Powered by TypePad

« Be Careful What You Wish For | Main | A Question For James Risen »

December 24, 2005



Get a warrant

Rider's typical idiotic remark reminds me of a previous question:

Let's say the FBI is wiretapping the Godfather, their warrant is for him. If someone like Rider calls the Godfather to find out where to deliver the coke, is Rider’s privacy being invaded? Is this how that works? ...

Godfather: Did you get the package?

Rider: xxxxxxx

Godfather: What else do you need?

Rider: xxxxxxx

Godfather: I thought Tony was handling that?

Rider: xxxxxx

Godfather: Three? How long to get there?

Rider: xxxxxx

Godfather: Okay, good.

After all, the feds don’t have a warrant for Rider. So do they have to get a warrant for Rider to wiretap the full conversation? Is that how it works? Don't think so.


Does a person having a call over a telephone line or RF medium actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Constitution (particularly the Fourth Amendment)?

In a legal sense only. The fact that people are switching to cordless and cell phones for convenience indicates they are comfortable with privacy being a matter of good manners rather than a constitutional right. The added personal security cells provide is also a factor.

Safety and convenience combine to alter an older mindset that considers privacy an essential component of liberty. The sense that electronics everywhere are getting "smarter" with eyes and ears gives the transition an inevitable quality.

The perception that this is a cudgel to bash Bush is just another misunderestimation.



BTW, I don't think it was any low-level NSA grunt who leaked. It was higher ups who did. The low-level guys actually hear the terrorists talking.

If so, then who are some likely candidates? We need "nearly a dozen." Apparently not Jane Harmon, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, since she claims to agree with the "program." Any particularly disingenuous partisans who were probably up to speed?

Judge Robertson? (I'm voting for him.)
Richard Clarke?


Remember this leak was in October of 2004--Add Rand Beers to the list.


I saw Rand Beers being interviewed yesterday as an 'expert' on the leak. I couldn't help wondering if Clarice was right and Rand Beers was squirming in his seat...considering the questions were about the leaker.



With this infestation of bunkers, who you gonna call, Debunkers.

Noah, it's Nowhere Man's Land.

Clarke? That depraved vermin is still depredating? Where's my well regulated right to bear varmint arms? For escorting him to the hanging; all nice and legal here.

R, you simply don't trust Bush to use datamining soley against alien enemies. When those have domestic allies, what then? Don't you imagine we can create safeguards for the innocent? Who do you trust?


"Don't you imagine we can create safeguards for the innocent? Who do you trust?"

She says while casting a menacing glance at Clarke, whom she sees as Public Enemy #1. When you've all got political enemies hit lists in your pockets (see above), who's "innocent" and above suspicion? I'd advise Clarke, Robertson, Rockefeller, Polosi, et al. to use scramblers and encryption at this point. Woudln't you?

Seven Machos

1. Rider is the kind of person who thinks you can ask a drug dealer if he is a cop and he has to say, "Yes" if he is.



Osdama Bin Laden:- Hi Mom,Merry Christmas!

Riyadh:- Who is this speaking?

OBL:-Me Mom your son Osama..

R;- My son the terrorist,you never ring you never call...how much do you want?

OBL,:- Nothing,Mom.I....

R;-You could have been a builder like your poor dear late father,died of a broken heart,but oh no,was ever a mother so cursed.

OBL;- Mom...

R;- We sacrificed everything for you,was ever a poor widow ever cursed by such an ungrateful son?

OBL;- But Mom...

R;-Don't you Mom me..you never vist your poor old gieving mother.

OBL;- But Mom it's a bit hard,I live in a cave in Afghanistan and...

R;- My son..In a cave..In Afghanistan..You are breaking my heart..after all we have done for you.
Are you in trouble Bubba?


Nixon's Bill of Impeachment, Article II, Abuse of Power

"...(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President."

The electronic surveillance of private citizens? It was only about six people, and the purpose of it was to stop leaks. It is an impeachable offence.


Pure paranoia Rider,
"She says while casting a menacing glance at Clarke, whom she sees as Public Enemy #1. When you've all got political enemies hit lists in your pockets (see above), who's "innocent" and above suspicion? I'd advise Clarke, Robertson, Rockefeller, Polosi, et al. to use scramblers and encryption at this point. Woudln't you?"

This is.if it has escaped your attention, a Blog,a place for the layperson to discuss events,what is said here cannot be extrapolated to national government.This is not a Deaniac site.
BTW Don't forget to engage your scrambler,the Pizza delivery service might be confused,but you can never be too sure.


Rider is obviously more worried about politics than saving lives.

Corruption happens. We deal with it.


Kim - re: the strategy in Fallujah
...it was worth the gamble to see if the tactic of enrolling Saddam's military infrastructure to control Fallujah, would work. Well, it didn't. Remember, though, he was being criticized at that time for completely disbanding Saddam's Army.

Excellent point and one often lost in the liberal chatter of the media.


"Paranoia" in the present context is pure snark and an example of freedom-hating mockery of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Labeling political opponents and dissidents mentally ill, btw, is a tactic that comes straight out of the old Soviet Union, where the label was grounds for packing dissidents and trouble-makers off to psychiatric prisons. Proud history you're tapping into there.



I don't know who the First Leak! was. The confirming leaks are just as guilty. And because it looks like it was meant for an October Surprise, I'd suspect any partisan who knew rather than a civil rights purist. On that basis I would think the judge was a confirmer, not the initial leaker. But I wouldn't make any bets.

Rand Beers denies knowing about the program at all. I thought I detected a hesitation in his answer (forgot what show he was on) but that was probably only my imagination because I'm sure he knew he would be asked that question and was well-prepared.


Osama: Yo Rider....what up

Rider: The bunker buster is ready

Osama: careful...the NSA is listening!!

Rider: chimpeachment draws near

Osama: FISA violation?

Rider: zactly....the fascists!!!

Osama: what fools...Praise to Allah!!

Rider: Mazel Tof Bindy Boy!!


Judge Robertson? (I'm voting for him.)
Richard Clarke?

Posted by: Extraneus | December 31, 2005 at 09:49 AM

Remember this leak was in October of 2004--Add Rand Beers to the list.

I think this was a concert...a "leaking party" (think Schumers invasion of Steels privacy). These "leaks" much to Riders chagrin weren't made to "expose" anything for moral and constitutional concerns, they were purely political.

Democratic Party = PARTY OVER SECURITY = no soul



Cut the garbage. Paranoia in this sense means political paranoia, not the mental-illness kind.

Political battles in America are just talk. Terrorists use actions. We can survive political corruption.


"Paranoia" in the present context is pure snark and an example of freedom-hating mockery of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

Rider unless you regard yourself as the Constitution made flesh,and an examination of you profuse outpourings does not render that unlikely,the mockery is of you,the individual.

I'll re-post this as a reminder of where you are coming from.

"She says while casting a menacing glance at Clarke, whom she sees as Public Enemy #1. When you've all got political enemies hit lists in your pockets (see above), who's "innocent" and above suspicion?"

Remembering this is a blog and not the Star Chamber,you might want to re-consider your "Impeach Bush" monomania of the month,you are rehashing the same argument over and over,is it some Lady MacBeth syndrome?


Syl -

No. Get 500 warrants.

At a time.

Exactly! Imagine the bureaucracy that would be required to keep up with such an endeavor - not to mention the cost. Imagine all the little Fitzes running around tripping over each other as they try to keep tabs on the enormous paper trails.

What concerns me more is the blanket acceptance of some to the eroding of the Constitutional role of the President as the Commander in Chief. Under Rider's scenario, this function would be ceded to the federal judiciary - an unelected, unknown group of individuals that has virtually no accountability.


It's not just the volume, guys--it's that this form of electronic surveillance is largely looking for threads and poatterns and doesn't fit a probable cause law enforcement template.

And even when it does--see Moussaoui-- the judges make the hurdles too high. (See Weekly Standard article cited above or review the now forgotten(by the journos who wrote them) reports in 2002 about how FISA hampered our intel before 9/11. For most of 2001 Lamberth's fight with the FBI's Resnick, the investigation and reassignment of him for trying to get warrants to keep an eye on AQ BTW meant the program was not in use.

Beers was on the NSC until May of 2003. Of course he knew about the program. His denial only adds to my suspicion.


You know this fear that the war will take a long time, therefore we can't give the Executive the power, is truly silly. Every four years we can change the individual who occupies the Executive seat.

There's so much 'worry' over handing debt to our children, why do these same people not worry about handing escalating terror attacks as well?

Our children, or their children, can kill the Patriot Act if they so wish.


Oops, dasn't mention the 'P' word, there, kim. Someone's perhaps a little sensitive, invoking Stalin again. Remember kim's corollary to Godwin's Law, that the more often fascism is evoked by a disputant the more likely it's projection.

We could sit here and scream fascist at each other until my computer refuses to load the bundle of posts, or I could start at the head of the thread and query you again over each point of mine you've ignored.


Clarice: He can always truly say that he didn't know then what he knows now. Grand deceivers, such as Beers, and Clarke, oh well Berger, Clinton, Wilson, God knows it's endemic, use this rhetorical device commonly. It's a reverse marker of candidosity.


"The fact is that al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on Page One and when America's is, it has serious ramifications. You don't need to be Sun Tzu to understand that." -- Thomas Duffy, White House spokesman

is 1000 post thread a record for JOM??

Happy New Year to TM and all the great posters here!


It is all right for you to mock,but Rider has read about Stalin...in books..Stalin is very real to Rider..they talk regularly.


I like your user name. How about a Lamont or Grady bunker buster?
Rider, Time to make a New Year's resolution, I will be positive and upbeat and I will trust at least one conservative a day. Happy New Year to all!


I agree it probably is Beers. He looked weasly in his last interview.


"Our children, or their children, can kill the Patriot Act if they so wish."

Bush beat them to it. Warrants??? Screw the Patriot Act. Who needs it?


He looked weasly""

There's probable cause. Close enough. Tap him.


The Clinton Cabal of Confabulators was(were...how does the Mother Tongue of 'cabal' enumerate grammatically a group and its members?) mostly deceiving themselves. How does one mark the depth of cynicism to which a man must descend in order to tolerate the perversion of the historical record by stealing it away hidden away in his underwear, eh? This guy held the key to turning the lock on bin Laden? I tell you, the dearth of candidosity manifested by Berger is enough to render one unto the depths of despair.

Let's widely tar MainStreamMedia with this brush, too. What price the Gray Lady's 'historical record', now?


Rider does not seem to be able to come up with one single complainant who has had their rights infringed.
Still not come up with an answer to the 72 hours question,Rider is coming over more as a Democratic hack or the office boy at the NYT than the believer in liberty he pretends to be.




Truzenzuzex asks a very, very good question:

“My question is: Does a person having a call over a telephone line or RF medium actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Constitution (particularly the Fourth Amendment)?”

As I recall, the Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment to wiretaps on landlines. I’m not aware of a case in which a court has held that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy for cell phones, cordless phones or unencrypted e-mail. In US v Miller, 425 US 435 (1976), the Supreme Court held that there was not a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records. I think there was (or it seems that there should have been) a case holding that there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in checks and a similar case for postcards (might have been Fifth Amendment cases I saw long ago, but the rational would seem to apply to the Fourth Amendment).

Some time ago, there were some ethics opinions which required attorneys to advise clients that they might not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone calls, on a cordless phone, or in e-mail. We use the following disclaimer on our unencrypted e-mail:

“I must advise you that Internet communications are subject to interception. Therefore, your expectation of privacy may be deemed waived; and these communications may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege.”

Those decisions deal with waiver of attorney-client privilege, not the Fourth Amendment. I would certainly contend that the disclaimer does actually waive any expectation of privacy, but is merely a warning about a possible legal result, and therefore does not amount to a waiver or consent to interception for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. I have reservations about using the disclaimer for those reasons, but do so for ethical reasons.

The last time I looked at the technology, “newer” cordless phones (the higher frequency transmissions or those transmitting digital, rather than analog signals) were not susceptible to scanners nor were digital cell phones, though analog cell phones were.

There have been some other, more recent, ethics opinions which indicate that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone calls, or calls on a cordless phone, because interception could constitute a criminal offense under federal or state law.

While I think you can compare unencrypted e-mail to a postcard, where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, I think the circumstances are different. While e-mail does travel through a number of servers & leaves traces & records in a number of places, chances are very good that no human will ever see that e-mail. More like a postcard that you drop into a box, that’s sorted by a machine, that’s delivered automatically, that no human ever touches or sees. Practically, you do have an expectation of privacy because the volume is so great, that no human is going to look at all the-email that goes through the system. I think that the rationale of the more recent ethics opinions, that it is typically unlawful to intercept (or to use) intercepted electronic communications is the better rationale.

You could argue that GST is merely an algorithmic sorting or filtering, similar to filtering for an address & routing e-mail accordingly, but there’s also an argument that searching for a text string in the e-mail to single the e-mail out for further investigation is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Then there’s the question as to whether the search is unreasonable, as the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant, but prohibits unreasonable searches.


I like your user name.

google it and you will see photos of a very nice beach in La Jolla California


Happy New Year, everyone.

And Happy New Year Tom, wherever you are.


It seems that Risen was chiding at the slowness of intelligence gathering during the Afghan campaign.
Man can't make his mind up.


"If the "surveillance is less than 72 hours,what offence has been committed?"

I have foolishly tried to answer this question several times, only asking in return that those who seem so fascinated by the question actually read the law. I am posting the relevant section of the law again below, though I doubt there is much hope. As I have said and others have concurred, I am no lawyer. What do I know? Read it for yourself and form your own opinion. My opinion carries no weight here whatever.

The question is really an attempt to find a loophole in the law. The supposition is that the feds go out sans warrant, stumble on some good stuff, and listen for 70 hours, say. At that point, they either burn it or call the legal department to fill out the forms and apply for a warrant. No problem. They get 72 hours of snoop-time free, right?

In that scenario, I'd say the answer is "No, they don't. No loophole. Sorry." Here's why. The relevant section (below) does not say they can set about doing intercepts entirely on their own.

It says the AG tells a judge in advance that they are going to surveil, that it is an emergency, there is no time to waste, they have good reason, etc., etc., but they don't have applications ready now but the paperwork will follow Under those circumstances, a retro-active warrant can be granted when the paperwork catches up with the surveillance.

The scenario boris is so fixated on presumably involves no such advance notice to a judge saying the paperwork is forthcoming. It's just a warrantless wiretap on an American. That's illegal, unless a judge has been notified in advance that the paperwork is in progress.

Also, there are minimization procedures in place which mean that it probably wouldn't happen by accident that you intercepted a USPERS in the process of surveilling an agent of a foreign power, such as the notorious PeterUK. If the telephone company is providing the acces, say, they might block the American half of the tap. (I don't even know how that works, much less how it works with e-mail or radio intercepts).

So, what should the President do? Let's say he's data mining the entire comsat data feed. Zillions of calls. But as I understand it, only a computer is "listening" to the data. No human. The computers spit out a list of U.S. numbers and foreign numbers. The NYT story mentioned that the NSA was at any given time actually eavesdropping on about 500 U.S. persons. The list is re-approved by Bush every 45 days. Names are dropped and names are added, but the hot list is about 500 names. Now each time Bush does his re-approval, this is NOT and emergency situation. It's a helluva lot of names, but it's NOT an emergency. For the life of me, I do not understand why the AG cannot take the FISA judge a list of 500 names / numbers and apply for warrants for the names that are on the hot list at that time. The grounds for a FISA warrant are looser than for a criminal warrant. All the AG has to show the judge is reason they think these 500 are likely connected to terrorists. Looks to me like some kind of data mining results could be used. But again I'm no lawyer.

I would think that the only time the AG would need an emergency 72 hour application would be if somebody on the 500-name hotlist called another USPERS of interest. Now in that case (am I right?) since we're saying a judge had approved the 500, NSA could tap the unexpected guy (who somehow got through the minimization) for 72 hours after which they have to have a warrant. What if they don't get a warrant for #501 and they listened for 70 hours? Beats the hell out of me. But in order for that situation to exist under the law, the first 500 would have to have been under warrant.

Really, the 72-hour law is designed for hurry-up, emergency, not a minute to lose surveilling; not for 72 hours of free routine snooping unless you find something hot. That for me is the difficulty in trying to answer the question. The basis of the question is an attempt to be within the law while circumventing it. I don't think you can get away with it because no judge has been notified in advance.

I hope this answers the question. That's the best I can figure. Bush should have applied for warrants each time he renewed the order to surveil the 500-name hotlists. And if there were any extras, he should have used the emergency 72-hour clause to start the tap and do the paperwork later. It's reasonable. It does fit the technology.
There's no reason he couldn't fight terrorists with these FISA-Patriot procedures. If he didn't get warrants, he was breaking the law. No free snoop-time.

FISA 1805...(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

Happy New Year.


Thanks Rider,
It doesn't say what you say,I will read it in detail next year,in the meantime don't take any bar exams.


If data mining is used to arrive at a 500-name hotlist, I also don't see why there could not be some oversight of that by the FISA judge even under the existing FISA-Patriot law. Go to the judge, tell her you are going to do a classified data mining operation on international phone traffic into and out of the U.S., that this only involves computers sifting through data at this point, that there will be no eavesdropping on conversations. Show the judge what the Echelon computers will be looking for in the data mining and tell her
that from this part of the operation you hope to arrive at a list of about 500 numbers that have phone contacts with known Al Qaeda numbers / persons. Tell her that you will return with your list to apply for warrants. I would be that's all it would take. The judges have security clearances. Patriot Act expanded the court to 11 judges from 7 judges, presumably to handle more warrant requests. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see why this wouldn't work. Put the data mining under judicial oversight. Apply for warrants. BINGO.

Gary Maxwell

Put me down for listening in anyone OBL calls and reaches and making notes of anyone that he calls but does not get through to. We should listen to the voicemail left too.

Any American could have no legitimate purpose for speaking to someone with which we are at war.

If the freaking Democrats want to bring forward a fix to any problems with current law, come on down and I will applaud you. More than likely that wont be happening though.

So If you got a bitch but no solutions go ahead and make my day and try a motion for impeachment. It will fly like a rice paper airplane. But it will be fun to see the Dems humiliated by the crushing vote.


"Put me down for listening in anyone OBL calls and reaches and making notes of anyone that he calls but does not get through to. We should listen to the voicemail left too."


NSA is monitoring OBL in Pakistan. No warrant needed. He dials a U.S. number. The tape is rolling. NSA section chief calls AG. AG calls FISA judge and says we have an operation underway, it involves OBL and a U.S. number, we will get the paperwork to you ASAP. The judge says, "Go for it! See you within 72 hours."


"NSA is monitoring OBL in Pakistan. No warrant needed. He dials a U.S. number. The tape is rolling. NSA section chief calls AG. AG calls FISA judge and says we have an operation underway, it involves OBL and a U.S. number, we will get the paperwork to you ASAP. The judge says, "Go for it! See you within 72 hours."

Whilst this is happening a plane flys into a nuclear reactor.Have you any realistic idea of how long the procedure takes Rider? Give an estimate,"Go For it"

Gary Maxwell


Are you just stupid or do you play one on tv? You know that have not the faintest idea of what the program entails or if any of his calls even went to American citizens for starters. And I would guess with the wave of calls coming in, it might be weeks before we even know that such a call was made - even with sophisticated computers doing the digging for us. I am quite sure OBL does not announce his name on the call or make the call every Thursday from the same Karachi 7/11 pay phone. Sheesh.


Sorry. I have no idea. Forgive me for trying to answer your goddam question.


If you don't know any of the answers stop pontificating,it's giving stupid a bad name.


Peter - Nothing I described should impede stopping an airplane flying into a reactor. The legal, temporarily-warrantless surveillance starts the instant they have a U.S. person contacting OBL or OBL contacting a U.S. person. If they hear about an airplane, they take action independently of the AG contacting the judge to let her know the paperwork will follow.

Gary - The weeks you are talking about are weeks spent monitoring calls overseas between and among AQ members. However long that process takes until a U.S. number shows up (incoming or outgoing) doesn't have a freaking thing to do with any warrant procedure. No warrant needed if it's overseas and just involves foreigners talking to each other. That is covered under FISA's provisions for warrantless surveillance.

Once a U.S. number comes into the picture, and maybe it's after six months or two years of monitoring, as soon as that number comes up the scenario I described starts. The tape is rolling. Section chief calls AG, AG calls judge and notifies judge. How long does that take? I have no freaking idea, do you? It could take fifteen minutes or it could take 12 hours for the judge to return the call. That doesn't affect the surveillance. As I read it, it doesn't make any difference because a legal surveillance of a U.S. person is already underway. It started the instant the U.S. number came up and the section chief notified the AG. Everything that followed is part of the legal emergency procedure. The law says the AG notifies the FISA judge "at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made." Have you still not read the damned law, Gary?

I would bet that the NSA section chiefs have AG Gonzalez's cellphone or hotline for this situation. Probably the AG has the judge's cellphone or hotline for the same purpose. I don't imagine the AG or the judge finish their round of golf before returning one of these calls. What do you think? My guess is the AG tells the section chief "Keep it rolling!" My guess is the judge tells the AG, "Godspeed, Mr. Gonzalez!" We are all on the same side here.

I've told you all I know. I've made it as clear as I know how. I've had more than enough of your rudeness. Figure the rest of it out for yourselves. Best wishes and good luck.



You are the one being rude by taking us all for fools, expecting us to believe it's that simple. Sheesh man. What you propose is totally absolutely pointless. We may as well not have a judicial system at all if it works the way you propose here.

You basically are saying that there should be blanket warrants--just get them one at a time. That's not judicial oversight, that's rubberstamping.

Blanket warrants are a no-no. We have to change the law in order to do what you say is so simple do right now.


"The tape is rolling. Section chief calls AG, AG calls judge and notifies judge. How long does that take? I have no freaking idea, do you? It could take fifteen minutes or it could take 12 hours for the judge to return the call. That doesn't affect the surveillance."

Rider, the operative phrase is "I have no freaking idea,"
A typical "liberal" way of thinking,you don't know the details, you don't know how much time it would take,but lets do it your way.More to the point nobody knows who is going to turn up on the surveillance of a foreign telephone number.
Say,for arguments sake it is a Democratic Senator and a Democratic judge,is permission going to be granted?
Remember Kerry treated with the Vietcong,someone else might feel they can make a name for themselves treating with al Qaeda.

There have been more political leaks during this war that you cannot be sure.
So many duplicitous cover ups,Rendition began under Clinton for example,that there is very little trust that any disclosures will not be used for political purposes.

It is quite amazing this childlike trust you have in the judiciary and the impartiality thereof.

As for rudeness, your rants and insults up the thread leave you fair game and "Frankly my Dear,I don't give a damn".


The FISA court has processed nearly 20,000 warrant requests since 1978 and has turned down only 4. When it objects to a request, it usually returns it for modifications and then grants it. All the current judges were all appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Rehnquist, including Judge Robertson who resigned. The judges all have security clearances and the court operates in secret with a secret docket in soundproof chambers. The government is always the only party represented before the court, which meets behind closed doors. When the Patriot Act expanded the court from seven to eleven judges, it required that three reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia, presumably in order to expedite emergency requests. Aside from being rude, your biggest problem is that you don't know your butt from third base. If you didn't want my answer, what the hell did you ask me for in the first place, you nasty old bastert? I'm sorry I wasted so much of my time trying to answer your stupid question. Bugger off. You're completely incoherent.



If it were truly as simple as you make it out to be, then Bush would have done it.


End of story.

If your imagination can only move through the tunnel towards fascism rather than consider all the factors that may be involved in the decision, then I pity you and hope for your escape from that dark little box your head is in.


Because you Rider, you conceited old cretin,love to hear the sound of your own voice,metaphorically speaking, and are so entranced with your own cleverness you think that we sit at your feet waiting for the pearls of wisdom to drip from your aging palsied lips.
In fact we know all about this,we also know that it is obviously not working.You have already posted the information in your last post before.But if you really don't know how efficient or rapid the process is, perhaps you should shut your gob until you do.
The same goes for points of law,you paste screeds of law up, give your interpretation then blithely say you are not a lawyer.

The plain fact is you do not know enough about this to lecture people in that patronisingly prissy tone you use.

I would wager that until this became a Democrat party issue you had never heard of any of this,but since this is the cause du jour you are out batting for your team.Which team I wonder,
BTW the word is bastard,you must have heard it used many times to you in conjunction with silly old.


Senile narcissism is what we are dealing with here folks...the troll who will save the world.


When it objects to a request, it usually returns it for modifications and then grants it.

No way to fight a war.

since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests


FISA places statutory limitations on surveillance of international communication where the 4th amendment does not apply. International calls cross legal borders where laws and rights are not the same, therefore there can be no expectation of privacy. The Article II constitutional war powers held by the president cannot be restricted by statute, but there is an argument that FISA expresses constitutional war power held by congress to “regulate” the armed forces.

Which war power should take precedence when it comes to enemy surveillance, the executive to wage or the congress to “regulate”? A fundamental issue is: does the power to “regulate” imply “bind by legislation” in an absolute sense, that is, must the executive abide by any and all laws “regulating” conduct of war? One answer goes back to the 2nd amendment and the meaning of the term “well regulated” militia. It is clear from the federalist papers and plain English interpretation that the word “regulated” in the 2nd amendment does not mean “bound by law”. If it did the phrase “well regulated” would be miscast because a properly worded sentence would more simply start “A regulated militia being necessary ...”

Clearly there will be no agreement between the parties on what the word “regulate” means wrt congress’s constitutional war power any more than they agree on the 2nd amendment. It is telling therefore that neither side is anxious to settle the matter once and for all by SCOTUS, apparently preferring to leave it flexible such that whichever party or branch has more power at that time pushes the interpretation to their advantage.


What you have here is a troll who has managed to hijack the thread away from the missdoings of the New York Times and the officials who leaked and pushed to the fore the latest Democratic meme,"Bush Spied".
To that end Rider has poured forth screeds and screeds of comment,he has earned his money.

It might be a usefull time to discuss the irregularities of publishing classified information and from whence that information came.


PeterUK: "It might be a usefull time to discuss the irregularities of publishing classified information and from whence that information came."

Couldn't agree more!

So is the Espionage Act of 1917 the primary applicable law? If so, doesn't it criminalize the publication of classified info as well as its dissemination, in which case wouldn't Sulzberger and Keller be targets of this investigation, as well as Risen and Lichtblau?

Gary Maxwell

Figure the rest of it out for yourselves.

I guess that means we start back at square one. I found nary a pearl amongst the numerous shells casually tossed to and from.
there is no rest.

If you are really gone, good riddance.


Maybe the word "nation" in the first sentence below protects the present-day perpetrators.

Section 2

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury or the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicated, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to, or aids, or induces another to, communicate, deliver or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly and document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years: Provided, That whoever shall violate the provisions of subsection:

(a) of this section in time of war shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for not more than thirty years

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." -- President Bush, April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.

"You see, what [roving wiretaps] meant is if you got a wiretap by court order - and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example." -- President Bush, April 19, 2004, in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Bush lied. No doubt "to protect national security." Not to mention the election in November. But that was then; this is now.


Well now that the New York Times has "Outed" a complete operation to the benefit of al Qaeda,who after all now know that to be safe, all calls must be restricted to a US person,it might be worth using the "Plame" option.
Odd isn't it ,that our liberaloid friend Rider is silent on the subject of newspapers publishing classified information,for money!


Sounds like Bush was pointing out how ludicrous it is to have to consult judges,whose only expertise is the law,not international terrorism or security but simply the law.
Rider the little snark about the election is the giveaway,your Party lost,it will do anything to get back in power,including losing the WoT.
Anyway now you are here,what about the NYT selling classified information?

Gary Maxwell

"I'd like going into an election with a 64-23 issue on my side, and 68% say they're following the story closely. So that opinion's likely to be pretty solid. When Rasmussen asked them is President Bush the first one to authorize this, 48% said no, 26% said yes. So the NYT can hyperventilate all it wants. But this is a loser for the Democratic Party."

Michael Barone in an interview Thursday with Hugh Hewitt.

Radio Blogger has the whole thing but I thought this framed the issue perfectly with my own views. Barone is one of the best pundits around on reading the political lay fo the land.

And I see, like almost everything else our troll has posted, his promise to leave is also not to be believed.


Some rustling in the undergrowth at the New York Times


Bush Lied, Electrons Died.


Peter, I think the Calame article is interesting on two levels:(1) That he admits that readers are not persuaded by the NYT's timing--though, of course, they are mostly yelping that the paper should have released the secret info before the election to screw Bush, and (b) That Calame has not a single scruple about publishing classified information during wartime.

Once again we see how left the paper is; how partisan; how utterly at odds with majority sentiment.


When I say the readers are not persuaded "by the NYT's timing", I mean not persuaded about the paper's explanation for the one year delay in publishing the story.


Some more commentary on the ethos and mindset of the New York Times


Somebody's sweating.

Schumer Seeks Motive in U.S. Spy Probe

But isn't the position the Democrats have voluntarily gotten themselves into kind of amazing? They have one guy, Lieberman, who might acknowledge the potentially serious security implications of all this, and he's a pariah. The entire rest of the party is picturing Bush with headphones on in a van somewhere, listening to steamy conversations between innocent Americans. Or at least that's what they want us to believe they're picturing.


Hey the Dems are crafting a great 2006 election message;

Vote for us, we say the US is a loser and we promise to deliver defeat no matter what! We absolutely commit that we will never approach, much less cross, any line to protect you or your loved ones, on that you can depend! We will declare defeat, withdraw and hope they don't attack us, then when they do we'll apologize!

Very crafty, those Dems.

Hey, would you guys hurry up and get to 995 or so posts? I want to try to be number 1,000.

Oh, and Happy New Year all. 8^)


Peter, It's probably just me--or maybe I wasted too much time watching Eric Burns FNC press analysis show where they never deal with what I think are the main issues, but I care a great deal less about what the bien pensants on 43rd st were thinking when they held up publication of the story for one year than I do about their decision to publish this at all. And I don't think I'm alone on this.


Somebody pointed out a few hundred comments ago that whistleblowers aren't permitted to disclose classified information to the NYT, or anyone else except specific members of Congress. I'm not sure, but this seems like the relevant law, passed in 1998:

S. 1668

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) Encouragement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall take appropriate
actions to inform the employees of the covered agencies, and
employees of contractors carrying out activities under
classified contracts with covered agencies, that--
(A) except as provided in paragraph (4), the disclosure of
information described in paragraph (2) to the individuals
referred to in paragraph (3) is not prohibited by law,
executive order, or regulation or otherwise contrary to
public policy;
(B) the individuals referred to in paragraph (3) are
presumed to have a need to know and to be authorized to
receive such information; and
(C) the individuals referred to in paragraph (3) may
receive information so disclosed only in their capacity as
members of the committees concerned.
(2) Covered information.--Paragraph (1) applies to
information, including classified information, that an
employee reasonably believes to provide direct and specific
evidence of--
(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
(B) a false statement to Congress on an issue of material
fact; or
(C) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, a flagrant
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.
(3) Covered individuals.--The individuals to whom
information described in paragraph (2) may be disclosed are
the members of a committee of Congress having as its primary
responsibility the oversight of a department, agency, or
element of the Federal Government to which such information

(4) Scope.--Paragraph (1)(A) does not apply to information
otherwise described in paragraph (2) if the disclosure of the
information is prohibited by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress
a report on the actions taken under subsection (a).
(c) Construction With Other Reporting Requirements.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to modify, alter, or
otherwise affect any reporting requirement relating to
intelligence activities that arises under the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) or any other
provision of law.
(d) Covered Agencies Defined.--In this section, the term
"covered agencies" means the following:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(2) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(3) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
(4) The National Security Agency.
(5) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) Any other Executive agency, or element or unit thereof,
determined by the President under section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)
of title 5, United States Code, to have as its principal
function the conduct of foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence activities.


Like me Mediacrity thinks Calame has missed the point.. http://mediacrity.blogspot.com/2006/01/empty-suit-shows-his-political-stripes.html


Yep, the backstory is the most important thing for Calame...he endorses running the story without explanation. The liberals are whining about why the NYT didn't try to blow Bush out of the water before the election.

NYT maybe stonewalling because the backstory is in Risen's book and there was an agreed to quid pro quo...


I agree but anything that keeps the NYT in the frame is useful,we have had Ms/Mr Bushfetish keeping the President as the focal point,lets concentrate on those who are selling secrets for money or power.


I wonder how the leakers feel at the moment. I have expressed my suspicion that much of this came in prior to the election by those who hoped it would sink Bush and help them with the incoming Kerry administration. At the moment, Schumer's lame defense to the contrary notwithstanding,they must be feeling very vulnerable.


I don't know, the lighting is beginning to cast no shadows, like high noon. The Times actions are unexplained; Jay's in a tizzy over lack of transparency, but he and Calame seem oblivious to the thought that Pinch and Keller have recklessly chosen to take on Bush, that they know they are in a fight and they now will not talk about it except through lawyers.

Certainly Rove understood what Barone pointed out about what a loser issue this is for the Democrats. Pinch will find out it is a loser for the Times, too. It will only worsen his madness.


I hope you're right, Kim. I can't imagine the stockholders are happy to see that as their stock value halves, the paper has taken on a losing issue which further discredits it, costs it a ton in legal fees and ends up with their reporters in jail or ratting out their sources--none of whom, I predict, will give the journos waivers of confidentiality.


none of whom, I predict, will give the journos waivers of confidentiality.

Mark that for the annuals.


Schumer seems to be claiming that partisan subversion damaging to national security should be considered "whistleblowing". Some pundit compared the Defeatocrat mindset to chemotherapy where the hope is it destroys the administration before it destroys the country. Seems like a good comparison.

Anyway, I still have this question that's been bugging me about this:

Article II, especially with AUMF, should be all the warrant needed to conduct surveillance on terrorists outise the country and their contacts. FISA purports to regulate signal intelligence in a way that would be obviously unworkable for domestic surveillance on organized crime. That is:

Say the FBI is wiretapping a crime boss, their warrant is for him. If someone else calls the crime boss, for criminal or non criminal reasons, does their right to privacy preclude capturing that conversation? Is the FBI required to get a warrant for every contact made with the target or wouldn’t that be completely unworkable? It seems the FISA extremists are claiming that “in an emergency” the 72 hour retro warrant addresses the problem adequately, but if that’s the case why doesn’t organized crime surveillance adopt similar restrictions?

If federal investigators and prosecutors would scream their heads off, that would explain why presidents from Carter to Bush claim the authority to override FISA.


Perhaps the reason the New York Times did not use this information damaging to to Wot,is the mundane one that the Jayson Blair debacle was still fresh in the public's mind.


I'd guess, C, that NYT stock is somewhat held by true believers as a vanity stock. I'm sure there are some to whom Pinch and Co. are the knights in shining armor, protecting the fair populace from the tyrant. Why can't I get Don Sulzberger, and Sancho Keller out of my head. There, I put it in the keyboard; it was hackneyed if not lame.

Speaking of horses, did Rider get tired of beating a dead one. Here's a new topic for him; Evil One Mad Ruler Pinch Sulzberger. Does he pee purple?


Here's my theory on the delay.
The didn't print it last year because they did know it would affect national security. This year, like Rockefeller, Pelosi et al, they feel we've pretty much won the fight and now it's okay to blame the man who is getting the credit for that, on the assumption the public has forgotten 9/11 the anthrax attacks, et al. and it's safe to do so. And, Risen's book was due out and they didn't want to be left behind.

They miscalculated, I think.

Time to send Pinch a stuffed moose and move him out of 43rd Street.


Rider was confronted with a similar dilemma, and stumbled. Is this War on Terror permanent and these powers dangerous to be allowed permanently or are these necessary, temporary, responses to an emergency? There is a lot of wiggle room between those two points of view. That doesn't directly address the issue of datamining, which is with us permanently. Well, until the energy runs out and we revert to barbarism.


Clarice: They didn't print it last year because they did know it would affect national security. This year, like Rockefeller, Pelosi et al, they feel we've pretty much won the fight and now it's okay to blame the man who is getting the credit for that

Agree, on Christmas Syl and I were thinking along similar lines wrt the timing:

Since congress is not objecting to the president's legal claims, the default implication is the law makers themselves are willing to accept them, for now. Some apparently feel the danger has passed and now is a good time for the minority party to throw the dice that the public buys the notion that some judge would interpret the law differently than the majority party and the president.



Captain Quarters is highlighting a commenter who says its disgruntled active duty that leaked because pissed at the air force guy just convicted for vandalism?

Of course this is commenting speculation, and I do not endorse...only passing on...but the idea of it is insane


Clarice,whilst I agree,are they not risking the revelation of a new al Qaeda plot? Revelations which are entirely within the gift of the administration.
These people must be very sure of their ground.


Pincus is busy again.


NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance

Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases

So it looks like we're actively trying to connect the dots? And this hurts Bush how? I wonder what kind of grade the 9-11 commission would have given for this program?


A question about the leak investigation, if anyone would like to be the volunteer lawyer in my place (is vnjagvet around?):

Is it legal to classify an illegal project, or does that amount to obstruction of justice?

Bill in AZ

The disgruntled Air Force story doesn't seem too plausible to me. He was convicted only this past week or so. The incident occurred Aug 10, 2005. He was Lt Col. Air Force Reserve, worked in C-Springs, and did something incredibly stupid such that most USAF officers would distance themselves far far away from. I doubt anyone would feel too much sympathy for his stupidity, especially anyone who was anyone within the NSA community.

The NSA leak stuff was supposedly ready for October surprise 2004, long before this idiot made his small, pathetic mark on the world.

Don't know who coldwarrior is, but it sure seems like a lame attempt at disinfo.



I totally agree, I was actually surprised that CQ would draw attention to it. I just can't embrace it ... it does smack of "a lame attempt at disinfo."

And this hurts Bush how?
NO doubt...LMAO at the utter depression the public is pumped on the NSA protection.

Gary Maxwell


That was a dirty trick, luring to click on Larry Moonbat Johnson's insanity site!

Larry should go see his compadre Laurence O'Donnell. Together they could get a full froth going. The guy really should get some professional help.



Sorry, I tricked... the guy is off the charts---and rightly disappointed the public is just not buying the vippers special brand of treason.. I can't believe he is routinely quoted as some level-headed neutral expert all the time- lazy or concurrence, I suppose.

Rider--- Blue Light Special....so you don't have to spend 10 more days working on this...even if it were borne out that there 50 laws broken, the general public would not support outing Bush, but would very much want Congress to change laws so Bush could continue wearing his spy headphones


I don't think it could be obstruction of justice unless it's classified there's an ongoing investigation & it was classified just to keep it from the investigator. Since the investigators can probably obtain security clearance to access the information, it doesn't seem like a very effective tactic.

Others have addressed the criteria & procedures for classification in connection with Plame's status.


What illegal project, Rider? Have you read their latest on the 'high justice department official with reservations'? The Times is actually detailing a lot of i-dotting and t-crossing by those reckless criminals in the administration.



I don't think there's a problem if you can "tap" one party's conversation. The problem arises with the next conversation.

Let's assume you have a warrant for Crime Boss, and then Capo calls him. You don't have a warrant for Capo, but you're probably REALLY interested in who he calls after talking to Crime Boss. But you may not have probable cause for the warrant.

That's probably what's going on in this case. Just receiving a call from an overseas terrorist doesn't rise to the level of a warrant. But it does raise suspicions in a nation after 9/11.


clarice and boris (and syl)- I agree with your assessment. Last year, things were much more tense. Bin Laden was releasing tapes. There hadn't been an election in Iraq. Imagine if this had been printed and two months later there was an attack in the NY subways. Could the NYTimes have lived with itself then?

They could have printed it after any attack. Bush is spying on you and he still failed you! What did the President know and when did he know it?

But to print it in the absence of an attack? They had to feel comfortable that an attack wasn't going to happen. After all, the guy that wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge is safely in prison.

ps. I wonder what Schumer would say if the NSA was running credit checks on people.


Something else to keep in mind (are you listening, Rider?) is the minimization procedures required by FISA when the possibility exists that surveillance will be on any USPERS. The exceptions are pretty specific and simply gathering intelligence to possibly figure out networking would not cut it for a warrant. The names and phone numbers must be destroyed.


receiving a call from an overseas terrorist doesn't rise to the level of a warrant

My question isn't about subsequent activity. Tha first call from Capo to the crime boss is monitored based on the crime boss warrant only. My claim is that prosecutors and investigators would scream their heads off if a warrant for Capo was also necessary to monitor that first call. Even a 72 hour "retro warrant".


Schumer....if he and other Dems continue to press the motivation aspect (of the leaker) you can pretty much bet they know it's (or more) of their own...

The comments to this entry are closed.