More Legal Rationales For The NSA Program

Per the Times, the Administration has prepared a 42 page White Paper explaining the legal basis for the NSA warantless eavesdropping.  I would expect to find the paper at the DoJ website, but so far I am coming up empty [Here it is at FindLaw].

Eric Lichtblau of the Times can hear the roar of the crowd:

The defense comes at a critical time in the administration's effort to quell the growing political uproar over the N.S.A. program. House Democrats will be holding their first hearing Friday on the legality of the program, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled another hearing in two weeks. A number of legal analysts, meanwhile, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have questioned the legality of the program in strong terms.

But the Bush administration appears undeterred by the criticism. In its white paper, it turned time and again to the congressional authorization of Sept. 14, 2001, even though the Congressional Research Service study was particularly skeptical of this line of defense.

The white paper "is not a blank check that says the president can do whatever he wants," said Steven G. Bradbury, an acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. But at the same time, he said, the president must use all the tools available to him to fight terrorism.

Oh, Bush is on the run, all right.  Go Times!  Uh huh.

Comments

[kim]

Pinch is preparing an audiotape calling for Bush to offer a 'fair and long-lasting' truce.
================================================

[Dwilkers]

I'll say it again, I think the MSM is really going for broke on this one. They seem to think this is their big chance. I've seen a rather amazing amount of impeachment talk quoted from people that should know better at Newsweek etc, but I think they just can't help themselves.

Its astonishing really, considering the fact that we're in a war, and the overall political climate.

[nittypig]

The Congressional Research Service is non-partisan. However, it answers to Congress, and so in questions that come down to the relative authority of the legislative and executive branches it most definitely has a dog in that fight. If it did take the point of view that expands (or maintains) the powers of Congress it wouldn't be doing it's job.

As such attaching the adjective "non-partisan" to the service is at the very least misleading.

[Ryan]

Its on Findlaw:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf

[Attila (Pillage Idiot)]

Agree with nittypig. Non-partisan means Republican vs. Democrat, whereas the issue here is President vs. other branches of govt.

CRS has done some good work over the years, but it carries water for Congress on separation of powers issues.

[boris]

The executive and congress as elected branches can protect and assert their authority through the political process. In this case a political confrontation on the NSA program favors the president, especially with OBL issuing threats. Expect the executive to win this one.

It seems to me that whenever SCOTUS has intervened in the other branches, it acted to constrain overreach rather than impose some policy. In the NSA case there is no executive "overreach". Executive is doing what they have inherent authority to do absent explicit congress restriction. So if SCOTUS does decide to meddle, it would more likely constrain congress overreach than subject the executive to a risky policy outside their area of constitutional responsibility.

If SCOTUS acts to impose the will of congress to restrict inherent executive authority, that would be out of character for them. Even if their opinion was such that congress may have constitutional authority to regulate the activity, they would be more inclined to let that play out politically.

[Patton]

I hear since the NYT publish their article on NSA wiretaps, Al Queda and related terrorist groups have significantly reduced their electronic communications. WAY TO GO GUYS...IF WE GET HIT AGAIN, IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE BECAUSE THE NYT TOLD THE TERRORISTS TO KEEP QUIET ON UNSECURE LINES AND USE COURIERS, CODES IN E-MAIL ETC.

[larwyn]

On CSPAN now!
The Dems are "in the basement again" - that is another phoney
oversight Congressional hearing
is taking place in the Rayburn Bldg.

Rep. Schiff (D-California) is speaking now - naturally Conyers
is leading this sit-com.

The line-up at the "witness table"
looks like an actual line-up.

[maryrose]

Any type of activity that makes us less safe should be rejected. All NYT employees should have to take a mandatory trip down to ground zero to refresh their memories about what happened there and to focus their energy and articles on finding solutions to our current world turmoil rather than complaining and whining about past perceived injustices. Also being a bit more forthcoming and honest would also be recommended.

[Davebo]

Any type of activity that makes us less safe should be rejected. All NYT employees should have to take a mandatory trip down to ground zero to refresh their memories about what happened there and to focus their energy and articles on finding solutions to our current world turmoil rather than complaining and whining about past perceived injustices.

I've got a better idea MaryRose.

How about if you and yours just stay under the bed and the rest of us who arent' cowering just keep being Americans? You know, the way we got by the last two hundred years.

[Hit The Bid!]

Patton where did you hear that news? Did it come from the tinfoil hat on your head?

And Nitty Pig...nice try on the CRS being even remotely biased on an institutional level...you are merely citing fleeting logic that has no basis.
Please provide examples where it has exhibited bias in the past and then I will listen to you.

Man you guys play fast and loose with "facts" and opinoins on this page...lets stick to the reality of things here.

We don't know it the president broke the law or not, that is the bottom line...some say he did, some say he didn't. However, I am mad at Bush because he has now made it IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute any terrorist we snatch by those means...that is Inadmissable in court. That is a travesty and I wish our white House had thought this through...whats so hard about getting a warrant three days after the fact? whats the big deal? If you didn;t find anything, then drop it, but if you did, using those means just go to the FISA court! They DON'T turn you down...its just simple comeptence in my mind...

And before anyone attacks me for forgetting september 11th, I lived on 18th street in NYC at the time. I watched both towers go down with my own eyes and smelled the smoke and fire for months...I had several friends die in those towers, so don't say I don't "get it"...I do.

[clarice]

From Ed Morrisey:

Here is the official summary of the report (

[quote]As the President has explained, since shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he has authorized the National Security Agency (“NSA”) to intercept international communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or related terrorist organizations. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. This paper addresses, in an unclassified form, the legal basis for the NSA activities described by the President (“NSA activities”).
On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network launched the deadliest foreign attack on American soil in history. Al Qaeda’s leadership repeatedly has pledged to attack the United States again at a time of its choosing, and these terrorist organizations continue to pose a grave threat to the United States. In response to the September 11th attacks and the continuing threat, the President, with broad congressional approval, has acted to protect the Nation from another terrorist attack. In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the President promised that “[w]e will direct every resource at our command—every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every tool of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every weapon of war—to the destruction of and to the defeat of the global terrorist network.” President Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress (Sept. 20, 2001). The NSA activities are an indispensable aspect of this defense of the Nation. By targeting the international communications into and out of the United States of persons reasonably believed to be linked to al Qaeda, these activities provide the United States with an early warning system to help avert the next attack. For the following reasons, the NSA activities are lawful and consistent with civil liberties.

The NSA activities are consistent with the preexisting statutory framework generally applicable to the interception of communications in the United States—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1862 (2000 & Supp. II 2002), and relevant related provisions in chapter 119 of title 18.1 Although FISA generally requires judicial approval of electronic surveillance, FISA also contemplates that Congress may authorize such surveillance by a statute other than FISA. See 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a) (prohibiting any person from intentionally “engag[ing] . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute”). The AUMF, as construed by the Supreme Court in Hamdi and as confirmed by the history and tradition of armed conflict, is just such a statute. Accordingly, electronic surveillance conducted by the President pursuant to the AUMF, including the NSA activities, is fully consistent with FISA and falls within category I of Justice Jackson’s framework.

Even if there were ambiguity about whether FISA, read together with the AUMF, permits the President to authorize the NSA activities, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires reading these statutes in harmony to overcome any restrictions in FISA and Title III, at least as they might otherwise apply to the congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda. Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context. Importantly, the FISA Court of Review itself recognized just three years ago that the President retains constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance apart from the FISA framework, and the President is certainly entitled, at a minimum, to rely on that judicial interpretation of the Constitution and FISA.

Finally, the NSA activities fully comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The interception of communications described by the President falls within a well-established exception to the warrant requirement and satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s fundamental requirement of reasonableness. The NSA activities are thus constitutionally permissible and fully protective of civil liberties.[/quote] And here is the full text of the 42 pp document: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/wiretaps.pdf

[boris]

whats so hard about getting a warrant three days after the fact?

Currently with a legal wiretap on the local crime boss the FBI can monitor a call to the out of state hitman, alias Lefty Icepick, without also having a warrant on Lefty. If it were proposed that FISA type rules should apply (why not? what's so hard ?) ...

(1) No monitoring without warrants for all other parties

(2) 72 hour retro warrants only allowed "in emergency"

(3) Probable cause for retro warrant needs to be independent of monitored content

That call to Lefty would be off limits and no probable cause to get one for Lefty. I claim that criminal investigators and prosecutors would scream their heads off that FISA style restrictions applied to them would be completely unworkable.

[Hit The Bid!]

Boris...you're damn right there should be no monitoring without cause...otherwise, why would you be monitoring? And if the NSA is sifting through calls and using pattern or word recognition, and they find something noteworthy, then guess what you have found something noteworthy. Go to FISA. If FISA has some restrictions that are problemmatic, go to Congress and change the law. Period. Its the American way and that is undeniable. We Americans are exceptional because we play by the rules, and the rule of law and we actually believe it matters "how you play the game"

One singular question. Don't you think it important to have a paper trail of what the government is up to with respect to highly secrative programs? Hasn't history taught us that unchecked power is dangerous and corrupting? ok thats 2 questions.

[Hit The Bid!]

Clarice,

I say the lambs are still screaming, my basis for saying that is I saw the movie Silence of the Lambs.

--thats what I think of any Bush administration self authorization.

[boris]

change the law. Period.

What branch has the power and authority to "change the law"? Once notified there was a need, they had the choice of legislating or accepting the validity of the executive order.

Given the choice between prosecution and prevention the executive choice for prevention is most reasonable. Legal punishment is not much of a deterrant for suicidal terrorists.

["Mindles H. Dreck"]

However, I am mad at Bush because he has now made it IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute any terrorist we snatch by those means...that is Inadmissable in court.

An ounce of prevention is worth a metric ton of cure. This is a war. That much you don't seem to get.

[Hit The Bid!]

Mindless, I do get this is a war. Show me your ounce of prevention?

[Hit The Bid!]

Boris...show me the genuine attempt of the executive branch to get the Judicial branch to change the law...then show me the Judicial Branch refuting the need to change it.

[Hit The Bid!]

And by the way...9/11 changed everything! Prosecution is a part of prevention.

[Rick Ballard]

"show me the genuine attempt of the executive branch to get the Judicial branch to change the law"

There appear to be elements absent that preclude the possibility of a dialogue.

[boris]

show me the genuine attempt of the executive branch to get the Judicial branch to change the law

Congress makes law, not the judicial branch.

Daschle claims he refused W's request to explicitly cover the US in the AUMF even though 911 was an attack from inside country.

[Hit The Bid!]

Oh I'm soo sorry! Show me how Bush went to Congress to say "hey help me out by changing this law so I can better defend America".

How's that snippy?

[clarice]

I do not understand the mechanics of the surveillance A J Strata has been writing about it. In non-tech terms he analogizes the NSA program as a highway cop being told to watch out for an SUV with a certain license number and he can find that license number only by stopping or tailing close enough all white SUVs of the same make so he can actually see the number.

[PaulV]

Hitless
"And by the way...9/11 changed everything! Prosecution is a part of prevention."
Do you want to go back to failed policies of Clinton?

[Hit The Bid!]

Yes PaulV I want to go back to the failed policies of Clinton...not so much the successful policies of Clinton, just the failed ones.

I just refuse to believe that you cannot see that federal surveillance of US citizens should be brought within the law. I understand executive branch powers and I believe in them, but the must be viewed within the context of satutory limitations of congress (read FISA) and common sense of good citizens like ourselves.

Lets change FISA to make itflexible enough to catch terrorists before they strike but still ensure that there is a record kept of what is done so there is accountability.

Would you trust a Liberal president that says hey trust me I'm the President...wouldn't you think he would be tempted to eavesdrop on people to find a way to increase taxes and hasten moral decline?

[Rick Ballard]

fauxny - something which is intended to appear to be that which it is not.

[Sue]

Which policies of Clinton were successful?

[Hit The Bid!]

Nice try Sue.

Back to the issue at hand though, It must be that I am not stupid enough to think that it is ok to "take someones word for it" when they say that they are using unlimeted and unchecked power for our own good.

YARGB= 1)a place for irrational entrenched discussion. 2)lots of self stroking and wishful thinking

[Sue]

What do you mean, nice try? Which policies, I'll even limit them to a specific subject, say terrorism, were sucessful?

[Hit The Bid!]

CLinton had 7 years of no attacks on American soil...can Bush say that? The foreign terrorists even struck the same target.

SO yes CLinton's policies on terrorism--mainly preventing it--were successful--and less costly than bush's. Bush has been successful since 2001, but the costs have been greater.

Oh, and of course all of CLninton's economic policies--by any measure you would like--choose your weapon Sue--come on make my day.

[Hit The Bid!]

NOthing I thought so. Its been settled then, Clinton's policies, all of them, are superior.

[Hit The Bid!]

OK everyone..arguments over...go home...liberals won.

[Lurking Observer]

Seven years of no attacks on American soil?

I guess WTC '93 wasn't a terrorist attack then?

[Sue]

LOL. That's the way to win an argument. I like your style.

Clinton had no attacks on American soil in 7 years...then you go on to describe why Bush can't claim that because the same target hit during the Clinton presidency is hit again. Okaaaaaay...

Don't ask anyone that wasn't in the tech industry during the Clinton years how the economy was. Especially don't ask the small farmers, the small business owners and the small towns of America.

What policies? Clinton fought terrorism by going after someone after the attack. You want we should wait until the attack then do the police work? Or will you accept Bush chose to fight the war that was declared during the Clinton administration?

[Sue]

One more minute and I can declare myself a winner. I think that's how it works...if you don't post a response in 6 minutes, you win!!!!

[Sue]

I win!!!!!

[Hit The Bid!]

Touche' Sue...well played. Exactly the response I deserved.

I said 7 years because of the WTC attack in 1993...so no attack from 1993-2000. As for Bush not being able to say that...simply put, Bush hasn't been in office for 7 years.

As for CLinton's terrorism policies, at least the attacks of 1998, which were not on US soil, acted as a smelling salt for the Administration...they became very vigilant and engaged in active policies to bring Bin Laden down...political realities of Clinton's own making and of GOP flame fanning reall hamstrung the Admin--I think you will recall all the wag the dog references in 1998.

Do remember that Bush's own war on terror is reactionary as well...some people point to sept 11 as the time when "everything changed" (a phrase I hate), but I think its more accurate to point to 1998 with those bombings in Africa. I lament we did not do more then. I also lament that our guard went down during the transition from Clinton to Bush (irrefutable from what we now know from insider accounts and extensive reporting)...but blame only can come in hindsight of the event...finding political fault in Bush gives me no satisfaction.

You all may find this point outrageous, but I am willing to die for the freedoms we have. I am willing to die in a terrorist attack if it preserves--wait wait listen--if it preserves our open society and individual liberties from an arbitrary and powerful big government. I don't want America to become Israel, nor do I want Islamic terrorists to murder me or anyone.

Maybe the liberal/conservative divide on this is only a matter of how far we are willing to go to ensure no attacks happen again? In my view they will.

By the way, my money is where my mouth is because I sit about 3 blocks from the White House...not 2000 miles away where they are unlikely to attack.

Ok folks fire away, I'm sure what I thinkis offensive to some, but I think is a pervasive point of view for liberals...not any strawman notions that get cooked up online.

[Sue]

What happened after 1998 that makes you say Clinton became more vigilant? I'm trying to remember what he might have done that gave the impression he was tougher on terror after 1998 than before.

Under Clinton...1993 WTC bombing...1995 Khobar Towers...1998 Kenya/Tanzania...2000 USS Cole. And this was from the peace and prosperity president. Nevermind OKC and Waco and Ruby Ridge (I can just imagine if Bush had been president or Ashcroft the AG...Ayeeeeee!!!), I won't even make you count them. Clinton pursued a police action against terrorists. And after the fact, make it stick in the court of law, tie it up in a nice little package and put a pretty ribbon on top. If that is what you want, then there is nothing wrong with that. But don't waste my taxpayer dollars trying to figure out why 9/11 happened and what Bush did wrong after the next attack.

[Larry Eagle]

Congress changing the law will have no impact. The President derives his power to conduct foreign surveillance (whether or not the call originates or terminates domestically) from the Constitution. And Clinton and his AG said the power includes purely domestic surveilance as well.

[maryrose]

Hit the Bid:
Revisionist history is alive and well in your imagination. Albright, Berger and Clinton did NOTHING, Nada, Zilch about getting Bin Laden and they had 3 chances but were too chicken to follow through. Police action all the way, no boots on the ground for Clinton after fiasco in Somalia. Carter also couldn't do jack- about the hostage crisis with his failed rescue mission. Everyday the Washington Times has a history lesson from the Clinton years, mainly comments about Saddam Hussein and how Clinton DROPPED THE BALL. Without The Tech bubble Clinton would have been a one termer. Monica distracted him his grade on fighting terrorism , a big fat F. Win some elections if you are looking for the good old Clinton days of back breaking taxes or as Hillary put it redistribution of wealth.

[maryrose]

Jane harmann on Hardball after hearing Cheney's comments would like to fix the FISA program. OK get up and move on it but don't leave us vulnerable when you are through tinkering with it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' CLinton had 7 years of no attacks on American soil...'

Our embassies are American soil, so you're wrong about that too.

[vnjagvet]

Hit:

Here are some questions for your consideration:

(1) Of what facts are you aware that assures you that the surveillance in question is "electronic surveillance" as defined by FISA?

For your convenience, here's the pertinent definition in its entirety:

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes."

(2) In your opinion, are we "at war" since Congress passed the 9/14/01 authorization. If not why not?

Thanks for your input.

[Hit The Bid]

Thanks for the robust responses...I have a newborn girl, so let me deal with her and then I'll reply to each of you(if I can).

please check back on this thread! this is a very important discussion for each side to at least truthfully know where the other side is coming from (if you care that is...)

[maryrose]

Take care of the little gal. These first years are precious. We truthfully state our thoughts and beliefs and do care.

[Aaron]

Hey, you know, if you have probable cause, you don't need a warrant, but since you do have probable cause, it would be pretty easy to get one, so why don't we get a warrant in each case of probable cause?

This is the same argument people use to say all the international taps should get FISA approval. Would they want cops to apply for warrants in all cases where legally they did not need it, you know, just to be on the safe side of civil liberties?

and keep in mind, historically, civil liberties are violated more by cops than the NSA.

[woof]

CLinton had 7 years of no attacks on American soil...can Bush say that? The foreign terrorists even struck the same target.

17 dead sailors on the USS Cole and 19 dead soldiers at Khobar Towers don't count do they?

[Jim Rockford]

Hit -- I'll make this simple.

Under Clinton the FBI had exclusive law enforcement jurisdiction over terrorism. They would wait for an attack, pick up body parts, and make narrow criminal prosecutions of whatever few people they could catch (generally, low-level disposable people).

After 9/11 the idea (as outlined by the 9/11 Commission) was to unleash our intelligence services to find out whatever plots were being hatched and stop them early instead of waiting till after they'd killed people. Given the danger of nuclear attacks killing millions in terrorist strikes, this seems logical. 9/11 will not be repeated, the next strikes will be much larger (if for no other reason for Osama to retain prestige as the super-terrorist).

The NSA program is not the FBI "spying on Americans" where MLK or John Lennon's phones were tapped. Instead ALL data going to and from countries of interest (say Saudi or Pakistan) is captured and machine analysis performed to isolate connections of interest. Which then leads to more analysis, leg work, and finally very limited tapping of phones in communication with Al Qaeda terrorist nodes. Limited defined as less than 500.

If you are concerned about privacy, look at the FEC website and find out what your favorite journalist donated to politically (and thank McCain-Feingold). You have effectively no privacy anymore, if a private individual wants to examine every minute aspect of their life and has enough money they can and will do it.

FISA can't work, simply because the statute does not take into account throw-away cell phones with pre-paid accounts sold for cash, IM'ing at various libraries and Internet Cafes, free wireless hotspots, and more. Go to Congress and run the risk (as Victoria Toensing points out) that you'll get even LESS monitoring capability.

Bottom line: GWB implemented the 9/11 Commission recs FULLY, and has mobilized our one counter-terror advantage (advanced tech, lots of brilliant people, and money) to discover plots that are otherwise undiscoverable (most tactical terrorists are childhood friends).

But go ahead, impeach Bush for protecting America as bin Laden prepares to strike and Iran gets nukes. Lemming, see cliff.

[Confederate Yankee]

I hate leaving an un-sourced comment, but the gentleman who prepared the Congressional Research Service report reportedly donated $1,500 (what is the maximum?) to John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

I say this without remembering which blog I saw this on ( think one I surfed off Memeorandum.com today), but if someone can find that article and the source is credible, it would certainly seem to case doubt on the objectivity of the Congressional Research Service report.

[vnjagvet]

As a lawyer having experience in government service (as a Judge Advocate) and in private practice (primarily advising entrepreneurs) totaling 40 years, I generally have attempted to assist my clients to accomplish their goals within the bounds of the law.

Typically, this entailed acquiring a thorough practical understanding of the client's business or governmental functions, the statutes and regulations which governed those functions, the case law interpreting those statutes and regulations and the interrelatonships among those factors.

Then using my analytical skills, experience and judgment, I applied the legal principals to the facts, gave my client a list of optional actions and set out the risks and benefits of those options. I then gave my recommended course of action based on those risks and rewards.

I did not always recommend the safest course of action. Depending on the client's proclivities, I sometimes recommended a risky course of action, explaining as best I could, the legal risks.

In the instant matter, using a basic risk/reward analysis, the DOJ position seems reasonable. I suspect that after 9/11/01, the President made the decision that he would rather risk a political battle with FISA and Congress than not use all of the technical tools available to avoid another terrorist attack on US territory.

DOJ's job then is to come up with the best arguments to accomplish the President's goal as Commander In Chief, of defending the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

From this vantage point, I believe the DOJ has done a pretty good job.

[tgharris]

So, Clinton had seven years (give or take) of no attacks here at home, and Bush had less than a year. For that logic to have any value, one must assume that the ENTIRETY of the 9/11 plot (planning, logistics, the whole shot) took place after 01/20/2001. Not likely.

[vnjagvet]

The seven year meme is just that -- a meme. A talking point for the ignorant. Tgharris spots one of the flaws in that meme. Another is that there has been no evidence whatever that there were any plots to attack the US which were stopped or deterred from 1993 until January 20, 2001.

[clarice]

CY, the source is on this site somewhere--the first or second comment on the most relevant thread.

[kim]

Oops, there's kinderscheissen in the reality basement.
=======================================

[kim]

There's very little as self-importantly earnest as an infant in the midst of a crap.
==========================================

[Mescalero]

In the mean time the Islamo-Fascists and their Liberal-Democrat moonbat allies seek to re-install Jamie Gorelick's (of the Clinton Administration) wall between the FBI and US intelligence agencies. This is the very essence of crimes against the American people! When will the American people wake up and wipe out the Clinton-Gorelick cancer????

[M. Simon]

I really liked your Enigma bit. One of my off and on interests.

The best book on the nuts and bolts of breaking codes in general and Enigma in particular for the layman is:

"Code Breaking" by R. Kippenhahn

I'm posting this here because this is a NSA thread and you may have missed it on the "Enigma" thread.

[M. Simon]

vnjagvet,

What you don't know about operational security would fill a number of graveyards.

I hope that is not your intention. Being a vet and all.

[M. Simon]

vnjagvet,

I may have been hasty. My apologies. I misrerad.

maryrose,

I hate to tell you but there was no popular will to do what you suggest. Clinton would have been impeached AND convicted.

The Rs controlled Congress. Every time Clinton said Osama the Rs yelled "wag the dog" and proceeded to "wag the dick".

That era does credit to neither side.

Me either. Pin pricks I thought. Not worth getting excited about. So I'm as guilty aas Clinton. More so. The government is my servant. I insist that it follow my will.

We got the government we deserved. Sad to say. You can't get a government better than we are. It does our will (in the agregate).

At least under Clinton the economy did well so we are better able to afford this war.

[Sue]

M. Simon,

When did Clinton say Osama? Osama was not a priority and that is the fault of the CiC. Clinton did not bring his case against Osama to us. And since when did presidents ignore a danger because they might piss off the other party? That argument is lame.

[kim]

The economy under Clinton build up a bubble, the consequences of which were even more devastating than the trillion dollar 9/11 blow. We've only managed to withstand the double whammy because of the polity's confidence in our nation's course.
===============================================

[kim]

Just imagine if Gore had been there to raise taxes, and whimper. Or Kerry to 'outsource negotiations'. Or Clinton, to sell us down the river to the Chinese.
==================================

[kim]

Yeah, I'm still bitter about that. Had Dole won, Roberts could have demolished the Wall of Gorelick, and Able Danger would have halted Atta in Prague.
=========================================

[vnjagvet]

What happened to HTB?

[kim]

He went to change a diaper and his kid made him face reality.
=======================================

[BN]

I hate leaving an un-sourced comment, but the gentleman who prepared the Congressional Research Service report reportedly donated $1,500 (what is the maximum?) to John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

What does that prove? If you were in the CRS would you falsify a government document in order to help your political party?

[cathyf]

I hate leaving an un-sourced comment, but the gentleman who prepared the Congressional Research Service report reportedly donated $1,500 (what is the maximum?) to John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

What does that prove? If you were in the CRS would you falsify a government document in order to help your political party?

Who said anything about falsification? The CRS report is about opinion, judgement and interpretation. Everybody who is not autistic is biased. (Imagine that. It turns out that bias is an important survival mechanism...) Knowing something about a particular analyst's biases helps one to evaluate his/her credibility on any particular subject. When we are discussing something which all experts agree is a close call, even a small amount of bias could make all the difference between two opposite sides.

But anyway, my personal opinion on the subject is that the fact that his employer is the Congressional Research Service is a more important source of bias than that he was a Kerry supporter.

(And for people making the argument that CRS is unbiased, I have only four words. They come out in gasps as I ROFLPIMP. The four words are: "revenue neutral tax extimates.")

cathy :-)

[BN]

Knowing something about a particular analyst's biases helps one to evaluate his/her credibility on any particular subject.

It especially helps if one is looking for a reason to dismiss the opinion of someone he/she disagrees with.

[Cecil Turner]

It especially helps if one is looking for a reason to dismiss the opinion of someone he/she disagrees with.

Puh-leeze. The Times (and other news organizations) went out of their way to indicate CRS was "non-partisan," apparently to imply the disinterested Mr Cumming's paper is the last word on the subject. In fact, we find a pretty good indicator he'd be biased against this particular President. And since his job is to support Congress's view, he's likely to be doubly biased against an expansive interpretation of Executive power. And that's all good, since it enhances the checks and balances exactly the way the Framers envisioned (Federalist 51):

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.

But just as the DOJ's position is a bit self-serving, so is the CRS's. And it's up to the electorate to decide the appropriate tradeoff between security and individual liberties.

[BN]

In fact, we find a pretty good indicator he'd be biased against this particular President.

If you think a political contribution is enough to question Mr. Cumming's motives then you are setting the bar way too low.

[Cecil Turner]

If you think a political contribution is enough to question Mr. Cumming's motives then you are setting the bar way too low.

Oh, nonsense. If he were merely a registered Democrat, he could fairly be called "biased." Giving a thousand bucks to Kerry is way beyond that, and indicates he's a partisan. Not that there's anyhing wrong with being a partisan, as long as you're not lying about it.

[kim]

Too bad for him there aren't limits to donating your credibility to your cause.
===========================================

[kim]

How about the Me Cain Find Gold Bill.
========================================