high-impact plots” “likely to continue to focus on prominent political, economic, and infrastructure targets with the goal of producing mass casualties.” Had we not passed this law and an attack not been prevented, I’m sure that the New York Times would have been first in line to criticize the failure to “collect the dots”, much less to “connect the dots”.

Second, it is unfortunate that you so completely disregard the professional judgments of DNI McConnell, other Intelligence Community professionals, and even indications from judges of the FISA Court itself that this legislation was urgently needed to close intelligence gaps and better focus the FISA process on protecting the civil liberties of Americans instead of radical jihadists overseas. Director McConnell – who served as NSA Director under President Clinton – deserves praise for repeatedly emphasizing that FISA reforms must balance intelligence speed with the civil liberties of Americans. His personal involvement and guidance of this process at every step were critical to making it happen, and he deserves PRAISE for his effectiveness and professionalism instead of ugly personal attacks. There is no evidence whatsoever that any alleged “agreement” was reached with congressional Democrats, and there is no cause to smear Admiral McConnell based on hearsay.

Below, I have corrected a number of specific misstatements and exaggerations in your August 6 article and in this morning’s editorial. Any of them should have been readily apparent from a cursory look at the text of the law itself, but unfortunately your newspaper chose fearmongering over what “might” be happening rather than the facts and what the law actually says.

Article

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists.”

o Facts: FISA is an extremely complex statute that is difficult enough to understand and apply even when it is not being deliberately distorted. Unfortunately, instead of reading the law, the New York Times chose to make up new assertions wholly unsupported by the facts. This did a disservice to our intelligence professionals who are attempting to keep America – especially prominent targets such as New York – safe.

o The new law plainly and expressly provides that surveillance must be “directed at” (targeted to) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. Under well-established FISA practice and precedent, this only permits surveillance of foreign targets on foreign soil, not Americans on American soil. The Intelligence Community must develop procedures to ensure this is the case, and those procedures must be reviewed by the FISA Court.

o Any surveillance targeting Americans in the United States would still require an individual warrant from the FISA court, and any incidental collection of the communications of U.S. persons would still be subject to extensive minimization procedures. The bill expressly requires such minimization procedures to be imposed on any surveillance conducted under the new law, and those procedures must also be reviewed by the FISA court,

o Congresswoman Wilson expressly clarified in the Congressional Record that so-called “reverse-targeting” of the communications of Americans is intended to be illegal under this bill. Director McConnell also repeatedly has stated his intent in congressional briefings to seek an individualized order of the FISA Court to target any communication of an American.

o Judges of the FISA Court itself have also clearly expressed frustration with the fact that so much of their docket is consumed by applications that focus on foreign targets and involve minimal privacy interest of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act … that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.”

o Facts: The Attorney General has publicly disclosed that the activities previously conducted under the Terrorist Surveillance Program described by the President were moved completely under FISA. The new law applies only to surveillance targeted at foreign persons, and a FISA order would continue to be necessary for surveillance targeted at Americans. The current FISA structure can handle these applications with speed and agility.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “[A] still-classified ruling earlier this year … which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.”

o Facts: It’s not necessary to address or discuss any alleged court opinion to demonstrate that this assertion is false. The FISA modernization legislation passed by the House in the 109th Congress – well before the alleged opinion – attempted to address and close the FISA loophole for foreign terrorists.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “[T]he court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted.”

o Facts: This is a false and selective characterization of the plain provisions of the law. Third parties who are asked to assist the intelligence community under the law may challenge the legality of any directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court.

Editorial

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “[T]oo scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution.”

o Facts: Even without addressing the obvious fact that radical jihadists in foreign countries are not entitled to privacy rights under the Constitution relating to foreign intelligence collection, courts that have addressed the issue to date have made clear they believe that the type of surveillance contemplated by the bill is fully consistent with the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “They gave the Director of National Intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept – without warrant, court supervision or accountability – any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a ‘reasonable belief’ that one party is not in the United States.”

o Facts: This assertion is false under the express terms of the statute. The law clearly requires that the surveillance be “directed at” (meaning targeted to) persons outside the United States, and that procedures be in place and reviewed by the FISA Court to ensure that surveillance concerns persons outside the United States. In addition, the law requires minimization procedures reviewed by the FISA Court to be in place to deal with incidental collection of communications of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States.”

o Facts: If this were the case, the FISA Court would be virtually shut down. We still expect the Court to be conducting a significant and appropriate volume of work to protect the privacy interests of Americans, as it has and as it should.

Protecting America at a time of increased threat continues to pose great challenges for our Intelligence Community and our professionals. It is unfortunate that you choose to compound those difficulties with further politicization, fear-mongering, and the suggestion that we simply dismiss the increased threats to American citizens at home and abroad.

Sincerely,

Peter Hoekstra
Ranking Republican

madanthonywayne

08-08-07, 03:28 PM

I do think it would be better if you put me on ignore, however. Really. And I'm sure others here would agree.
Why not put me on ignore, as you falsely claimed to have done twice now?
I've never seen anyone beg to be put on ignore before, and you've done it twice in one thread! Genji likes to threaten to put people on his ignore list, but you're the only one telling others to ignore you.

Why don't you just put them on ignore? Why put the onus on them, when you seem to be the one with the problem.

superstring01

08-08-07, 04:46 PM

I've never seen anyone beg to be put on ignore before, and you've done it twice in one thread! Genji likes to threaten to put people on his ignore list, but you're the only one telling others to ignore you.

Why don't you just put them on ignore? Why put the onus on them, when you seem to be the one with the problem.

The thought is appreciated Mad... but I'm afraid this whole thing is over. Now... the topic at hand...

~String

iceaura

08-08-07, 05:04 PM

Why don't you just put them on ignore? Why put the onus on them, when you seem to be the one with the problem. My problem is their responses to me. Their problem is my responses to everything. The "ignore" button is more efficient in solving their problem.

Which brings up a possibility: an "ignore poster" feature that only applies to responses to one's own posts - tagged by quote, say. Seems doable, no?

Meanwhile: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/458304,aclu070607.article

So we see that unless you can prove you personally were spied on illegally, you cannot sue over the effects of five years of illegal spying on your life. Lack of warrants solves the problem of inconvenient lawsuits, as well as criminal matters !

No wonder governments have always coveted the powers of warrantless search and seizure. It pulls the teeth of civil, as well as criminal, regulatory law.

The benefits of not keeping obtainable records of certain kinds of behavior have long been recognized by organized criminals, and are no mystery to the victims of these behaviors https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52 , https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

Pandaemoni

08-08-07, 05:22 PM

So we see that unless you can prove you personally were spied on illegally, you cannot sue over the effects of five years of illegal spying on your life. Lack of warrants solves the problem of inconvenient lawsuits, as well as criminal matters !

No wonder governments have always coveted the powers of warrantless search and seizure. It pulls the teeth of civil, as well as criminal, regulatory law.

The benefits of not keeping obtainable records of certain kinds of behavior have long been recognized by organized criminals, and are no mystery to the victims of these behaviors https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52 , https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52

What you seem to be missing is that courts will have the ability to review the procedures used to exclude you and minimize your communications from surveillance, albeit months after the fact and without looking at your case in particular.

The system is so foolproof, you wonder why the framers got it so wrong in requiring "warrants" and "judicial oversight" in the first place. All you need is secret judges in secret proceedings reviewing the procedures the police used to investigate you...not pre-search warrants, individually tailored for each partricular suspect and circumstance. After all, domestic murderers kill more Americans on average than terrorists (even in 2001 (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel02/cius2001.htm), taken alone).

I want protection, not "rights!"

countezero

08-08-07, 05:41 PM

Their problem is my responses to everything.

Ice, I want you to know genuinely appreciate your earlier apology. The matter's over, so far as I am concerned. However, I don't think you should put words in my mouth. I have no problem with your responses, in fact I enjoy the mental jousting they provoke, so long as they don't contain crude attempts to label me with clumsy monikers such as "liar." People who disagree with you aren't liars.

So we see that unless you can prove you personally were spied on illegally, you cannot sue over the effects of five years of illegal spying on your life. Lack of warrants solves the problem of inconvenient lawsuits, as well as criminal matters!

The above is a perfect example of your subjective judgments. Such judgments are fine, but others can reach different conclusions.

For example, "U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance and therefore do not have standing for their claims." In other words, a person could conclude that the ACLU filed a lawsuit with no legal standing, because they could not point to specific examples of FISA violations. One could argue they were fishing...

Sock puppet path

08-08-07, 06:15 PM

Read "the traveller" by John Twelve Hawks :cool:

We're doomed I tells ya doomed!

madanthonywayne

08-08-07, 06:29 PM

Meanwhile: http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/458304,aclu070607.article

So we see that unless you can prove you personally were spied on illegally, you cannot sue over the effects of five years of illegal spying on your life.

One is always required to show damages in a lawsuit. You must have standing, a cause of action. You can't just sue because you don't like a law. This is nothing new and is not specific to this situation. It's true of any lawsuit.

iceaura

08-08-07, 07:10 PM

So we see that unless you can prove you personally were spied on illegally, you cannot sue over the effects of five years of illegal spying on your life. Lack of warrants solves the problem of inconvenient lawsuits, as well as criminal matters! ”

The above is a perfect example of your subjective judgments. Such judgments are fine, but others can reach different conclusions.

For example, "U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, one of the two Republican appointees who ruled against the plaintiffs, said they failed to show they were subject to the surveillance and therefore do not have standing for their claims." I am happy to see that I, the judge, and apparently you have all reached the same "subjective" conclusion.

One is always required to show damages in a lawsuit. You must have standing, a cause of action And of course you can't have suffered damages from illgal spying unless you were personally spied on, because two Republican judges say so, leaving as the first thing you have to show: that you were personally spied on.

Hence the value of avoiding warrants - without a paper trail, the courts don't need to worry about a lot of these bogus ACLU lawsuits having any standing.

Pandaemoni

08-08-07, 07:32 PM

One is always required to show damages in a lawsuit. You must have standing, a cause of action. You can't just sue because you don't like a law. This is nothing new and is not specific to this situation. It's true of any lawsuit.

The real question is, what sort of "discovery" of this top secret spying program. You have to initiate the suit before you can do the legal discovery...and I wonder whether or not the government really would say "Yep, we've been tapping your phone and here's the records," as opposed to refusing to cooperate on national security grounds.

If you sue an employer for racial discrimination, you don't have to know for a fact that you were the victim of discrimination at the time you file suit. You can just have some reasonable basis to suspect it (and you have to allege injury in fact). Then your employer is forced to disgorge the evidence of why they treated you the way they did. In order to prevail in the suit, though, you'd have to prove damages. (Though that being stated, "damages" can sometimes be a mere expectation too. If Congress passed a law stating that "For his many heinous crimes, the national shall seek out this 'pandaemoni' and kill him" I don't have to wait until I am dead or injured to file a suit enjoining that law. That fact that it calls for my death, and thus creates a credible and imminent threat to me (plus the fact that it's a wildly unconstitutional bill of attainder) would be enough to satisfy the "injury in fact" requirement for a facial challenge (not to mention an injunction).

The problem here is that the injury does need to be credible and non-conjectural, but how do you establish that without discovery when the government simply refuses to acknowledge whether you were under surveillance? You have no constitutional right to discovery, but without it one can imagine all sorts of constitutional rights the government can violate with impugnity.

The solution for that problem is usually "checks and balances" from the other branches, but the whole point of the new law is that those are too slow and cumbersome to be practical if the goal is law enforcement. If the goal were "the preservation of liberty" it's hard to imagine any part of the system functioning well for very long without them, unless that part is being run by saints.

countezero

08-08-07, 10:10 PM

I am happy to see that I, the judge, and apparently you have all reached the same "subjective" conclusion.

You left out the part where I talked legal standing (a very specific term with a very specific meanings) and "fishing." The different conclusions I was referring to are your remarks about the damages and suffering, which the two judges do seem concerned about.

And of course you can't have suffered damages from illgal spying unless you were personally spied on, because two Republican judges say so, leaving as the first thing you have to show: that you were personally spied on.

I think that's reasonable. If I haven't been spied on or can't show reasonable proof that I think I may have been spied on, then what is the legal basis of the suit? That it affects me that other people have been spied on? If that is all that is required for standing, I could sue whenever anyone's rights are violated...

Hence the value of avoiding warrants - without a paper trail, the courts don't need to worry about a lot of these bogus ACLU lawsuits having any standing.

I'm not sure you've prove it's in government's interests to avoid warrants. The warrants here are secret. Why should they avoid collecting them? I doubt the media or anyone else could ever get their hands on them...

madanthonywayne

08-08-07, 11:28 PM

If you sue an employer for racial discrimination, you don't have to know for a fact that you were the victim of discrimination at the time you file suit. You can just have some reasonable basis to suspect it

The problem here is that the injury does need to be credible and non-conjectural, but how do you establish that without discovery when the government simply refuses to acknowledge whether you were under surveillance?
What reasonable basis could your average citizen possibly have to think the government was spying on them?

Buffalo Roam

08-09-07, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Pandaemoni
If you sue an employer for racial discrimination, you don't have to know for a fact that you were the victim of discrimination at the time you file suit. You can just have some reasonable basis to suspect it

The problem here is that the injury does need to be credible and non-conjectural, but how do you establish that without discovery when the government simply refuses to acknowledge whether you were under surveillance?

Go ahead and try to file a suit under those parameters, you won't get a lawyer to take that suite with out you having a lot of money to pay up front, which in lawyer speak, means you don't have a cause or a case. You can file any thing you want as a suite, but it has to be accepted in court and unless you can show cause, (and your reasonable belief is not cause), the Judge will just throw it out.

Pandaemoni

08-09-07, 10:33 AM

Go ahead and try to file a suit under those parameters, you won't get a lawyer to take that suite with out you having a lot of money to pay up front, which in lawyer speak, means you don't have a cause or a case. You can file any thing you want as a suite, but it has to be accepted in court and unless you can show cause, (and your reasonable belief is not cause), the Judge will just throw it out.

I have to say that I believe you are wrong. In order to kick a person out of court for lack of standing due to a lack of an "injury in fact" a court must accept that the allegations of the plaintiff as set forth in the complaint are true. That the allegations might be false is a question of fact to be proven at trial (and falls within the purview of a jury in most cases, not the judge). As long as you allege an injury in fact, you generally survive the dismissal.

The only caveats are that (i) if the judge decides that there is no way you could ever prove your allegations at trial to the evidentiary standard required, then he or she has the right to disregard them for purposes of the standing analysis and (ii) the allegation that you fear some non-imminent future harm is not sufficient, even if reasonable (though to some extent this is a specific example of (i)...as you won't be able to prove the existence of a harm that may or may not occur well into the future). As a result, in addition to the bare allegation of injury, you also have to allege facts sufficient to convince the judge that you have some reasonable shot at proving the injury (and connecting the injury to the defendant's actions) to the finder of fact.

If you allege that the government is invading your privacy, but there is no chance that you will ever be able to prove it to a jury—even if the lack of proof arises from the government claiming a privilege to prevent discovery—you're out of luck.

I do agree that—what with the secret determinations, secret wiretaps, and no court oversight of the particular wiretaps (and no public records of court oversight even if the courts were actively involved)—it will be hard for the plaintiffs in this case to come up with sufficient supporting allegations...but it only takes one person who stumbles upon that proof accidentally to form the basis of a class for a class action suit (you don't have to prove standing for every member of the class).

Also, contrary to your assertion, even if that one guy's evidence is flimsy, and he's broke, plenty of lawyers would want to take the case. Class action lawsuits can be like hitting the lottery for lawyers.

Edit: I should add, as a technical clarification, that is the judge accepts the allegations of the complaint as true for purposes of standing analysis, and later determines that you failed to prove the allegations during the actual trial, the judge can then review the standing issue sua sponte and kick you out of court, though that would be after discovery. Also, injury-in-fact is an Article III test for standing, as such it doesn't apply directly in state courts. "Injury" of some sort is often required, but the standing rules are not as harshly enforced there.