home

Let Me Put It To You in Simple English

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:08:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

If we call it a terrorist surveillance program, the White House thinks, the public will embrace our illegal spying. As this editorial makes clear, the president's critics don't oppose surveillance of terrorists. They oppose the president's decision to ignore the laws that give him a lawful way to intercept the communications of persons who are reasonably suspected of promoting terrorism.

"Let me put it to you in Texan," Mr. Bush drawled at the Grand Ole Opry House yesterday. "If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know."

Yes, and so does every American. But that has nothing to do with Mr. Bush's decision to toss out the Constitution and judicial process by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant. Let's be clear: the president and his team had the ability to monitor calls by Qaeda operatives into and out of the United States before 9/11 and got even more authority to do it after the attacks. They never needed to resort to extralegal and probably unconstitutional methods.

The editorialist is unimpressed with the NSA's opinion that the domestic spying program is legal.

The president also said the spying is reviewed by N.S.A. lawyers. That's nice, but the law was written specifically to bring that agency, and the president, under control. And there already is a branch of government assigned to decide what's legal. It's called the judiciary. The law itself is clear: spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal.

< Thursday Open Thread | Extremists React to Gay Actor in Evangelical Film >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Let Me Put It To You in Simple English | 66 comments (66 topical)
    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#1)
    by John Mann on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:57:45 AM EST
    If al-Qaeda is "calling into the United States", why not just arrest the caller?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#2)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:58:54 AM EST
    I, along with most Americans I suspect, dont care whether the prez had a warrant or not to listen in on people conversing with al quaida. There is only one reason someone would call them, and our knowledge of what they say can save lives. So...if we are eavesdropping on people's convos with al quaida and only that, I'm cool with it...even w/o a warrant. But if they start listening to everybody's stuff...I'm not at all cool with that.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#3)
    by roxtar on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:15:38 AM EST
    Ah, but it is the warrant requirement that stands as the wall between "eavesdropping on conversations with al-Qaeda" and "listening to everybody's stuff."

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:33:31 AM EST
    Based on this, I can only infer that TChris thinks that all foreign surveillance is illegal without a warrant - since any conversation picked up may have an American on one end of the conversation, and there's no real way to tell ahead of time. So explain to me - how is anything NSA does legal under this theory of yours?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#5)
    by zak822 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    Todays Des Moines Register has an editorial on the subject. They are not amused. If a heartland paper like this one is not signing off on the "terrorist surveillance program", it ain't gonna sell period. Sorry, I don't have the URL.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#6)
    by peacrevol on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    That is a valid point rox...but given a relative nat'l emergency, I think it was ok to act first and ask questions later. The ole shoot em and ground check em approach I suppose. :)

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    zak882: Sorry, I don't have the URL. This the one, zak? Wiretap -- but not outside the law By REGISTER EDITORIAL BOARD February 2, 2006

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    zak882 and Edger, The implication here, that a cross-section of interests are at work, that groups from the span of radical liberals to anti-gov't militia heartland types are united and fuming. Or at least fuming. But this is another opportunity for the left to take the reigns of a debate and make new "friends". Reality's a f*cker. Find an imagination.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    and by "find and imagination", i didn't mean you two, but the demo party machinery, the "organized left", all of us.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    The question is........"is the glass half empty, or is the glass half full?" TChris and the libs call this surveillance program a domestic eavesdropping program, and GW calls it a terrorist eavesdropping program. There in lies the problem. The calls originate overseas with one party, an AQ suspect, and end with another party in the US. So yes in a way both TChris and GW have justification for calling it "domestic" or "terrorist" eavesdropping. GW does not need a criminal warrant to conduct foreign intel collection, but does require one to conduct surveillance on US citizens inside the US. All this hoopla is nothing but politics. The libs are trying to paint the picture that GW is breaking the law eavesdropping on US citizens and should be impeached. That is pure nonsense. GW is saying the eavesdropping is only on terrorists and is covered with his responsibility to conduct foreign surveillance, without giving consideration that US citizens have a right to privacy. The obvious solution is to conduct the surveillance with independent checks and oversight in place to make sure that both security concerns and privacy rights are protected. However, a simple and reasonable solution hasn't even been suggested because both sides are to busy playing partisan politics.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    The obvious solution is to conduct the surveillance with independent checks and oversight in place to make sure that both security concerns and privacy rights are protected. However, a simple and reasonable solution hasn't even been suggested A simple and reasonable solution has been suggested over and over again. The law, in the from of the FISA court.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    Nice one, Edger. God, it's amazing how Variable looks right past the solution the "libs" are proposing and suggests brightly that Bush's surveillance should be conducted... by the rules the "libs" are proposing and the law requires.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#13)
    by Al on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    If it's relatively easy to get a warrant for surveillance, why doesn't the NSA do it? The only reason I can think of is that they are spying on too massive a scale. The basic flaw in Bush's "plain Texan" explanation is that he is implying that the NSA knows, or at least has a reasonable suspicion, that the conversation they want to tap into is between an AQ member and a local sympathizer. I don't think that's possible. Far more likely is that the NSA is listening in to a massive amount of communications in the hope that they will pick up something incriminating.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#14)
    by Punchy on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:34:41 AM EST
    Var-- The obvious solution is to conduct the surveillance with independent checks and oversight in place to make sure that both security concerns and privacy rights are protected. That's SO obvious. SOOO obvious, in fact, that the gov't, in the 1970s, realized it as well. They passed a law making up the FISA court. Secret judge, mostly rubberstamping applications...minimal oversight, but oversight nonetheless. Any call originating from AQ would have been rubberstamped in a heartbeat. Even days after-the-fact. Not a chance in the world that a call from an AQ member doesn't get the wiretap go-ahead...but alas... Now, it's the law. Nobody can break the law. Not even the President...whoops, nevermind. I guess he can.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    Al: Far more likely is that the NSA is listening in to a massive amount of communications in the hope that they will pick up something incriminating. Right on the money, Al. They're called "fishing expeditions":
    For this is not the first time the NSA has been caught casting so wide a net. In 1976, a Senate inquiry into intelligence overreaching led by Sen. Frank Church exposed secret NSA spying on Americans and prompted Congress to impose new rules. But NSA's domestic spying program today violates those rules, repeating the abuses and wasteful overreaching of the Cold War era. To respond to the most recent bout of domestic spying, Congress' first task should be to understand how and why laws were circumvented.
    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    Thus, the Court outlined seven constitutional requirements: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy. (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations.
    This is what is required for a FISA warrant. If this is what you would like the president to have to go through in order to keep tabs on AQ and their agents in the US, you are an absolute idiot, and should in no way have anything whatsoever to do with my security.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    Variable: If this is what you would like the president to have to go ... you are an absolute idiot Are you seriously suggesting that you, Variable, know better than the Congress who enacted the law, what should and btw IS under law, needed for national security? Who is the "absolute idiot" here?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:14:32 PM EST
    Edger, its a a simple question, look at the criteria and decide if this is what should be required in order to spy on a sworn enemy who is actively seeking your destruction. If you don't want to honestly do that, then spare me all your other nonsense, I already know where your coming from.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    Well, Variable, you began by complaining that: a simple and reasonable solution hasn't even been suggested You were then reminded that in fact a "simple and reasonable solution" has been not only suggested but put into place by the Congress. Their "simple and reasonable solution" is the law, Variable. The law in the form of the FISA Court. You're response to that is to, in so many words, complain that the LAW as enacted by the Congress, is an obstacle to what you want done. The Congress enacted FISA not as an obstacle but, as Punchy and Al pointed out to you, as the required process under law. You asked for a solution. You've got a solution. If you don't like the solution, tough. It's not your call to make, buddy.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    John Mann writes:
    If al-Qaeda is "calling into the United States", why not just arrest the caller?
    Huh? Well, let me see... First, the caller's actual location might not be known. He could be on a landline in an unknown location, or he could be on a cell phone. Secondly, the caller might be a 1000 miles from the nearest US agent or a friendly foreign agent. Thirdly, it could be that the information the caller is providing about plans, etc., to attack various sites is more important than arresting the caller. BTW - You were joking when you asked the question, right? edger writes:
    Are you seriously suggesting that you, Variable, know better than the Congress who enacted the law, what should and btw IS under law, needed for national security?
    I'm going to leave out the value judgments here...;-) But yes. When you look at the above it is quite easy to think of the taps being denied and/or shut down. Especially after reading some of the FISA judges' comments. edger writes:
    But NSA's domestic spying program today violates those rules
    , Well, if they do, where are the court cases???? Surely the Demos would be in front of a judge by now. Along with not believing everything you hear, you should add "read" to the list. Variable writes:
    So yes in a way both TChris and GW have justification for calling it "domestic" or "terrorist" eavesdropping.
    No. When you fly from the US to Cairo it is an international flight. When you fly from Cairo to the US it is an international flight. In either event the relationship to the US is outside the US so it is "international." Dadler writes:
    Find an imagination
    They have. Don't believe me? Read some of the description of the NSA program posted in various forums. et al - From the post:
    The editorialist is unimpressed with the NSA's opinion that the domestic spying program is legal.
    Given the editorialist is from the New York Times, I have no doubt that he is unimpressed. Given the falling circulation figures of the "Newspaper of Record," I would say millions of us are unimpressed with the New York Times.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    Given the falling circulation figures of the "Newspaper of Record," I would say millions of us are unimpressed with the New York Times. As variable need to be reminded:
    You asked for a solution. You've got a solution. If you don't like the solution, tough.


    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    Variable: But yes. When you look at the above it is quite easy to think of the taps being denied and/or shut down. Yes, if the taps are being used to spy on vegan activist groups. No, if the taps are being used to spy on AQ agents. You pointed out that the "simple and reasonable solution" is for the taps to take place under some form of oversight. Yet you don't like the form of "oversight" required by the law, which is: (1) a showing of probable cause that a particular offense has been or is about to be committed; - Fair enough: if you do not believe that any particular offense is to be committed, you have no business applying for a warrant, right? (2) the applicant must describe with particularity the conversations to be intercepted; -So you cannot simply say you want to listen to Joe Bloggs whenever he rings anyone anywhere (3) the surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time in order to minimize the invasion of privacy. - You cannot just tap into Joe Bloggs phone and keep listening to him forever. (4) there must be continuing probable cause showings for the surveillance to continue beyond the original termination date; - If you discover you have reason to continue listening to Joe Bloggs, you have to show the court what that reason is (5) the surveillance must end once the conversation sought is seized; - You cannot keep on listening to Joe Bloggs forever even after you've got the information you needed (6) notice must be given unless there is an adequate showing of exigency; - You can apply for a warrant after the tap if you can show the court you needed to make the tap in too much of a hurry to get to court and (7) a return on the warrant is required so that the court may oversee and limit the use of the intercepted conversations. - You cannot simply make use of the evidence gathered by wiretapping anywhere, you've got to show the court you made use of it. And these restrictions, you consider, are so arduous that Bush is fully entitled just to decide not to bother complying with them? What "oversight", then, would you consider adequate but not so terribly restrictive that Bush just has to break the law rather than comply with it?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:07:20 PM EST
    classic PPJ-
    Given the falling circulation figures of the "Newspaper of Record," I would say millions of us are unimpressed with the New York Times.
    that may be true but as usual your out of context comment when put in context turns out to be mis-leading. All newspapers are in decline, unless the numbers are pumped up by giveaways. Actually the NYT is doing better than most. link

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    Let the Liberty and National Security project of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law "Put it to you in Simple English":
    The words, "Just trust us," do not appear in the United States Constitution. Congress should thus seize the opportunity of the pending Defense Authorization Bill to demand disclosure of the NSA's legal justifications for its domestic spying. Demanding this disclosure is only the beginning of public debate on the proper functioning of our separation of powers in the realm of national security. Intelligence policymaking benefits from public debate--when officials must justify and explain their decisions.


    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    1 state out of 50 speak Texan. So if they are "surveilling" a defense lawyer who was defending the lawyer in Oregon whose "fingerprints" were on the bomb in Spain; and that attorney was speaking to another client on an unrelated matter how long before they discontinue surveillance? I have video of me and my son talking about "having to go do this thing" as it was left on inadvertently. The thing was firing an employee but based on the video/audio evidence it sounded as if we were going to "whack" someone. Most likely because I said "I have to whack her today, I don't want to but she left me no choice, all she had to do was come clean." I would hate to have to be in court defending myself because someone had a hard on for me and decided to 'link" me to a murder. I don't have to be scared because I am a law abiding citizen. But I am scared of those enforcing the law who aren't.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    Jlvngstn, I'm forced to conclude, after that recording of your your conversation with your son, that you both probably live either in Variables closet or underneath Jim's bed, and you're scheming and planning for just the right moment to blow them up in their sleep. "Does that sound reasonable to you?" ;-)

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    Squeaky - Classic Squeaky strawman. What does "all newspapers ciculations" have declined/are declining have to do with the fact that the NYT's are? If all of your friends jump off buildings, will you follow? edger - You seem to think that newspapers can't be prosecuted for espinoage violations. Think again.
    The First Amendment, Edgar and Schmidt found, despite providing "restraints against grossly sweeping prohibitions" on the press, did not deprive Congress of the power to pass qualifying legislation "reconciling the conflict between basic values of speech and security." Indeed, the Espionage Act of 1917 was just such a piece of law-making, and Edgar and Schmidt devote many pages to reviewing the discussion that led up to its passage.
    As     Goss said.
    "The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."
    and..
    "I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.
    edger - No, he doesn't. That space is reserved for a three toed green monster with purple hair...

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    BooBear writes:
    The only logical conclusion I can reach, again using that simple little brain of mine, is that they are lying about the scope and nature of the surveillance.
    The problem is that no one has proved that. And the best defense is that the NYT sat on the story for a year...looking for proof to cap the story.. You surely don't think they did it because the administration asked, do you?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#31)
    by yudel on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    Variable, Look at this link to see how Bush not only chose not to ask Congress to amend the law to fit the bin Laden threat, he mislead Congress into thinking he was actually following the law. That is, assuming you are a person concerned about the issue, rather than just another paid Party hack. (If the Bushies thought there arguments really held water, why would they be paying so many people to spread? I'm now inclined to believe that trolls -- as well as anyone echoing Party doctrines -- is probably doing so because it's their job.)

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Jim, Of course there is no proof of the scope and nature, and the admin. seems to be doing all that they can to make sure that none surfaces. This is my point. What conclusion, other than that they are trying to hide something, can I draw from this?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    Jim - As a former exec in the Paper Biz, declining circulation in the industry is a direct result of the dissemination of information real time i.e., the internet, as well as Cable. Circulation started to decline moderately with the advancement and increase of cable subscribers. Circulation began to decrease substantially with the penetration of internet subscribers increasing due to home usage and availability of news real time.
    Given the falling circulation figures of the "Newspaper of Record,"
    The drop in circulation has nothing to do with the quality of the paper, it has everything to do with timing. When stories broke in the 70's and 80's, prior to massive coverage with cable, people would catch some of the story on the 30 minute local news segment, and the remainder in a more in-depth format in the morning paper. Now you have 3 hours of dead blonde coverage any night of the week and information overkill, which makes people less inclined to read the stale news in the paper in the morning. AFter all, it is usually nearly 9 hours OLD when you read it. The NYT has the largest circulation in the US and darned near the world, which of course is why they consider themselves the "paper of record". I don't know that alone qualifies them but it certainly is worthy of an argument. Lastly, I think the quality of the NYT has dropped considerably over the past 6 years, most of which can be attributed creative writing professionals such as Judy Miller. If the paper of record got the war wrong, it no longer deserves the title.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    Correction - Largest Sunday Circulation in the US (usatoday has to have double the daily circ and the WSJ probably almost double).

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    ppj-Looks like you do not read your own comments.
    What does "all newspapers ciculations" have declined/are declining have to do with the fact that the NYT's are?
    This is what it has to do with
    Given the falling circulation figures of the "Newspaper of Record," I would say millions of us are unimpressed with the New York Times.
    Your conclusion is based on a false, or incomplete premise and thus is false. Figure it out.... The comment you made, reveals nothing (as usual) except perhaps, that your steel trap of a mind has hoplessly corroded.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#36)
    by Punchy on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    Jim-- No one has proved it?? WE'RE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW BURDEN OF PROOF...HE DOES!! He broke the law--he admits as much. HE must show US why he did--justify the action, being that it's illegal under the FISA law. Not to mention...the Senators ASKED for the proof. The documents pertaining to it. The WH denied them. Go tell your buddy GB to release the docs, since they CANT be bad, since they're doing nothing wrong, right?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    Are there more domestic spying programs that we don't know about? From NYT Scott Shane:
    In one pointed exchange, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat, asked Mr. Negroponte whether there were any other intelligence programs that had not been revealed to the full intelligence committees. The intelligence chief hesitated, then replied, "Senator, I don't know if I can answer that in open session."
    And that is not all. Oy vey. Laura Rozen

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:56:17 PM EST
    Good catch, Squeaky... Answering Wyden (in Squeaky's link):
    "Senator," General Hayden said, "I'd like to answer in closed session."
    WTF? Did Hayden just step off a cliff???

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    Yudel:
    I'm now inclined to believe that trolls -- as well as anyone echoing Party doctrines -- is probably doing so because it's their job.>
    Either that, or they are completely immune to logical argument and reason. Whichever it is, it is evident from reading threads on this site for a few months that debating with them is a total waste of time and energy, and really just an unneeded distraction (which may be well be their intent, of course). Consider variable today -- a perfect example of someone posting nonsense, replying to refutations with yet more nonsense, and showing no sign of actually listening. What is the point of devoting valuable time to debating these people? Like the sheep in Animal Farm, all they can do is spout the latest motto approved by their glorious leadership.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:31:38 PM EST
    Var-
    you should in no way have anything whatsoever to do with my security.
    How do they know someone is AQ. If they know why don't they arrest them as enemy combatants, or whatever King George is calling them these days. Our constitution protects innocent people who may feel Secure that they are not randomly hauled off to some torture center or jail on a whim. My guess it that, since criminals murder, rape etc, more people every year than AQ does in America you would also feel secure if those criminals were all spied on without a warrant and arrested without any oversight. Well buddy, someone may turn you in. When that happens you will be screaming about your rights, you know, the ones you sold off so that you can feel more secure.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    Cymro, I have a pet theory about this, too. You said debating with them is a total waste of time and energy, and really just an unneeded distraction (which may be well be their intent, of course). I think it goes slightly farther, if the trolling is an organized effort, to filling the thread with as much extraneous crap as possible to make the threads virtually unreadable to future readers of archives or to commenters arriving late in the thread as a logical sequential debate of the topic of the thread. Note that many of the trolling posts are very large, full of nonsense and diversions, and usually follow a particularly well reasoned point or refutation.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:48:36 PM EST
    Some other ways of looking at it is as "redacting" the thread. Or scribbling all over the pages of library books that they don't want people to read. Or Like graffitti all over advertising posters. Or like throwing as much sh*t as they can at the thread to keep the commenters so busy they can't think straight. It's childish, whatever the motivations.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 06:56:53 PM EST
    Punchy - No. He has said what he has done. You consider that illegal. There is, as you might suspect if you will give a wee bit of logical thought, a vast difference in the two positions. And they asked for "proof?" What does that mean? Proof of what? How can the WH prove a negative? Bush has described explicity what is being done. Sorry if you don't like it. Squeaky - No. My body may be rusty, but the mind remains sharp. My comment was to the failure of the NYT. You introduced a straw horse that all newspapers are suffering circulation lossess. That is not true, and you offer no proof beyond an assertion. But even if ALL were, can you demonstrate that the NYT is not losing circulation because of its extreme Left Wing slant? You wrote:
    Are there more domestic spying programs that we don't know about?
    That was not the question. The question was:
    In one pointed exchange, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, a Democrat, asked Mr. Negroponte whether there were any other intelligence programs that had not been revealed to the full intelligence committees.
    Note that there is no mention of "domestic" in either the question or the answer. Why do you make such inacurate charges? Jlvngstn - You sound like the US auto makers in the late 70's, early 80's. "Not my fault. Poor timing. We're trying..." And what they consider themselves, has nothing to do with what the public thinks of them. But I especially love this:
    Now you have 3 hours of dead blonde
    It would seem to me that if they have such a quality product they would have no problem being on top. Can I guess your reply? "The American people are just to stupid to recognize it..." Like Detroit said: "Now's who's gonna buy those rice burners?" And the answer is.... ALMOST EVERYBODY. BooBear - Did you stop and consider that most military and governmemt people think it very poor form to talk about on going intelligence programs?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    Thanks for making my point for me Jim. I knew if I could count on anyone, I could count on you. ;-)

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:02:02 PM EST
    Cymro & Edger-Sometimes it is good to be forced to articulate thoughts and ideas that we take for granted. Trolls occasionally serve our purpose as a kind of sharpening stone. Carlos Castenada said something like this: "If you do not have a petty tyrant in your life go find one." In order to not be bothered by the flies, so to speak, one must develop spiritually and emotionally. Some of the trolls are more annoying than others, they do represent a voice out there. Maybe it is a good thing to let them hover and occasionally put them in their place.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    Good points, Squeaky. Castaneda's full of jewels of wisdom. Between him and Alan Watts, they had more influence on me than most writers.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    ppj-obviously you did not read either the Rozen or NYT link. Oh well....

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:26:58 PM EST
    Note that many of the trolling posts are very large, full of nonsense and diversions, and usually follow a particularly well reasoned point or refutation... Some other ways of looking at it is as "redacting" the thread. Whatever it is, it's a losing battle for them, and just a delaying tactic, since people who can think and reason and really want to know what's going on will dig through mountains of BS to get their answers. They have much greater attention spans than the trolls.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    Squeaky - I quoted you and what you quoted. Were you wrong? et al - You may quote me. There are probably four or more intelligence gathering activities that they're not gonna talk about. You know. Protecting the country. Wouldn't be prudent.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    Wouldn't be prudent. No, of course not. ;-)

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:35:38 PM EST
    ppj- yes one of them is Poindexter's "Total Information Awareness [which] had been effectively transferred to the intelligence agencies after being shut down by Congress." Sounds domestic to me.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 09:52:11 PM EST
    Bottom Line to this entire arguement is do you trust George W. Bush? I know that Bush has lied to us so many times that if he were to say it was a rainy Thursday Night, at about 9:50 pm: I'd examine the calendar, glance out a window and look at my watch. Where are those WMD's again? What was that about Tax Cuts and still maintaining the Surplus? What was all that about those viable Stem Cell lines we had to work with? What was that about the US Government having to have warrants? As you can see, I have good reason to not trust The Toxic Texan! I'd like to see demands that they turn over the White House's Enemies list. I for one, want to know--did Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc use the NSA to compile information against those who oppose the Administration?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#52)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    i always enjoy reading jim's invective. brain dead though it be, i get a big chuckle out him. he spews and spews and spews but, at the end of the day, all he's done is make a nonsensical mess on the literary floor. the bottom line jimbo: the 4th amendment "probable cause" requirement trumps the president's executive authority, period. the nyt holding the story, like most of the claptrap that passes as your commentary, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. so f*ing what? last time i checked, the nyt has no legal authority that any judge would recognize. well, ok, except maybe for judges brown, judy or wapner. repeat this mantra throughout the day: probable cause, probable cause, probable cause.............. you'll not only feel a sense of peace coming over you, you might actually learn something about the constitution mr. bush is sworn to protect and defend.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:34:00 AM EST
    JimAKAppj: How can the WH prove a negative? Bush has described explicity what is being done. And if that is what is being done, and all that's being done, there was no reason to circumvent the law and perform illegal wiretaps. Yet that's what Bush has done. If someone is accused of committing a crime, and their defense is that they didn't really do anything wrong, do you always then declare them innocent without trial on the sole evidence that they themselves say they didn't really do anything wrong? You don't appear to feel towards the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay like that: you've been declaring them guilty on no evidence at all for years.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:37:22 AM EST
    Squeaky: Sounds domestic to me. Only a little bit domestic (sic), and though none of this is new news it's probably not as well known as it should be: The Total Information Awareness (TIA) system will, according to Poindexter, "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases... --CATO Institute
    ... documents (pdf) show that General Wesley Clark, a lobbyist for commercial data company Acxiom, met with former Total Information Awareness developer, Admiral John Poindexter in May and June 2002. Previously obtained documents from the same time period indicate that Acxiom was considered as a source of personal information for a government "mega-scale database." Study Finds Extensive Data Mining in Federal Agencies. a The General Accounting Office has issued report (pdf) that identifies almost 200 data mining projects throughout the federal government that are either operational or in the planning stage. Many of them make use of personally identifiable data obtained from private sector databases. Sen. Daniel Akaka, who requested the study, released a statement and said, "It is time that we review agency practices and existing law to ensure that the privacy rights of individuals are not violated through the development of new technology." EPIC has obtained the system description (PDF, 4.5 MB) for the Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program. The document describes an elaborate system of human identification and surveillance. EPIC is pursuing a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Defense to obtain further information about the TIA Program. --EPIC TIA Page


    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 04:59:57 AM EST
    For the past week I've been tracking my girlfriend through her mobile phone. I can see exactly where she is, at any time of day or night, within 150 yards, as long as her [cell] phone is on. It has been very interesting to find out about her day. Now I'm going to tell you how I did it... Guardian Unlimited, February 01, 2006


    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:56:53 AM EST
    Let me put this to the bloggers in simple English. Nothing will happen to Bush regarding the NSA Scandal. It will either continue or be scaled back but their will be no impeachment and the longer the Dems demegogue this issue the worse off they are. Bush has won the political argument barring some huge revelation that more then likely will not happen. That's the political question. The legal question is very much in doubt and anyone that sets their partisan feelings aside realizes this issue is in grey area or murky water. It is not clear cut that the president broke the law but it is not clear cut that he didn't. The legal question will be solved through congressional hearings and some sort of compromise will be made. The real question is will the country be better off now that the program has been exposed. The simple answer is no. I believe the president was doing everything he can to stop terrorists from comitting another attack and listening to al queda talk to anybody, american or not, was a morally justifiable course of action. He truely believes it was legal so he did it and we were all safer for it. Hopefully the NSA if figuring other ways to spy on Al Queda. No matter where they are or who they're talking to.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:06:22 AM EST
    I believe the president was doing everything he can to stop terrorists... and we were all safer for it.
    You were right Telly... continues to milk 9/11 for all it's worth.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 07:47:23 AM EST
    FISA legislation states:
    Non-U.S. persons are "agents" under FISA if they act in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a terrorist organization, § 1801(b)(1)(A) act for or on behalf of a foreign power that engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to U.S. interests when (1) the circumstances of such persons' presence in the United States "indicate that such person may engage in such activities, or (2) when such person knowingly aids or abets any person, or conspires with any person to engage in such activities." 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(1)(B). So, for instance, a British national who works for the British embassy in the United States is an agent of a foreign power. American citizens and permanent residents are "agents" if they knowingly engage in espionage for a foreign power or intelligence service, and such activities "are about to involve" a violation of U.S. laws--any criminal laws, not just espionage. §1801(b)(2)(B).
    So just knock off the impeachment nonsense, the president has the constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign intelligence gathering on US and non US citizens inside the borders of the US, without a warrant. The FISA courts openly admit this, several previous cases have proved it, as BSRB has shown, if you ever want to be considered anything but lunatic lefties, you will deal with it. Now, the question becomes: Is the type of data mining that the NSA has been doing under the Echelon program, to determine who the foreign agents are, constitutionally sound. I would be the first to agree that there are some constitutional issues with doing this type of data mining. However, with oversight, the far overreaching security concerns far outweigh the minimal privacy invasion to US citizens. Lets be honest, with proper oversight to prohibit abuse, who really cares if a computer searches my email and phone calls searching for terroristic buzzwords. What harm does that cause me? absolutely none! The benefits could realistically be the difference between life and death. I understand that you libs see this issue differently than I do, and hey, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, but what I cant understand is your inability to realize that these opinions and beliefs are exactly what has caused you to loose credibility with the American public, and that your credibility will never be restored until you turn away from these ideas. This why you have lost power in the Senate, the House, The executive, and are a hairs breath away from loosing the court as well. A single party system is not at all a good thing, and you know this, but still you keep running full steam ahead down the path of your own destruction. It's embarrassing. Wake up.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:22:35 AM EST
    edger writes:
    For the past week I've been tracking my girlfriend
    That's very interesting. Now what is his claim? That he can contact a website and buy a service that will let him enter his girlfriend's telephone number, and when "approved" the website will determine which cellular company provides her service, then connect into the cellular company who will then determine which base station she is connected to, and from that which cell site she is connected to and from that pass down GPS informaton to the website who will convert it to a map for display on the screen. And of course the newspaper doesn't want him to publish the website's address. Any idea why not? My guess this is a fake. Technically feasible but it requires the cooperation of the cellular company. And it definitely wouldn't be in their interest to sell such service.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    ...it requires the cooperation of the cellular company. And it definitely wouldn't be in their interest to sell such service. The recent finding that you note in your comment, of cell phone records being purchasable, was done without the explicit cooperation of the phone companies. The just helped out by being hackable.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    Sounds domestic to me.
    The question, are they tapping phone calls without warrants??? Telly Kastor writes:
    These people shouldn't just be removed from office. They should be taken out and shot. They are unquestionably the most incompetent, corrupt administration and congress in history.
    Evidently you don't think the government is watching. BTW - Are you related to charliedontsurf10 (or was it 12)???

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    So just knock off the impeachment nonsense, the president has the constitutional responsibility to conduct foreign intelligence gathering on US and non US citizens inside the borders of the US, without a warrant. No, he doesn't. The FISA courts openly admit this, several previous cases have proved it, as BSRB has shown Why are you bothering with this nonsense? You know that none of it is true: the law you cited is irrelevant. Assuming that you are a US citizen, Variable, if the President decides to put a wiretap on your phonecalls - whether foreign or domestic - he has to get a warrant.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    Jim, Cellular scanners are available almost anywhere. So are GPS locating devices. If you're going to get into denial that technology exists and is available on the retail market you need a large Glenfiddich or seven or eight, not more kool-aid. Check out Radio Shack or your local spy stuff supply store. There's at least one in every city I've been in the past twenty years, if you really want to know what's going on here.

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    If you are a US citizen the NSA needs to seek a warrant, unless you are classified as a foreign agent. In this case US citizen or not a warrant is not necessary
    (a) "Foreign power" means-- (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. ( b) "Agent of a foreign power" means-- ( 1) any person other than a United States person, who-- (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section; (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or (2) any person who-- (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    If you are a US citizen the NSA needs to seek a warrant, unless you are classified as a foreign agent Fine. Then when Bush is impeached for spying on US citizens without a warrant, all he has to do is show evidence that every single US citizen who was wiretapped was a foreign agent according to the definition you just cited. I wonder if he'll be able to do that?

    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    Shorter BSRB: I am not setting out to change your mind... I am making a good faith effort to get both sides of the story. Of course. And the repetitive huge bandwith wasting crossposts are such an effort of good faith, as are the repeated quotes from powerline, the diversions, thread hijacking, dissembling and ignoring of questions, citations and points made by others. A good faith effort, but not a troll... of course.
    I am not a Troll
    Reminds me of another famous quote by another republican:
    I am not a Crook.
    Re: Let Me Put It To You in Simple English (none / 0) (#67)
    by John Mann on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 05:00:03 PM EST
    First, the caller's actual location might not be known. He could be on a landline in an unknown location, or he could be on a cell phone. Secondly, the caller might be a 1000 miles from the nearest US agent or a friendly foreign agent. Thirdly, it could be that the information the caller is providing about plans, etc., to attack various sites is more important than arresting the caller. BTW - You were joking when you asked the question, right?
    Last point first: I certainly was not joking. Last week in a speech, Mr. Bush said the eavesdropping applies only to "known al-Qaeda operatives and affiliates". That, Jim, is why I asked the question. The key word is "known".

    Let Me Put It To You in Simple English | 66 comments (66 topical)