Frequent commenter Al Maviva has a post up claiming the NY Times domestic spying story is much ado about nothing.
In a rather atypical move for me, I am going to wait until things flesh out (things are happening fast and furious, with accusations flying) on this issue before I come to any conclusions.
*** Update ***
Glenn Greenwald says Al is misquoting FISA.
Ezra Klein has this to say:
Everything Bush is doing is legal, but nothing in the way he’s doing it is. When you need a wiretap, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows you to apply for one. When you need it yesterday, FISA allows you to place the tap immediately and retroactively clear it with a judge 72 hours later. The law strikes a balance between broad executive powers and substantive oversight — the president has full authority to assault the evildoers, but cannot deploy the law on behalf of his own political interests. It’s a check on totalitarianism. What Bush has done is unilaterally decide the oversight unnecessary. Given the shape and safeguards of FISA, there was no operational need to evade it. It was an exclusively ideological decision in service of unlimited executive powers, and it’s chilling.
*** Update #2 ***
Al Maviva responds, and Mahablog calls me, Dean Esmay, and Instapundit liars for linking to Al and Glenn G. Classy, Barbara. My response here.
*** Update #3 ***
Mahablog updates. Thanks.
You know, this is blogging. I know we all have different political sides, but the back and forth between differing opinions does not mean someone is lying. I don’t think Al was ‘lying,’ nor do I think Glenn is ‘lying.’ It is possible for people to just be, you know, wrong, or, get this, to disagree about what complex statutes mean. I can assure you, despite my bluster, I am wrong about something almost every day.
I can’t help but thinking about Jay’s farewell post when I write this, although the irony of me, a self-styled loudmouth, pointing this out, does not escape me.
*** Update ***
Yet another post by Al Maviva.
DougJ
John, you know I don’t like to attack people you post to, but Al Maviva? I like the guy, but a man who lets Al Maviva argue for him has a fool for an advocate. Doesn’t instapundit have a surveillance apoplogia up by now?
I’m sorry if that sounded catty. I’m in a bad mood.
Brian
I’m doing the same, but from what I have seen it is much to do about nothing, esp. if Congress was in on it.
If we’re going to connect the dots in pursuit of our enemies, or in preventing them from any future actions, we must have the ability to observe them and flesh out the dots.
The sheer volume of information collected via today’s technology makes this task even more sided in favor of the enemy, as they’re seeking needles in a haystack. It would be foolish and suicidal to constrain our government in this pursuit. I don’t like it, per se, but accept it as a reality of our times. If another 9/11-type attack occurs, the People will demand not only more security, at the expense of civil liberties, but quite possibly the heads of any politician who stands in their way.
DougJ
I feel bad that I wrote that, but it felt good at the time. Feel free to comment about what an ungrateful jackass I am (especially after you corrected that typo in an earlier comment of mine).
Jon H
“I’m doing the same, but from what I have seen it is much to do about nothing, esp. if Congress was in on it”
There’s a big difference between “Congress being in on it” and a couple of individuals secretly concurring. The first requires a vote. The second is another name for a conspiracy.
It’s not okay for Bush to break the law even if the White House can scare up a few people in each branch who can, behind closed doors, be persuaded to agree.
Rather, it’s probably grounds for the removal from office of those who agreed.
Jon H
“If another 9/11-type attack occurs, the People will demand not only more security, at the expense of civil liberties, but quite possibly the heads of any politician who stands in their way.”
So you’re willing to cede your liberties ahead of the game?
Where exactly do you draw the line? The Bushies already reserve the right to torture, and to hold citizens indefinitely without charge or trial.
John Cole
Gratuitous and rude slaps at Al Maviva aside, the other thing stupid about your post, DougJ, is that it assumes I am letting him argue for me. I was just providing you with a link to a different bit of commentary from the “BUSH IS SPYING ON US AND DICK CHENEY HAS A CAMERA IN YOUR WASHROOM” hysteria that is going on in a lot of quarters.
I don’t know what to make of this so far, and I linked you to someone who looked at the law and said it seems like less of a big deal than is being made. Draw your own conclusions, but don’t pretend I am letting someone argue for me. As I stated, I have come to no conclusions yet.
And here is a version for Paddy O’Shea:
The Bush apologist listserv is down and I don’t have the memo from Rove yet.
DougJ
but don’t pretend I am letting someone argue for me.
Fair enough.
ppGaz
Oh, we had you spotted as an Ungrateful Jackass from Day One, compadre, you can rest assured of that.
If there is one thing we require around here, it is gratitude.
Perry Como
Dick Cheney has a zoom lens in his pants.
ppGaz
I thought DougJ was Al Maviva?
Doesn’t everyone know that I am actually Karen Hughes?
C’mon, grow up, people!
rilkefan
Can I use “specious”, as in “That’s a specious argument”, without getting the Metonymy Police after me?
Al Maviva
Thanks for the linky love, John.
And Doug, in the absence of a decent argument on the merits, please feel free to launch gratuitous cheap shots at me. I would expect no less from you.
DCleviathan
Al Maviva posts the only provision where FISA exempts DOJ from the warrant requirement (section 1801), but does not do so completely:
What was left out is that section 1802 of the FISA statute further requires that:
Although an American citizen can be considered an “agent of a foreign power” and so can be the target of FISA warrants. This does not mean that because a a person is “agent of a foreign power” that they cannot also be a “U.S. person” under the statute. “U.S. person” is a status defined only as a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien.
U.S. persons cannot be the the target of warrantless searches under FISA, but only through a warrant issued by the FISA Court. Its that clear. I think Bush’s only possible argument is that FISA is an unconstitutional delegation of the executive’s power to conduct foreign relations.
ppGaz
Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!
Boy, are you looking in the wrong drawer!
balloon-juice (bah-lun-joos): Fr. baleuxngeuse, argument on merits. (1) An argument on the merits (2) hubba bubba wubba jubba.
Richard Bottoms
How can I make this clearer:
Get a damn warrant.
The government has 72 hours grace before even being required to go to the FISA court. It is vital to everyone in this country that we make Nush uphold the law now because the hysteria and outrage following any future attack will almost certainly wipe away more of our rights.
I don’t trust George Bush even if you do. I don’t trust any single man to hold the power of liberty in his hands without oversight and my constitution says I don’t have to.
Collusion with a few in Congress is not the same as judicial review. I don’t care if Ghandi himself says the spying was okay. You think I’ll let some clown like Zack Wamp or one of the Terri Shiavo clown car party be the arbiter of my rights? Fuck that noise completely. I have never been more angry post Vietnam then I am right now.
Orewan
How about the people just demanding we execute the 9/11 commission recomendations, which Bush has largely refused to do?
Pb
Between this and the previous post…
John Cole, Al Maviva, I hope at least one of you is getting paid for this!
RonB
Al claims that George Bush is angry about getting called on this, and then links to an article that has audio of him ducking a straight question about whether he authorized the wiretaps or not, and giving instead a nice canned answer:
If it was a highly classified legal secret until Thursday, how come Al had such an easy time finding it?
Now if Al is correct, as he seems to be on this, then GB shouldn’t have to fret direct questions about this. And it would appear to me that since the procedure is spelled out in FISA, that there is no need to be outraged about the spilling of the story or it’s “secret” status. The media could easily be corrected by the WH comm quoting the same goshdurn thing Al did, or at least paraphrasing it for the people.
So if this is much ado about nothing, then I strongly suggest that the White House signal so. Get the hard facts out there and let us figure it out, don’t give us a “trust us, we know what we’re doing”.
DCleviathan
Richard,
And how hard could it have been to cook up some evidence to get a warrant? The FISA Court has only denied 2 requests (out of 10000+) in the 24 years it has been on the books according to DOJ’s annual reports to Congress.
DougJ
Al, I changed my mind. I agree with you about domestic surveillance.
This story changed my mind
Frankly, I think it is an outrage that professors are having their students read communist works.
Pb
What are they teaching those kids these days–I guess they just aren’t burning enough books in school anymore!
Richard Bottoms
>And how hard could it have been to cook up some evidence to get a warrant?
No harder then any other prosecutorial conduct that occurs. But there will be a record and some to hold to account.
Get a frickin’ warrant before screwing with my rights.
MAX HATS
Everytime a self-proclaimed libertarian reflexifly defends the ever-expanding police powers of the executive, and angel gets its wings.
Richard Bottoms
You know why we didn’t have tanks in the streets while the 2000 election was being contested? Because almost all Americans believe the constitution will be followed almost all the time and them when it’s not it will come to light eventually.
The only reason I could be a soldier and tolerate Reagan as my commander in chief is that I could try to vote his ass out of office in four years.
Don’t fuck with our belief in the constitution or the faith that even a crook will find he is subserviant to the people (Mr. Nixon).
Get a warrant within 72 hours so sowhere, somehow, sometime someone will be held to account when rights are abridged.
DCleviathan
>No harder then any other prosecutorial conduct that occurs. >But there will be a record and some to hold to account.
Oh I totally agree with you. So what the heck were they thinking? Either they could not even produce that much evidence, they didn’t want to deal with the minimization procedures the court might impose (to control the distribution of U.S. citizens info obtained to keep it on the intelligence side of “the wall”), or this was just another example of Bush administration hubris.
John Cole
Anyone who has ever read the little red book or the Communist Manifesto and saw how damned boring they were would be infinitely more likely to support burning them. In fact, now that the McCain torture amendment is going to pass, requiring kids to read the Manifesto might be illegal.
gswift
Let’s see, on one hand we have Al Maviva’s research in a single afternoon, and on the other hand we have
“The agency’s program was suspended at one point because of objections from a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court”
and
“But some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate…”
DougJ
I enjoyed the Communist Manifesto. Mao’s little red book I have never read. How can we expected to take it seriously with a name like that? It sounds too much like Sam “May Day” Malone’s notorious little black book.
Pooh
If I may make the mistake of applying a critical eye here, Al’s defense of the policy assumes the conclusion. He’s essentially saying “so what if 500 terrorist suspects have their phone conversations monotered?” Hard to argue with that, except that how do we know they are suspects? “Because I suspect them” can’t be a good enough answer. That’s why FISA warrants are neccesary – just show us, briefly, that you aren’t spying on a guy because he cut you off in traffic. Frankly, I don’t see how that compromises security, especially considing the 72 hour window.
demimondian
I don’t think that assigning _The Communist Manifesto_ would constitute torture. _Das Kapital_ on the other hand…
Slide
you can always count on the bush apologists to come out and support the unsupportable. Al Maviva’s arguments have no merit whatsoever. I pointed to specific sections of the law which completely refute what he said. Just read the law, its pretty easy to understand if you are not a boot licking bush apologist.
narciso79
Any one remember Marwan Al Shehhi, he was the hijacker on the second plane, there was a message sent from his home
in Yemen, to the US in 2000, there were also messages in
Sept 2001; that we couldn’t pinpoint. The example of Al
Midhar and Al Hamzi, who were in the States, yet could
not be identified to each agency, because of possible
interpretations of the wall that Gorelick (most recently
Defense counsel in a class action suit against the Saudi
bank association president) The one FISA warrant that was
turned down; Zacarias Massoui, the date August 2001. Think
what we could have done if we had broken his files. An additional point; think of the director of the Madrid
train bombing; Jamal Zougam; a cell phone kiosk salesman,
the London bombers included an elementary school teacher;
Mrs. Dubuque, a Belgian citizen with little if any obvious
Al Queda connections. If any of those folks, or any like them, were to be making a call, to someone like Atta, or
Al Shukrijumah (who we discovered was Al Queda, a year and
a half, after 9/11) or Abdullah Mujahair; aka Mr. Padilla,
had he not been nabbed in Chicago, as a result from Mssr.
Zubeydah’s appointment with the waterboard. All these, would have been ordinary US citizens, not ordinarily subject to surveilance, yet the waterboard, rendition to
places like the Salt pits, and a myriad other techniques,
flesh out their relevance. All of which thanks to McCain’s
self absorbtion with having broken under duress; Feingold’s
delusional presidential ambitions, and Specter’s propensity for short cuts; (re single bullet, Einhorn on the loose) we will now be deaf, dumb and blind to;) Of course, John, maybe we can stash folks like Zubeydah, in your own state,
at Robert C. Byrd Memorial Park; how’s that sound.
Richard Bottoms
>Any one remember Marwan Al Shehhi, he was the hijacker on the >second plane, there was a message sent from his home
So ignoring the law is fine as long as you like the results?
Get a warrant. Period.
Slide
Maviva says this:
That is just plain wrong. Our legal genius left out a part that was inconvenient. What Al quoted was section (A) of the law but for you to meet the requirement to do a warrant less wiretap you also have to meet the requirements of sections (B) and (C). And what does (B) say?
Anyone that knows how to read the law will see that it EXPRESSLY FORBIDS warrant less wiretapping of there is a substantial likelihood that a United States person is involved. Its there in black and white. READ THE FUCKING LAW. And John Cole I am embarrassed that a professor can not read this rather plain forward statute and see that your pal is completely and utterly wrong.
DCleviathan
Narciso,
You’ll be happy to know that the “loophole” that prevented FISA surveillance of Moussaoui (who was not a US citizen) pre-9/11 was closed with the “lone wolf” amendment to FISA included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
For non-US persons it allows for a substitution of a probable cause showing that a target is an “agent of a foreign power” with a probable cause showing that a target “engages in international terrorism or activites in preparation therefore.” If this was in place before 9/11, Moussaoui’s suspicious activities surrounding his time at that MN flight school could be used to support a FISA warrant even though the FBI could not tie him to any terrorist organization.
Joel
That’s exactly what I was thinking. I had to read exerpts in college for some course on Marxism and even the professor was apologetic about assigning it.
Bob In Pacifica
narciso,
The are plenty of intelligence fingerprints all over the 9/11 operation. To suggest that somehow Gorelick and these silly rules against spying are all that stood between the forces of good and the forces of evil is a good one. Considering the long and deep relationship between the Saudi Royal family and the Bushes I think you may be deluding yourself with the Gorelick reference.
In my fifty-five years I have seen that every time an intelligence agency screws up or gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar there is some kind of pleading that “if only we had more money or more powers” things would be better. I have been on the wrong end of a spying operation that probably ended up in files in the basement of some government building. Most government spying has nothing to do with national security or fighting crime. It has to do with keeping the status quo intact. Bush is status quo, the Sauds are status quo. The threat to the Homeland is equal to the threat to the Fatherland.
narciso, the game is to keep you nervous and to keep you angry; and to keep an eye on the likes of me.
James C.
Richard Bottoms, Nitwit Extraordinaire, says: “Get a warrant. Period.”
Well, those 72 hours that he also notes are minimally required to get that warrant, may be crucial in obtaining the necessary information to prevent a terrorist attack, as indeed was the case at hand according to media reports. As with Tom Brokaw’s comments last night, I also think the vast majority of real and thinking Americans will agree with the President’s action. Clearly, the near traitorous actions of many on the Left are increasingly seen for what they are…orchestrated attacks on the elected leaders of this nation by a group of would-be despots seeking to achieve that power that the electorate would not otherwise give them at the ballot box (and please don’t waste our time with that horseshit about the 2000 election being stolen).
Bruce Moomaw
The trillion-dollar question remains: why did Bush see the need to circumvent the secret FISA Court on this — which was created precisely to allow secret military surveillance without trampling totally indiscriminately over the rights of all citizens? Quoting Yglesias over at “TPM Cafe”:
“…[I]f the link to al-Qaida is so ‘clear’, why can’t they get a warrant from the FISA court? And in what sense is it in his power, under our laws, to override laws by executive order? If there’s time for the President to personally review these requests before authorizing them, why isn’t there time for the FISA court to do so? And what kind of law enforcement operation is undertaken on the personal say-so of the president anyway? This seems backwards. Why not take these requests direct from the agencies to the court, rather than to the White House and then nowhere? And how much time does our famously reading-averse chief executive really spend contemplating the justifications for these requests?”
And, according to Josh Marshall, the “timeliness” argument is absolutely pure bullshit (or Bushit): “It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant, so long as a retroactive application is made for one ‘as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.’ ”
Of course, according to John Yoo’s interpretation of the Constitution — which, says the Washington Post, is what Bush used to approve this new move, as he used it to OK torture — the President has total dictatorial power in wartime to ignore ALL laws, and Congress effectively declared in 2001 that we are in wartime. After all, it’s our patriotic duty to trust him completely, given his frequently displayed honesty and good judgment. Still, you have to admit that this government is making conservatism far more effective than it’s ever been before. Now see the results.
Al Maviva
Slide, I’ll skip the ad hominems here – suffice to say, you win on the ad hominems, you used them very effectively to prove conclusively you’re a great guy and I suck. On the merits, however, I disagree.
Go read NSA’s congressional testimony dating back to the Clinton administration. They intercept U.S. person communications all the time, and have developed classified regulations, approved by Congress and the FISA court, defining an evaluation, retention/purge process to determine if US Person information may be retained, and to ascertain the nature of the information gathered. In the Able Danger hearings the evaluation period was given as 90 days, I do not know if the procedure for that information was governed under the NSA regs but it wouldn’t surprise me, since it sounded as if some of it was derived from intercepts.
I believe the evaluation period and practice is referred to as the “minimization procedures” in 1801(h). From NSA testimony I surfaced in soem brief searches, the NSA dating back into the Clinton Administration was clearly stating that there is no technical magic bullet solution to automatically screen out all U.S. person intercepts, that it has to be done by evaluation. I know this is meritless and fascistic of me and all, but assuming the truth of the news articles on the Bush Administration’s activities – that the monitoring originates typically with emails, cell phones and black books seized abroad, it seems reasonable to me to follow the phone calls and emails originating in or going to a foreign number or internet address, to see where it’s going, to capture the date, evaluate it for terrorist intel information / presence of U.S. person information, and then retain or purge it per minimization regulations.
BTW, just as an aside, 50 USC 1801(i) defines a U.S. person as: “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.” Assuming Moussaoui was present in the U.S. on anything other than permanent alien status, then NSA wouldn’t have needed a warrant to intercept his phone conversations with his handlers in Afghanistan.
Bruce Moomaw
Just saw James C.’s little screed. Apparently he can’t read, since that 72-hour “grace period for the government before even being required to go to the FISA court” that Richard Bottoms mentioned is obviously the same 72-hour period I mentioned above — in which the government is allowed to go ahead with wiretapping WITHOUT getting a warrant from FISA.
Still, what does Arlen Specter (who’s already raising hell about this whole business) know, compared to James C. and Al Maviva?
DougJ
Al, seriously, how can we know who we should torture if we’re not listening to everone’s conversations?
Bruce Moomaw
Specific comments from the Post and Times:
(1) Post: “…[T]he GOP chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he would hold oversight hearings on the issue.
” ‘There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,’ said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.”
Times: ” ‘In addition to what the president said today,’ Mr. Specter said, ‘the Judiciary Committee will be interested in its oversight capacity to learn from the attorney general or others in the Department of Justice the statutory or other legal basis for the electronic surveillance, whether there was any judicial review involved, what was the scope of the domestic intercepts, what standards were used to identify Al Qaeda or other terrorist callers, and what was done with this information.’ ”
(2) Post: “Former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith said he was ‘not shocked’ by the program or the legal arguments underpinning it, because ‘the theory or the belief that the president had this constitutional power has been around for a long time.’
“But Smith also said: ‘These programs always have a way of being abused, of expanding beyond the purpose for which they were created. If the president believed it, he could have gotten authority to do it in the Patriot Act. By avoiding that course, in so doing, he may ultimately wind up eroding the very power he seeks to assert.’ ”
Yes, indeed. And why didn’t he try to do so? Could it possibly be that he (or, more likely, Cheney) had in mind, from the start, expanding it beyond the purpose for which it was supposedly created? Nah.
DougJ
If the left is so supportive of rights to privacy, then why did the support Saddam? You want to talk about government surveillance — look at Iraq under Saddam. But the Democrats supported that. Why can’t they support a much lower level of government surveillance over here? It’s because they’re driven by an anti-Bush hatred. If someone they liked, like Castro, or Saddam, or Pol Pot, were doing all this wiretapping, I bet they’d be all for it.
Bruce Moomaw
I also see that CharleyCarp, over at Al’s own site, is making the same elementary point: “There’s something we don’t know about this yet, and that something is why they didn’t go get FISA warrants. It’s not hard, and they do it all the time. Some folks say it’s because they wanted to engage in an exercise of naked power, but I doubt that explanation. I suspect it’s because at least some of the conduct wouldn’t have gotten past the FISC. We’ll find out eventually.”
“The greatest of all public dangers is the Committee of Public Safety” — C.S. Lewis. (He was referring, of course, to a CSP with no restrictions whatsoever on its powers — that is, like the one the White House is striving mightily to create.)
Perry Como
And that’s what all of you LLLs (Left/Liberal Loonies — thanks for the term Al) don’t seem to understand. The President has absolute authority to conduct a war in any way he sees fit. The President does not even need Congress to declare a war. The consitutional provision about “The Congress shall have power … To declare war” is merely a formality. It is meant as a courtesy to other nations, or to allow the President to enact his domestic war time powers.
Now I know some of you ILs (Illiberal Liberals — thanks again Al) may say, “but Perry! Eavesdropping on US citizens or resident aliens is a domestic issue!”. And I would say, “Haha! You’re argument is a textbook logical fallacy: liberal ad absurdum”. Your mistake is that any argument a liberal makes is absurd. As long as the other party in the communication is not in the USA the President can do whatever he wants.
So as long as the President believes that something is necessary in the prosecution of a war, he has absolute authority in that area. Much like Chuck Norris, if you question the President, he will roundhouse you in the face.
DCleviathan
Al,
Moussaoui was not a “US Person” under FISA, but DOJ/FBI did not believe they could establish probable cause that Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power. This is required for any individual on US soil and targetted under FISA. At that time all they had was evidence of some vague ties to some Chechen seperatists and there was doubt that this group qualified as an “international terrorist organization” (foreign power). I wrote above that this was the reason for the recent adoption of the “lone wolf” provision to FISA, which allows for a probable cause establishment that the target was “engaging in international terrorism or activities in preperation therefore” rather than probable cause that he is an “agent of a foreign power.”
As to the present situation, certainly the NSA inadvertently collects information on US persons in the US all the time and that is why there are minimization procedures. I don’t think that issue is relevent, the plain meaning of the FISA statute is dispositive.
1802(1) is the only provision in the FISA statute authorizing DOJ to conduct warrantless surveillance and it is only permissble when “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” The original NYT article described at least some of the surveillance as directed against US citizens. Thus, President Bush did not have authority under 1802(1).
1809(a) states that, “A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” Bush did not rely on the only applicable portion of the statute 1802(1), but instead relied on his executive order for authority.
Bush’s actions appear to be a clear violation of the statute. What am I missing?
Perry Como
That people are trying to kill us. Thanks to the President’s leadership and foresight, these warrantless wiretaps were useful in stopping a terrorist plot to attack the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. How would you feel if you woke up one morning and the Empire State Building had been destroyed by Islamists with rotary hammers?
DougJ
I’m having this same argument over at redstate with some liberal guy who snuck in. I just laid the whole “why did you support Saddam” thing on him and they kicked him off for arguing with me. That lunatic moderator Thomas did it. Oh my God, that is one scary place.
Bruce Moomaw
The Post editorial tonight makes the same point that former CIA counsel Smith did: “Mr. Bush said yesterday said that the program helped address the problem of ‘terrorists inside the United States…communicating with terrorists abroad.’ Intelligence officials, the Times reported, grew concerned that going to the FISA court was too cumbersome for the volume of cases cropping up all at once as major al Qaeda figures — and their computers and files — were captured. But FISA has a number of emergency procedures for exigent circumstances. If these were somehow inadequate, why did the administration not go to Congress and seek adjustments to the law, rather than contriving to defy it?”
Well, I’m sure that they couldn’t possibly have had any hidden agenda. After all, Dick Cheney’s attachment to the principles of democracy is MUCH stronger than Richard Nixon’s.
Baron Elmo
I look forward to learning exactly WHO was being spied upon under Bush’s scheme to protect us from terrorist boogeymen… although I’m betting that the answer is obvious: the same kind of peacenik organizations that Reagan and Ollie North were monitoring during their fun and games in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Indeed, what better place for a Muslim terrorist to hide out than amongst the membership of Concerned Mothers Against the War, or in a Quaker enclave?
Jesus Christ. At least Reagan’s goon squad had the decency to get warrants for their spy games.
Ancient Purple
It must be the height of patriotism to be Al Maviva. Such a brave and bold man to suggest that a little bit of government survellience by the Feds on you and yours is just a minor thing, despite a flurry of legal scholars saying that there is that whole “warrant” thing to consider.
You know, give up just a little bit of your rights so that the people in Peoria can sleep a little better tonight. Just ignore that little “good tidings” document called the U.S. Constitution. It is merely a helpful hints guide to be dispensed with when the King finds it too inconvenient.
What did Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton know anyway? That whole checks and balances things was puffery on their parts. Oh, and don’t even believe for a minute that they were willing to sacrifice their lives to keep the government at bay.
We have a new beacon in the States: Al Maviva, super patriot and legal scholar. Just remember that your life is more important than the principles of the Republic. Soldiers in the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II were there to defend our King, because only King George can really protect us from the evils of terrorism, and he can only do that by you giving up just a little bit of your civil rights.
Thank you, Al. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have shown me that my life is much more valuable than the rights I have. I am ready to move to New Hampshire and work to have that disgusting and vile slogan “Live Free or Die” removed from the lips of every person in that state. Bastards. Every last one of them for not understanding that their motto should be “Live. At All Costs.” Stupid, ignorant cowards, each and every one of them.
Again, thank you, Al. You are my new hero.
Fight on, Al. Fight for me. Fight for my life.
Because that is more important than the U.S. Constitution.
I love you, Al.
JWeidner
All bow before King George! We no longer need to call him president since we can obviously cede total and absolute power to him during the War on Terror. Whatever he says is law, whatever he does is legal, however he acts is A-OK.
All bow before King George!
stickler
Just for fun, let’s revisit the original post here:
Yeah, our host wants to wait ‘until things flesh out’ — because, you know, things might turn out to be less disastrous for our civil rights than they at first appear.
Has this actually happened yet, since early 2001?
If Bush and his cronies are involved, can anyone point to a set of data points which would support the optimistic thesis? Say, the budget? Or Medicare? Or Iraq? Or “openness?” Oooh – maybe disaster preparedness? No? Hmmm. Perhaps cultivating our international alliances? What — did I forget Poland?
Scott Chaffin
Is that allowed? If so, is it wise? This is a blog, you know.
james richardson
Here’s my question. We know Bush doesn’t come up with this stuff on his own. Who brought this to his desk for him to sign? Who in the Bush Administration made this choice to skirt FISA?
The Comish (sic)
I appreciate your attempt to make an actual, substantive argument (as opposed to slide and others, who seem to believe that merely shouting “Bush is evil!” is a fine substitute for facts). But you’ve blatantly mischaracterized the definition of “United States person.” In fact, a “United States person” is not “defined only as a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.” The definition explicitly excludes “foreign powers.”
(emphasis added) I’ll assume that you just didn’t read past the first few words of the definition. The alternative — that you read the entire definition and chose to misrepresent it, hoping that everyone else would just take your word on it — is just too ridiculous.
The Comish (sic)
Why does the statutory definition of “United States person” include a smiley when quoted on a blog?
I’m guessing the smiley was planted by KKKarl Rove.
Jess
Maybe Al and his supporters can explain to us his view of the system of checks and balances carefully designed by the authors of the Constitution. Perhaps he can also explain what it is we are patriotic to when we claim to be patriotic Americans.
rilkefan
Bush to Gonzales: “Hey, you know that Comish guy who’s dating my daughters? Can we put a tap on him without having to run it by a court?” Gonzales: “Sure, just tell me he’s a corporation or association which is a foreign power and I can set you up pronto.”
Paul Begala
“Stroke of a pen, law of the land, kind of cool.”
Richard Bottoms
For those unable to comprehend, the law says the government can spy for 72 hours before seeking a waarant. Three whole days to tap phones, gather email, listen to microphones.
Basically unrestricted power to snoop. All that is asked is for the government to make its case before a judge within that 72 hours.
Judges who basically never turn them down and post 9/11 are unlikely to if they ever were so inclined.
How hard a standard is that to meet?
rilkefan
“How hard a standard is that to meet?”
Well, it sucks if you’re John Bolton.
Slide
There is an old saying, “when you are in a hole stop digging”. Suggestion to Al, stop digging.
You were busted weren’t you? You quoted PART of the law where the President COULD wiretap WITHOUT a warrant. A relevant piece of information, but somehow you failed to also include the part (B) of that law which is ALSO required for a warrantless search.
Now that leaves me to two possible conclusions:
1) your reading skills need some brushing up and you are woefully handicapped in the understanding of the written word
or (and I believe this more likely)
2) you cherry picked parts of the law that suited you and ignored parts of the law that didn’t in an effort to mislead americans to believe that
there were WMD in Iraq…ooopps wrong thread, … that the President did not break the law like the CRIMINAL that he is.so which is it Al, are you an ignoramus or a lying sack of republican dog shit? We’ll all wait breathlessly for your answer..
Ok, but you’ve moved on since you were busted on the law thing even on your own web so now we have changed the argument haven’t we? Now you are saying that the US may have inadvertently picked up communications to/from Americans and under the “minimization” portion of the law that was legal. Yeah… but that is not what happened now is it? the PRESIDENT personally approved over three dozen wiretaps of Americans. This was INTENTIONAL monitoring of Americans. Hey, you guys were using the argument that the numbers were found up Bin Laden’s ass somewhere and we had an obligation to check it out. Which we do. Legally. Through FISA.
Oh…. and this foreign agent thing, are YOU suggesting that there are potentially THOUSANDS of Americans that are al Qaeda sleeper agents in the USA. If that is the case we are in a lot of deep shit.
And one last point, this whole nonsense about FISA somehow being too slow and cumbersome has been rightly pointed out by others to be pure bull shit. YOu mean to tell me it was EASIER and QUICKER to get that hard working President of our to ok these wiretaps than it would have been to get the FISA judge that was set up to do this, to do so? Please you guys insult the intelligence of all Americans with your Bush apologia.
And for those that have a problem with me calling Bush evil, sorry, its your guy that always bring us GOOD and EVIL as if the world is some comic book. If the world is neatly divided into GOOD and EVIL and he willfully violates the laws of this nation, then I am having a hard time putting him in the GOOD category. Doesn’t leave me much choice.
Have a good day Al, we all await your NEXT ridiculous argument as to why the PRESIDENT didn’t committ an impeachable offense. This should be fun.
searp
If this program was so necessary, why not propose statuatory clarifications and do it in the open?
The arguments about effectiveness do not go to legality.
A question: if we permit the government to spy on us, lock us up secretly without legal recourse, and abusively interrogate us, what, exactly, are the freedoms that we are proclaiming to the rest of the world?
I knew a Russian exile from Chernenko’s time. He changed my mind on the death penalty, which he adamantly opposed. His argument: all power is abused, and giving the government the power to kill people judicially makes it inevitable that the government will abuse that power.
This argument extends to the spying. Give the government the power, and it will be abused. It will become a matter of convenience for those in power.
We have just made dictatorship easier.
Mona
John Cole, please, please read this
Al Maviva’s analysis is either inept, or dishonest. I write that as one who voted for Bush, but who is also an attorney and can affirm that the parsing I link to, by a very bright lawyer, is almost certainly accurate.
In my view, it is issues exactly like warrantless and illegal eavesdropping on U.S. citizens that will separate partisan Bush hacks, from those who are Bush voters but citizens first.
Paddy O'Shea
9-11 is Bush’s Reichstag fire. He is using it to justify subverting the U.S. Constitution in order to empower himself and those whose interests he represents. Even arch-conservatives such as Larry Craig are starting to call him out on his bullshit.
Kind of ironic if you think about it, though. Osama bin Laden is still running around out there somewhere while Georgie Bush spends his time spying on Americans.
As usual, the Chimp has it ass-backwards.
Jay C
What Mona said: Glenn Greenwald’s post is a great one: it neatly dissects Bush’s arrogant claims of “authority” to circumvent the FISA-Court warrant requirements (although why the Pres would even want to do so is baffling)- and casts the whole affair in another light (with which I concur). He posits that the fundamental issue here is – as it has always been with the Bush 43 Administration – an issue of accruing unchecked and unaccountable power to the Executive; exploiting a gray area in the law and supposed “emergency/wartime” exigencies to justify it. I especially liked how Glen G. used arguments from those notorious lefty moonbats James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to bolster his contention!
Oh, and Comish: It’s unlikely that the blockquote above was really intended to embed a smiley: more likely it was a automatic “conversion” from a malplaced colon/parenthesis.
;)
Pb
Mona,
Al Maviva is certainly inept, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s dishonest as well. Really, why pick just one? Great link, by the way.
Slide
So a consensus is forming? Maviva is inept AND dishonest? Your vote?
Jason
Having read Greenwald’s take, I’m inclined to agree with Greenwald. I’ve already noticed people cherrypicking like crazy.
But unless I’m missing a separate statute that puts nongovernmental terror organizations under the President’s limited authority, it appears that the Administration crossed the statutory line.
My take here: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/12/were-warrantless-wiretaps-legal.html
Slide
I don’t often do this, but let me laud Cole’s linking to the Greenwald and Klein posts which eviscerate his pal, Al Maviva’s, selective and dishonest distortion of FISA.
ppGaz
Slide: Ditto.
And the updated material has a familiar ring to it. Because it isn’t Al’s position that’s troubling here, it’s the Bush administration’s. These people, over and over and over again, demonstrate that they will do anything they want to do, and the strict limits of law, the constraints of propriety or traditional limits on executive power, or the fact that at least half the country doesn’t like what they’re doing or trust them to make good judgments …. all of those restraints just don’t matter to them. These are arrogant, dangerous assholes. That’s what people will take away from this episode … not Al Maviva’s “No controlling legal authority” defense of these godawful shitheads running the country.
Remfin
IANAL, but I think you’re confused Comish. What that says is a corporation/association that meets 3 of the 6 definitions of a foreign power is automatically not a US person. The other 3 definitions can make the corporation/association both a foreign power, and a US person.
A domestic terrorist organization or a foreign terrorist organization not tied to a government can be a US person and a foreign power under (a)(4) if it has “a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence”
A local chapter of “Doctors Without Borders”, a foreign power NGO, that has filed incorporation papers in the US, can be a US person and a foreign power under (a)(5) even being “not substantially composed of United States persons”
(a)(3) and (a)(6) differ only in that a foreign government openly ADMITS they control the organization. So shadow organizations can also qualify as a foreign power and a US person (the Taliban/Al’Qaeda relationship for instance would probably work, if they didn’t meet (a)(4) already – insert a spying agency instead of terrorism here to make a theoretical (a)(6) group)
And the thing you quoted does not disqualify agents of foreign powers (in other words, any individual person) from US person status, only corporations/assocations that meet (a)(1),(2), or (3)
It also implicitly says that a person can be both an agent of a foreign power and a US Citizen:
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—(subsections A-B)
(2) any person who—(subsections A-E)
So no he has not mischaracterized the definition. While he did cut it short, he included all the details that mattered since he is discussing a person and not corporations/assocations and he is 100% right in his conclusion. It’s POSSIBLE a person could qualify as an (a)(6) foreign power, but an (a)(6) is not excluded from US person status
SF
DougJ – the left never supported Saddam Hussein. Unless Reagan, Rumsfeld et al constitute the left these days.
SF
oh, and Paddy – spot on with the Reichstag fire reference.
ppGaz
Both spoke today on CBS’ Face the Nation. Both blurbs are edited by me and paraphrased slightly since I working without an official transcript.
Graham has it exactly right: We cannot become an outcome-based democracy. That’s a (possibly unintended) complete condemnation of this corrupt administration … everything they do is justified after the fact, by ends-justify-means arguments. It’s an approach that will eventually destroy the American experiment.
James Madison
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Rob
Sorry John about embarassing you on cold fury’s web site. I know you don’t want to go to the sites you link to.
KevmanOH
I hope you’re pulling a DougJ. Otherwise, people like you should NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE. Unfortunately, in practice, the POTUS had usurped the absolute authority to conduct war in any way he sees fit. Constitutionally, he/she has no right to have absolute control as you say. Read
The Imperial Presidency by Arthur Schlessinger Jr. Written in 1973, I think its timely today.
That this POTUS, apparently, feels he can do as he pleases, the other branches be damned, is disturbing.
Slide
Why do the little cowards on the right cower in fear so much. Their palpable fear of terrorism has made them all wet their little knickers and turn upside down every value true patriotic Americans hold dear. The right to privacy from government intrusion without judicial review. The value that we can dissent from our government without turning up on a DoD database.The value that we, as a nation, do not torture, that we have higher standards than our enemies. What pathological spinelessness drives these armchair patriots to defer all authority to their daddy president to justify throwing out the Constitution and Bill or Rights to protect them from the bogey man?
How pathetic and sad the right wing has become.
Nash
don’t know what to make of this so far, and I linked you to someone who looked at the law and said it seems like less of a big deal than is being made. Draw your own conclusions, but don’t pretend I am letting someone argue for me. As I stated, I have come to no conclusions yet.
That’s crap crap crap crap crap. Highest level of intellectual dishonesty to flow forth from your fingertips, yet. If you don’t have an opinion about it yet, don’t link to ANYONE, you moron. You didn’t give us silence, you gave us ONE FREAKIN SIDE. Now, have at me.
ppGaz
BTW — Congrats to Al Malviva, who has served as the poster boy today for what will certainly be the worst ass-whipping of the weekend.
For Al’s next scene, he’ll produce a legal brief defending the Watergate break-in.
Al’s new book, “How the Bay of Pigs Won the Cold War” is expected out this spring.
Slide
the silence from Al inept and dishonest Malviva has been deafening.
Rob
He isn’t even commenting on his own site.
chef
We know, do we not, that John Bolton requested ENTIRELY DOMESTIC intercepts from NSA, and for highly suspicious reasons. That was a sidebar story some months back. Does that not seem ominous now in light of this emerging story?
This isn’t merely a slippery slope, this is an abyss. It is Echelon methods, long used abroad. newly applied to the American people.
Slide
chef brings up a good point and one that I thought of as soon as I read the NYT story. John Bolton and those intercepts he had requested. Were they part of this illegal eavesdropping? Where they Americans with clear ties to Al Qaeda as inept Al would have us believe? Or perhaps, just perhaps they were just opponents of the Bush policies?
The more one digs with this administration the more one finds. Just when you think they’ve topped themselves we find another revelation where they have trashed the laws of this nation. Will the GOP have the balls to have a true hearing? To get to the bottom of all this? Don’t bet the farm on it. That is one reason why it is so very important for the Dems to gain a majority in one house of congress in 06, so that we can have some REAL oversight with subpeonea power.
Redleg
Don’t you all know that everything has changed since 9-11? C’mon folks, get with it- we need a stonger executive branch to deal with this new era where terrorists threaten the very life of our nation. We don’t need no activist judges, weak-willed congressmen, or Constitution to constrain our great leader from doing his God-given duty to defend this blessed Christian Nation from those heathen hordes.
We, as one nation and one people, need to stand behind our Leader, even if that means we must give up some of the comforts we have come to take for granted. In fact, President Bush should suspend the next elections because we cannot afford to show any internal dissension or weakness to the enemy. Gott mit uns.
Slide
classic DougJ
Slide
Is there ONE person out there that supports the Bush eavesdropping can tell me why he didn’t get warrants? Either before or after? (The law does allow you to immediately begin eavesdropping if necessary). The law says you just have to go to the FISA judge within 72 hours. So for what reason on earth wouldn’t he? It seems inexplicable to me that he would willfully violate the law for no good reason and I have yet to hear a good reason. Somebody help me out? unless… unless…. the people he wire tapped weren’t all that connected to terrorism. Joseph Wilson on that list? Maybe someday we’ll find out.
Al Maviva
Slide, inept and dishonest Al had to get to bed around midnight or so last night. I mean, it’s cool, you calling me out at 12:15 AM or whatever, and I realize as one of the people in the world to the right of you politically, you have an image of me as a superhuman fiend wearing horns, goat chaps, and being more like a caecodemon than a human, needing neither rest nor sustenance. But sadly, that isn’t the case, and I had to take time off from serving my evil overlord KKKarl Rove in order to get some sleep and be prepared for a 6:00 AM toddler wakeup call. It’s called a life, I have one in most respects. That, and I figured that I am enough of a loser as it is, without hanging out in other people’s blog comments into the wee hours of the morning calling commenters out for not being present to take my insults and jibes. Um, next time we’re going at it, if it makes you feel better, I’ll see if I can rig an RSS feed to my beeper so I can get up in the middle of the night and respond to your mild written abuse.
Just so this isn’t completely lacking purpose, did you catch Harry Reid on Fox’s Sunday talker this morning? I know that you openly hate Fox but secretly watch it just to see how mad you can get, so I thought you might have caught it. He was of the opinion the program was not in contravention of the law. Again, I’m going to plead toddler distraction and note that I don’t have a transcript yet, but I’m hoping to find one so I can give you the exact quotes. Reid did very clearly call for the leakers to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law due to the grave damage to national security that he perceived from the compromise of this program. You might want to send his office a fax. He and his legal counsel are under the same misapprehensions I am, apparently.
Jay C
Oh, and by the way, since we’re into a link-fest this weekend, check out Glenn Greenwald’s latest takedown of what he calls Al Maviva’s “staggeringly dishonest post” about FISA, and the Government’s limitations thereunder.
Then again, after seeing the sort of poster art on Cold Fury‘s frontpage with its charming references to “liberal pussies” and the like, one has to wonder why anyone would be surprised at finding a Bush-ass-kissing mis-citation of Federal law as a main post.
Clown.
John Cole
Jay C- Did you even read this post?
Andrew
John C-He’s just helping those unable to read through entire statutes… er, posts.
Ancient Purple
Yet, through all your reading of the comments, you failed to address the main charge that you deliberately and knowingly cherrypicked the FISA statue to further your cause. Yes, please do show us the transcript of Reid. While you are at it, read the transcript of what Biden said (one of the authors of the FISA) where it basically says that claims like your are bullcrap.
Al, please let us know when your next post on your blog goes up. I want to read all about how there are WMDs in Iraq and why that is reason enough we should go to war.
searp
We do not know whether what is being done is legal or not, for the simple reason that secrecy has prevented the flow of enough information to the public for any sort of reasoned debate.
Of course, there is no need for secrecy on a policy matter like this, as opposed to executing policy, where sources and methods are important.
The president should have had legislation introduced, publically, to authorize the sort of activities he authorized. Essentially, amendments to FISA.
Policy should not and cannot be secret in a democracy. This president accepts no limits on his authority, and that makes him dangerous.
Slide
well Al you certainly answered the critique of your inept and dishonest reading of the FISA statute by Glen Greenwald and others. Harry Reid? lol… you can almost smell the desperation when a right wingnut trots out Harry Reid to support their case. No, Al the inept and dishonest Maviva, I did not watch Fox this morning as I had to sort my sock drawer but I will try and catch the transcript and see if you are as dishonest about what Reid said as you were about what FISA said.
What I did see was the most pathetic performance by Condi Rice on Meet the Press. She said that the President acted under the law and Constitution but was unable to site what law and where in the Constitution. She repeatedly said, “I’m not a lawyer”. lol… gotta love that one. So… lets get this straight, after a huge shit storm erupts when the NYT article comes out Thursday night the administration’s National Security Director at the time, Condi Rice appears on MTP without being able to articulate under what authority the administration wiretapped Americans without utilizing the very quick, secret and available warrant procedure under FISA. All she could repeatedly mumble was 911, terrorists, danger danger… etc. All of which didn’t have anything to do with the question. The question wan’t why did you wiretap potential terrorists, the question was why didn’t you follow the law in doing so. They could have even complied with the law after the fact if they had only gone to the FISA court 72 hours AFTER they wiretapped someone if time was a pressing issue. Pretty pathetic performance.
Slide
the inept and dishonest Al said:
Other than the goat chaps, hardly.
Perry Como
Sorry, but as a US citizen I have every right to vote. I know you lefties are bitter that you can’t win an election fair and square, but as long as your side coddles terrorists, you’ll keep losing.
As to the legal analysis, you only have to look at the writings of John Yoo in _The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11_. I’m sure that everything the President is doing in the WoT has sound legal justification written by Mr. Yoo, and after we win the war, we’ll see the classified DoJ memos that authorize the President’s absolute authority.
DougJ
Frankly, the idea of widespread NSA surveillance is a non-issue. I couldn’t care less if the government listens to my phone conversations. I have nothing to hide. All someone who listened to my phone conversations would learn is that I love America and hate terrorists.
If people have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear as far as surveillance goes. It is only those anti-American elements — “peace” activists and the rest of the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party — that are complaining about this. Perhaps it is because they are afraid that the government will learn what they are really up to.
ppGaz
You may very well end up being the only person on earth who doesn’t get that that distinction won’t matter.
Americans are not that fond of weasels, or don’t you remember the “No controlling legal authority” defense? It was correct, but it didn’t accomplish its purpose. Gore was seen as a weasel. Of course, it’s doubtful that Charles Manson could be as much of a weasel as this piece of dirt in the White House has turned out to be.
But by all means, keep cranking out the weaseliana. It’s going over very well here.
Far North
For the next few weeks, Bush supporters all over the country were hoping to talk about freedom being on the march after the Iraqi elections. They are reeling because “spying on Americans” has turned out to be a bigger story than Iraq election happy talk.
During his interview with Bush on Friday, Jim Lehrer said something to the effect that the wiretapping revelation was the big story of the day. Bush immediately cut him and said that the Iraq elections were the big story.
And hey, Al Maviva, how ’bout commenting on the issue of you cherry picking the wording of the statute. Seems like you got busted.
Oh well, just remember, nothing is more stunning in politics than the hypocrisy of the new century conservative.
Redleg
DougJ,
It’s a good thing we didn’t elect you to decide who is unAmerican or not. Most of us aren’t as concerned about having our phone conversations tapped as we are about Bush’s apparent imperial ambitions and his willingness to invoke 9-11 every time he wants to break a law to get information or to invoke executive priveledge to withhold information.
We already know that Bush’s mis-use of intelligence got us into this war in Iraq and that his disregard of intelligence contributed to our failure to prevent 9-11, so why should we trust that feckless turd when he spies on US citizens and says it’s not a big deal?
ppGaz
Reel ’em in, we’ll get the net …….
Al Maviva
Go read my response to Greenwood. I didn’t cherry pick in the manner you are suggesting. Please feel free to comment there.
maha
Mr. Cole: I am sorry you took offense. I didn’t name you and wasn’t thinking of you when I said “righties lied,” but about hard-right Bush apologists. I understand you ran corrections to the Al Maviva story, and I apologize to you.
I’m not apologizing to Al Maviva, however.
— Barbara O’Brien
John Cole
Already updated, Barbara. Thanks. Although I don;t think Al is lying, nor Glenn Greenwald.
Far North
But how can both Greenwald and Maviva not be lying? Either it’s legal under FISA or it ain’t.
Richard Bottoms
The true nature of the ‘just trust in the president crowd’ would be revealed by just substituting the name of Clinton as the president doing the illegal spying.
The right would be going batshit. The militia movement would gin back up and Rush would be talking about revolution again.
Perry Como
FISA is a very complicated law with alot of big words and exceptions and rules and all other sorts of legalese. The President is just a regular guy. He doesn’t have some highfalutin law degree. He sees that there is a very real threat from terrorists that want to attack our infrastructure with blowtorches. But all of this arguing is moot. The President has unemumerated powers — granted by the constitution — to prosecute a war. From the Bybee memo:
So take that you LLLs. Our forefathers meant to have a strong Executive branch. The Executive has a whole slew of unenumerated powers the office can choose to use and Congress has absolutely no authority to say otherwise.
John Cole
And I thought I was naive. It is possible for one of the two to be wrong.
Bruce Moomaw
Ezra Klein isn’t the only one who suspects that this is a trial run for Bush (or, rather, Cheney) to see whether the American people will support the idea that the President has absolute legal power in wartime — with “wartime” declared by him and his party in Congress. We are, I suppose, about to find out. In the meantime, Moynihan’s statement that it’s easy to boil a frog or a democracy if you do it GRADUALLY should be kept in mind.
Far North
OK John, I declare a TYPO. I worded that wrong. “Not” should not have been in there. Can both of them be right? I don’t think so.
IT WAS A FRIGGIN TYPO
ppGaz
Thass right. And either the White House is so proud of its actions that it asked NYT to sit on the story for a year, or it isn’t. And either Bill Clinton had sex with that woman, or he didn’t. And either there was a controlling legal authority, or there wasn’t.
After all, facts and details and the letter of laws is always what it’s about, right everyone?
Bruce Moomaw
“Perry Como” is definitely yanking your strings, guys. See his comment partway up this thread on the vital need to ignore FISA in order to prevent terrorists from disassembling the Empire State Building overnight with rotary hammers. (By the way, can we please knock it off with the parodies? They’re getting increasingly hard to tell from the real thing, which means that we don’t need them anymore.)
ppGaz
Oh dear. You are in for some hard times ahead, I’m afraid. Spoofing is the future of blogville. You ain’t seen nothin yet.
Bruce Moomaw
Oh, wonderful. The garbage quotient on the Web isn’t high enough yet; now we’ll have to decide whether every clown using a pseudonym actually MEANT what he wrote or not.
Bruce Moomaw
And — to yet again make the point made by me, the Post, the CIA’s legal counsel, and Mahablog (since Maviva seems to require extensive repetition in order to understand things) — if the Administration had complaints about the existing FISA procedures, why didn’t they simply go to Congress and request that they be modified, instead of doing a secret end run around them? Obvious answer: because they were engaged in some kind of monkey business that they thought even a Republican-controlled Congress would shy at. (Judging from the comments by Specter and Lindsay Graham, they were right.) Now, what do you suppose they could possibly be up to? The same sort of thing that the Nixon Administration was? Nah.
kl
If it helps, pp always means what he says. That’s what’s entertaining about it.
Far North
What a week. Just when Bush saw his approval numbers go up a few points (still dismal though) and Iraq has another election, then it’s BAM. Bush had to abandon his dreams or torture and compromise with McCain. Then it’s revealed that the Pentagon is spying on Quakers. Then Dems in the Senage blocked an extension of the unPatriot Act. Then, knocking the Iraq elections off the TV gabfests, comes the bombshell that Bush authorized spying on Americans, the constitution be damned.
The most striking thing for me is that Bush defenders point out that 9/11 justifies anything the president wants to do. Did anyone see Bob Barr / Dana Rohrbacher debate on Wolf Blitzer? Rohrbacher contends that anything goes after 9/11, that there is not limitation on Bush’s powers now that we are at war in perpetuity. Fortunately, Barr was on the side of the constitution.
What a week!
ppGaz
I feel your pain. I long for the days when, if nothing else, we could count on every clown with a pseudonym meaning exactly what he said. Back then, reasoned discourse was the standard.
And then, there is the matter of every clown running for public office meaning what he says. I sleep well at night knowing that the media and the government are trying their darndest to tell me the truth at all times.
Earth to infantile info consumers: It’s time to start taking responsibility for your own ability to understand the world around you. If you give that responsibility to someone else, they are going to fuck you over with it.
ppGaz
kl, didn’t I pay you this month?
Perry Como
Barr is just a leftist kook.
Far North
Never in my life did I think that I would ever watch a segment with Bob Barr where I agreed with every damn thing he said. Yep, Barr is now a leftist kook.
reliapundit
golly gee whiz:
will some leftie/dove more paranoid of Bushitlerburton than al Qaeda please tell me why Bush would’ve told the FISA judge and the congressional leaders about this if it was ILLEGAL!?!?
sheesh.
ITB IS INCONTROVERTIBLE that FISA allows the prez to authorize electronic surveillance WITHOUT court order under certain circumstances.
it depends on interpretation of the law, of the person or persons surveilled, and of the situation (war0time versus peace-time).
OBVIOUSLY the Bush Administration believes that there have been – since 9/11 – circumstances allow him to do just that. If they did NOT belive that, then they wouldn;t have informed the Congress of the FISA judge.
Even the NYTIMES admits in their original article that information gathered under surveillance authorized by bush in this manner was the reason why we were recently (post 9/11) able to prevent the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge.
ALSO: the reason that Bush was mad was NOT becasue he was “caught” doing something illegal or unconstitutional, but because revealing this information ONLY aids the enemy (by letting them know more of our methods and sources).
When we caputre enemy cellphones and/or computers, we have only a few hours to surreptitiously use MUCH of the intel; it only takes a few hours for the enemy to discover that one of their own has been “taken down” – especially if it is by arrest of a foreign polcie force which is probably infested with double agents, LIKE PAKISTAN.
In those few hours, WE can call and email everyone listed in the cellphone and/or computer of the captured enemy and locate them – maybe even trapo them.
And since ther INTENT of this intel gathering IS NOT PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT PROSECUTION IN A REAL WAR,it is bettewr tyo gather thius info sawiftly and act on it swiftly than to wait even 72 hours for a FISA Judge to sign off on it.
REPEAT: the intel in NOT intended for jurisprudential action but for martial action. For war.
And THAT is the priciple reason that Bush authoproized it THIS WAY, and NOT through a court.
If the intent was to gather intel for a criminal prosecution, then the Bush Administration would have NEEDED and GOTTEN a FISA judge to sign off.
It’s THAT simple.
Unfortunately, the Dem/Left still think we shouod be fighting al Qaeda in a courtroom.
And the appeasing-Doves think we need not fight them at all; all we need to do is withdraw from the world a nd stiop suppporting Israel and trade and capitalism.
Neither the Dem/Left or the Doves present any real or serious alternatives.
All they do is whine and complain.
They are more afraid of BusHitlerburton than Binladen.
WELL: the Iraqi election proved them WRONG.
The election was wonderful – and the peace was kept by IRAQIS.
AND RESULTS ARE IN!!!!!!
The Iraqis won! The Dem/Left lost. BIGTIME!
ppGaz
DougJ? Was that your work? Or is reliapundit really a cartoon character?
MAX HATS
“reliapundit?”
Someone’s angling for a contract.
kl
Month?
Slide
If I thought reliapundit was real and not someone doing a bad parody of a moronic right wing brainless ill informed bush apologist I would take the time to respond. But alas no one can be that dumb. Can they?
DougJ
I would never post anything that long.
Slide
DougJ is way more subtle than that, he knows no one could believe such idiocy.
DougJ
Don’t worry — there’s plenty of good comments on his site.
DougJ
FYI, I started before John linked to it. And I fit right in anyway. Though they have told me to stop “feeding the trolls.”
Slide
Al “inept and dishonest” Maviva continues to be totally dishonest. He said this about Harry Reid’s appearance on Fox News Sunday:
I just watched the repeat showing of the Wallace show and once again Al is just totally wrong. I’m beginning to worry about you Al are you just a degenerate liar or do you have a complete inability to comprehend? Reid said no such thing. As a matter of fact he called for hearings. As a matter of fact he quoted the former Senator Graham who was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the program was put into place and Graham had said that he was never “consulted” and that the eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant was illegal. As a matter of fact Reid pulled out his pocket copy of the Constitution as a visual aid during the show to demonstrate his belief that our rights are being violated by this President.
Reid did say that the people that leaked classified information should be prosecuted but he also refused to take Wallace’s bait that this was worse than the leaking of Plame’s name. He said he didn’t know if that was the case or not.
Al, stop lying and perhaps you wouldn’t be seen as such a joke around here.
Far North
Reliapundit should wait for the White House talking points to come out tomorro. That way, he/she could post all the nonsense in a post one-tenth the size.
The Bush apologists are having a difficult time today. They have no talking points to work from. For an example, check out Condi’s appearance on Meet The Press.
Bruce Moomaw
PP Gaz: “And then, there is the matter of every clown running for public office meaning what he says. I sleep well at night knowing that the media and the government are trying their darndest to tell me the truth at all times.
“Earth to infantile info consumers: It’s time to start taking responsibility for your own ability to understand the world around you. If you give that responsibility to someone else, they are going to fuck you over with it.”
Wonderful, again. Let’s have blog commentators make the situation even worse, by deliberately posting fake views as a perpetual IQ test for anyone trying to actually acquire information off the blogs. Actually, PP’s view makes the most sense as a recommendation that nobody should waste any time responding to what they believe to be idiotic statements on the blogs, since said statements may often be DELIBERATELY idiotic from now on. On that, he may have a point. (Which, of course, takes me back to all the people on this site who have wasted their time assuming that DougJ and Perry Como were sincere.)
ppGaz
I’m in pain just watching you twist yourself into a pretzel there.
“Acquire information off the blogs?”
Uh, two words: Buyer beware.
DougJ
Moonmaw, the government — and this administration in particular — tries to fuck with people’s understanding in order to advance its own interests. The most valuable thing you can learn in political discussions is that other people are trying to fuck with you.
I say that as someone who spent most of his life buying into all kinds of government misinformation. I was a total dupe until about 3 years ago. Once you realize you’ve been duped for your entire life by clever “talking points”, it’s hard to take the idea of “honest debate” very seriously.
ppGaz
Mu standard line: DougJ has bagged me so many times, I now have a band around my left leg.
It’s been an entertaining and educational experience, and I have even learned to do the spoofomatic myself. I even caught myself a fish, after studying at the feet of the master.
It’s the future of the blogosphere, and I have been transformed: I now think that it is a bright future, and I am glad to be even a small part of it.
Let the satire begin!
DougJ
Maybe I better say it like this, Bruce: being a good citizen is perpetual IQ test. If you don’t like it, move to a dictatorship. Or just keep voting for Republicans.
Bruce Moomaw
It looks now as though Maviva is backing down pretty extensively on his own shrill initial defense of the Bushites. Well, better late than never — although, again, it took an awful lot of repetition of the obvious (the fact that they took this route rather than asking Congress to modify FISA; the number of conservative Congressional Republicans alarmed by this revelation, the cautions about how this sort of scheme grows very easily into the persecution of political opponents, etc.)
Slide
More on what Reid said and not what the liar Al Maviva said he said,
Bruce Moomaw
It would be rather difficult for me to keep voting for Republicans, since I’ve done so exactly once in the last 30 years. Meanwhile, as I say, it’s nice that the random-noise quotient of the Internet — which was awe-inspiring to begin with — is about to soar even higher.
PaulB
Al’s latest analysis, quite frankly, is still dishonest. The relevant clause is:
“3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;”
Note the words “openly acknowledged” and “directed and controlled.” Al’s very next sentence was: “Hezbollah is, of course, openly supported by Iran and Syria.”
“Supported” is emphatically not “directed and controlled,” nor is there any evidence that Hezbollah is so directed and controlled. Were Hezbollah to become a part of the ruling power of an independent Palestinian state, you might be able to successfully argue this point. Until then, you cannot, which is why you had to resort to weasel words.
The case for Al Qaeda is even weaker, since Al Qaeda is not, in any sense of the words, “openly acknowledged” to be “directed and controlled” by any foreign government, nor will you find any court or country who will support the notion that they are themselves a foreign “nation.” Again, Al has to resort to weasel words to pretend that they are. His insistence that they have pretensions of government or that they control and have sovereign authority over any substantial area is something that would be laughed out of court.
DougJ
Bruce, if you’re a liberal, it’s even more important for you to embrace the spoofing. The Daily Show has done more to advance your cause (which is sort of my cause too, now) in the past 2 years than the Nation did in the past 30. Satire is one of the secret weapons Democrats need to use to regain their political footing.
PaulB
reliapundit writes: “And since ther INTENT of this intel gathering IS NOT PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT PROSECUTION IN A REAL WAR,it is bettewr tyo gather thius info sawiftly and act on it swiftly than to wait even 72 hours for a FISA Judge to sign off on it.”
Sigh…. Next time you might want to do your homework, since you are wrong about the 72-hour period. The Bush administration, under FISA, can quite legally institute a wiretap or other surveillance measure immediately, without waiting for a warrant. They are then required by FISA to file a request for a warrant within 72 hours of the time the surveillance began. But during this time, the surveillance can continue to take place without that warrant. The three day period is to give them time to do the paperwork for just those emergency cases that you are referring to.
In short, there is absolutely no reason that the Bush administration could not have acted within the law. That they chose to not do so is still one of the most puzzling aspects of this affair.
Slide
Ok… now I’m beginning to feel a little bad for poor Al Maviva. Everyone is taking pot shots at him. I know he is such an easy target but it seems a bit cruel at this point to keep picking on him.
DougJ
How can it be that my spoofing is some kind of a big impediment to the dispersal of accurate information when we have an entire fucking thread devoted to the wisdom of Al Maviva?
Bruce Moomaw
Another good quote from the AP article that Slide quotes — again pointing out something that should be excruciatingly obvious, but apparently isn’t to Maviva & Co.::
“Government officials have refused to define the standards they’re using to establish such a link or to say how many people are being monitored.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called that troubling. ‘If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court,’ Graham said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation.’
Or, more accurately, Cheney does. And there is no indication that Cheney feels any reluctance whatsoever at the prospect.
Going on: ” ‘We are at war, and I applaud the president for being aggressive,’ said Graham, who also called for a congressional review. ‘But we cannot set aside the rule of law in a time of war.’ ”
I don’t know about that. This particular administration seems eager to nibble continuously at the edges of the rule of law even in times of peace. I am by no means certain that we don’t have a bald-headed would-be Pinochet in the Vice President’s office. And in that connection:
“Administration officials said congressional leaders had been briefed regularly on the program. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said there were no objections raised by lawmakers who were told about it.
” ‘That’s a legitimate part of the equation,’ McCain said on ABC’s ‘This Week.’ But he said Bush still needs to explain why he chose to ignore the law that requires approval of a special court for domestic wiretaps.”
Yep. And the legislators who also didn’t object to Bush “ignoring the law”, until the press blew the whistle on it publicly, have considerable explaining to do as well.
ppGaz
I think this is the best line of the day.
I can now reveal that I am Al Maviva.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
KIDDING.
Bruce Moomaw
Maybe “Slate’s” suggestion of a few months back is best: we need a new punctuation mark to indicate (sarcasm).
Slide
From Bruce’s post:
Just because “adminstration officials” said that congressional leaders were regualarly briefed doesn’t mean that is so. Senator Graham was Chairman of the Senante Intelligence Committee at the time this program was initiated and this is what he said about those “notifications” on Nightline:
searp
Briefing Democrats is meaningless.
I go see you, say I am going to tell you a bit about a top secret codeword program that can never, under any circumstances, be revealed, and then tell you something.
What do you do about it if you don’t like it?
The issue is that the President did something secretly that very many Americans, including elected representatives and legal experts, consider to be illegal, something that was never tested in a court for constitutionality. Rather than have the policy debate, he simply acts the part of a tyrant and does it, admits it, and says he will keep doing it.
Feingold is right.
ppGaz
So, let me see if I have this right …..
The potatoheads aren’t responsible for starting the war on bum intelligence, because the Democrats in Congress weren’t smart enough to catch it.
Now, the potatoheads aren’t accountable for domestic spying because the Democrats in Congress weren’t smart enough to catch it.
Help a brotha out here … am I missing something?
reliapundit
PaulB Said:
“In short, there is absolutely no reason that the Bush administration could not have acted within the law. That they chose to not do so is still one of the most puzzling aspects of this affair.”
My whole point was that they DID NOT want this to go to court because the info was for extra-judicial action. W ar at WAR; we do not have to build a legal casse with legally admissable evidence for everything we learn. Much iof what we learn is useful for counter-attacking with military power.
I suspoect you woiuld rather see Binladen tried in federal cpourt than killed.
I would prefer if we killed all our jihadoterrorist enemies.
And most of them on a battlefield – or with ACTIOBLE intel, and not as a result of charging them with a crime punishable by death.
After all: this is WAR – a REAL war. It has been a real war since the Beirut Barracks bombings in 1983. We only decided to fight back after 9/11. Pity.
9/11 was the price we paid for appeasement and negligence and pin-prick counter-measures which only reinforced our seeming weakness and vulnerability to Binladen and hisa murderous gang of genocidal maniacs.
In this war, as in most others, we will have to utterly vanquish the enemy. Thaty measn doing things which are seriously nasty, but seriously necessary. Like Nagasaki and carpet-bombing in WW2, and so many other horrfying acts done to achieve a victory which surpasses the necessary evils of war. [YES: Nagasaki was necessary! Need proof? Well, even aftyer we bombed Hiroshima the Japs refused to surrender! Therefore a demonstration on an uninhabited island would NOT have budged them a bit. BESIDES: by making an invasion unnecessary, the A-Bombs saved a million JAPANESE lives – and of course an equal amount of Amercian men in our armed forces.]
Bush changed after 9/11; before 9/11 he was for Smart Sanctions – which amounted to nothing more than EASING UP ON SADDAM. 9/11 changed him. Before 9/11 he was opposed to “nation-building.” Now he accepts it is what NEEDS to be done (as it as after WW2.
And what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan – and in increments in Libya and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Lebanon, etc – is DRAIN THE SWAMP/ GET TO THE ROOTS CAUSES – which was always a Dem’Left rallying call – BEFORE and JUST AFTER 9/11.
Pathetically, now that Bush is FINALLY doing what must be done, the Dem’Left attacks him for it, and these attacks make it ahrder for us to achive what we MUST achive.
Which is why this fourth generation Democart -and former anti-0Vietnam War Lefty – SUPPORTS BUHS WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
Like Lieberman, the lone last good Dem in the Seante.
YES: Sadly the Dems are back to where they were in 1972 – a party of leftiues – against the US against the Pentagon and for appeasiung our enemies. I used to think that Ckinton changed the party, but he was a phony centrist and the changes he brought to the party have VANISHED.
SO Bush has to fight this war without th4e Dems. So be it.
It WILL make the war tougher to win, but we will win anyhow. At greater cost, sadly.
Slide
So how are the Al Maviva arguments playing out? A sampling.
Oh, and John Cole still hasn’t sorted it out yet.
Perry Como
It’s not cruel if it doesn’t cause death or organ failure.
While the idea of rational debate on the internets is often lauded, it is never going to happen. There has never been rational debate in politics. Our politicians used to get into fist fights on the floor of the house, or meet each other at dawn at twenty paces. Expecting rational debate of politics is like expecting your cat to do the dishes.
The blogosphere tends to amplify the problem, from what I’ve seen. Take Al’s post for instance. It will be linked around the right wing blogs and alot of people will soon accept it as a Known Fact(TM) — hat tip to RedState, the bastion of rationality. But look at the Cold Fury site. On the left hand bar there is a list of acronyms like LLL (Left/Liberal Loony) and IL (Illiberal Liberal). Oh, and the ever *hilarious* _Day By Day_. High comedy and rationality combined!
Enough about Al, what about the satire… Alot of people get defensive when their world view is challenged. That’s why satire and/or parody are so effective (unless you are Chris Muir). By taking a seemingly absurd position that is offered and cranking up the absurdity ever-so-slightly, some people may begin to question the wisdom of the original premise. And introspection isn’t really a bad thing.
This process applies to the “Left” as well as the “Right”, so happy snarking!
Now about that War on Christmas…
reliapundit
ppGaz Said:
“So, let me see if I have this right ….. The potatoheads aren’t responsible for starting the war on bum intelligence, because the Democrats in Congress weren’t smart enough to catch it. Now, the potatoheads aren’t accountable for domestic spying because the Democrats in Congress weren’t smart enough to catch it. Help a brotha out here … am I missing something?”
YOU ARE MISSING A LOT!
The Dems can’t reasonably go from dumb to smart whenever they damn please and when it suits their short-term partisan
gains!
BEFORE the war they agreed with thew CIA WMD intel (a CIA led by Dem/liberal, former Dem Senate staffer and Clinton appointee Tenet); it is NOT CREDIBLE that they should change their minds AFTER TYHE FACT. It is sheer political chicanery, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.
For the last FOUR YEARS the Dems – and the FISA JUDGE (who wouldv;e signed a court orde for the surveillance if asked)! – were informed about the surveillance, (as the FISA laws speciifies).
It is NOT CREDIBLE to hear them question it now.
WHAT IS UNFATHOMABLE TO ME IS THIS:
Why in the heck are the Desm disparaging the Iraq War just as the “retuirns” (literal a figurative) are coming in and coming in as GREAT!?
USUALLY, “success has a thousand fathers,” but in this case the Dems are acting in such a way as to make sure that Bush and the GOP the SOLE CREDIT for the war.
THIS IS DUMB. Which is typical for Letfists; they are wrong about everything.
So I guess I shouldn’t be surprised!
DougJ
TWOC, Perry, TWOC.
Slide
and for the above moron that thinks the Constitution prohibition against warrant less searches only applies if you want to use the evidence in a criminal proceeding, your lack of knowledge is appalling. If you just had a smidgen of knowledge of the Constitution you wouldn’t have made such an ass of yourself.
ppGaz
Perry Como, while no Tony Bennett (and certainly no Richard Bennett) … has it right.
The KnownFact brigade established a long time ago, for example, that Valerie Plame “outed herself.”
Our very own Stormy actually believes it to be true.
You can get people to believe anything, and by that I mean, anything. You can get the PomSquad for Bush to believe absolutely anything that gets the TalkingPoint Seal of Approval. Did I mention …. ANYTHING. Any lie, any bizarre and grotesque theory, you name it.
Have I told you that these people can be made to believe ANYTHING?
ppGaz
So who are you, really? Al Franken? Cause you are one funny motherfucker!
reliapundit
Slide Said:
Just because “adminstration officials” said that congressional leaders were regualarly briefed doesn’t mean that is so. Senator Graham was Chairman of the Senante Intelligence Committee at the time this program was initiated and this is what he said about those “notifications” on Nightline:
GRAHAM: There was such a meeting. And the issue, then, was whether we could intercept foreign communications when they transited through U.S. communication sites. The assumption was that if we did that, we would do it pursuant to the law, the law that regulates the surveillance of national security issues. And there was no suggestion that we were going to begin eavesdropping on United States citizens without following the full law.
BUT BUSH DID FOLLOW THE LAW! The president – according to FISA – CAN order surveillance WITHOUT A COURT ORER, if that surveillance is of communications between foreign powers and foreign agents.
A fed District court has previosuly ruled that al Qaeda is a foreign power according to definitons in FISA 1801.
END OF STORY. GRAHAM IS WRONG WHEN HE ASSERTS THAT WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TYO DATE IS ILLEGAL.
Bush acted legally and constitutionally.
ppGaz
Seriously, who are you, really? James Carville?
Slide
Carville can spell
DougJ
I really think reliapundit may be a fake.
ppGaz
Okay, I think he’s Paul Begala.
That’s it. Paul Begala.
Slide
DougJ I agree… the childish capitalization, the bad grammar, the misspelled words all clever ruses to make us believe he is of the neantherdal class of right wingnut.
ppGaz
What’s really scary, Dougster, is that there are characters out there who make your personas look sane and reasonable by comparison.
These people are at the grocery store, the post office, on the roads in the next car. They look just like ordinary people, many of them.
DougJ
Ppgaz, I’ve based my extreme right-wing persona on my uncle. He actually isn’t that right-wing but his reasoning is very similar to the reasoning that I use as a troll, if you can call it reasoning, and he listens to a lot of talk radio. He recently told my sister that she was a communist for not thinking they should not say the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.
I’ve spent enough time around him, that I can come up with a stupid response to almost any question. Though last time I saw him he stunned even me with the idiocy of his ideas about baseball strategy. He is sort of a savant of stupidity. Whatever skills I have, I owe to him.
Richard Bottoms
Fuck George Bush and his speech.
ppGaz
MESSAGE FROM THE BIG GIANT HEAD.
Bush addresses nation.
I must do my duty as a citizen and watch and laugh.
Slide
what does a prominent Republican Senator think of Al Maviva’s argument?
Ancient Purple
Dammit. I missed the part in the Constitution that says you have all these rights, except when we go to war.
I wish you would point that caveat out to me. I can’t find it anywhere in my copy of the Constitution.
ppGaz
Speech over, I need to take a shower.
Slide
He’s got the George Bush abridged version. Very short. Only one Bill of Rights: The Presdient has the right to do whatever he damn well wants to do. Makes it simple.
Richard Bottoms
Well now I know if Iraq fails it’s just because I was so darn impatient.
Ooops. Sorry.
ppGaz
We are in the last stages of government by division. Divide and conquer, that’s the legacy of these assholes.
Now he is trying to divide the people who “have questions” about the war (that would be the majority of the people) into two groups: Those who are “defeatists” and those who can find “patience.”
This lie follows the standard boilerplate “Iraq blah reinstate weapons programs blah terrorists blah protect Americans blah murderous dicatator blah freedom blah goodwill toward men blah god bless America” speech material that we have heard so many times before.
The terrorists, he says, want to frighten Americans.
Liar. I think George Bush wants to frighten Americans, and he is succeeding. I am frightened by the disgusting little man. I am not frightened by terrorists.
Steve S
Possible. But don’t you get the impression after reading Al’s stuff that he’s purposefully being wrong?
Maybe purposefully being wrong doesn’t qualify as lying in your book, but it does in Websters and American Heritage.
PaulB
reliapundit writes: “My whole point was that they DID NOT want this to go to court”
No. Your point was that Bush could not go to court because of some sort of 72-hour waiting period. You got your facts wrong and are now trying to weasel your way out of it.
“because the info was for extra-judicial action.”
So you are admitting that Bush broke the law. Thank you for that concession.
The rest of what you wrote was mindless jingoism and ad hominem attacks that aren’t worth the trouble to repeat, much less respond to.
Redleg
Reliapundit,
Are you really this stupid or do you just play an idiot on the internet?
The Iraq expedition was bound to be a disaster when Bush did piss-poor planning for it and then sent our troops into a shitstorm. Bush doesn’t deserve any credit for anything that goes “right” in Iraq- if anything actually goes all right in Iraq. Bush made a bad decision to invade Iraq, had poor planning, and has responded poorly when things didn’t go as expected. What a feckless turd your man Bush is.
DougJ
Al wasn’t lying. He was just a victim of bad intelligence.
His own.
ppGaz
As they say, “Mistakes were made.”
anon
DougJ,
All around douchebag, now calling him self “Smithy” over
at proteinswisdom.
Merry Christmas, Asshole
DougJ
Are you doing Cloudy over there, anon?
Perry Como
We need to set up a scoreboard.
HH
“I know we all have different political sides, but the back and forth between differing opinions does not mean someone is lying. I don’t think Al was ‘lying,’ nor do I think Glenn is ‘lying.’ It is possible for people to just be, you know, wrong, or, get this, to disagree about what complex statutes mean.”
Welcome to lefty discourse in the Al Franken era.
Slide
Yes, that Franken is responsible. Wish he were more responsible like thee commentators on the right:
Rush (drug addict) Limbaugh, Bill (falafel) O’Reilly, Ann (liberals are traitor) Coulter, Mike (homophobe) Savage, the Good Reverand Pat (lets kill foreign leaders) Robertson, Bill (lets abort all black babies)Bennett. Yeah, the discourse on the right is so inspiring and uplifting.
Slide
Anybody ever hear of Echelon? Nope? You should. It is the program that monitors EVERY phone call, EVERY fax, EVERY electroinc communication, EVERY baby monitor EVERWHERE in the ENTIRE world. And EVERY one of those communications is analized by the NSA. For example:
Want to know more? Read this transcript of a Feb 2000 60 Minutes show. Curious at to your comments.
Baron Elmo
I wish reliapundit would take his mittens OFF before operating such a delicate piece of machinery as a computer keyboard. His gobbledygooky posts are making my eyeballs vibrate unpleasantly.
Slide
We should all pay heed to the words of Frank Church over 20 years ago.
ats
Echelon is no myth. There are huge, busy Radomes tucked away in Bad Aibling, southeast of Munich. I you want to see US versions of them, drive along Hy 32 near Ft. Meade (MD).