Powered by TypePad

« Leadership That's Shirking | Main | Tim Russert Brings It On »

February 08, 2006

Comments

kim

The precedent for the President is the authority in the Constitution, CTD. We don't want this to stand as precedent for legislative laggardliness and judicial overreach.
==============================================

CTD

OK, boris, you're moving the goalposts now. A Marwan who is known to have associated with bin Laden? Sure, tap that sucker - but again, that's something you could get a warrant for.

Now let me re-ask you - should the government be allowed to spy on you if you're visiting Canada and calling your Mom? Because right now the Attorney General seems to be saying that's OK.

larwyn

Looking at it from an entirely different prospective, that of the "human nature of the Left":

What they are really po'd about - and I'm sure that Clinton once expressed a lament that he had no
event on his watch that gave an
opportunity for his greatness -
is that had they been doing what
GW initiated after 911, they would
have been heroes.

They would have uncovered the plots, and then could actually have ordered the bombing and killing of OBL and his buddies.

Thousands of books would have been
written, movies made and Gore would be president! THEY WOULD BE
IN POWER.

No wonder the new mayor of LA was
on TV immediately after GW told of
the plot on the "Liberty" (love our
misunderestimated) errrrr "Library"
Tower in LA. Of course, he was immediately proved to be a liar.

It is really no different than the
baseball record holders who have their records for a season "broken" by players who now play more games in a season.
(Wonder if Fitz will like that?)

"Yeah, he saved you! Yeah, he's keeping you safe! But he's not playing FAIR!"

clarice

And--they think they should be in power. They were for in power so long. So they nurture lies to delegitimize this President--Stolen elections, Bush lied, etc..

He will go down in history as a great leader and will be remembered for his leadership for as long as FDR held that place in the pantheon..And this makes them bilious.

kim

Bushitler spying on you: only he isn't.

Chimpy McHalliburton, brainless stooge; only he isn't.

Raging theocrat; only he isn't.

Recovering alcoholic; don't theirs recover?
=======================================

kim

CTD: Read up a little about Truong and Humphrey. The precedent I worry about is the one for hypocrisy that Jimmy Carter is setting.
==============================================

boris

you're moving the goalposts now. A Marwan who is known to have associated with bin Laden?

Clearly not. It's just one example vs. another. The point is that probable cause is not based on "association". The standard contained in Sec. 1805(a)(3)(A):

on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power

...

the fact that a particular phone called a terrorist's (or suspected terrorist's) phone does not provide probable cause to believe that the owner of that phone is the agent of a foreign power. It could be the terrorist's mother; it could be his tentmaker or his landlord, dunning him for rent.

So unless you got something more persuasive than your "gut feeling" about what should constitute probable cause I suggest you still you need to know more about the program, the law and the constitution for an informed opinion or coherent discussion.

boris

Having addressed "concerns" of CTD and others I note they have yet to address the point of the example ...

If CTD is on the phone to M.Atta in Florida and there's a legal NSA wiretap on Atta, the NSA spies on the converstaion.

If CTD is on the phone with Marwan in Pakistan and there's a legal NSA wiretap on Marwan, the NSA spies on the converstaion.

In both cases if the conversation contains probable cause, they'll use it to get a FISA warrant to wiretap CTD.

Could the NSA get a FISA warrant on CTD in the first instance without using the content of the intercept? Who knows? They don't need to, NSA can monitor and decide based on the content because they have a legal wiretap on Atta and can monitor all conversations no matter who is on the other end. For Marwan in the second instance FISA says no, the NSA program says yes.

So why is the second instance more "abusive" than the first? Why should CTD's conversation with Marwan in Pakistan require a warrant on CTD when CTD's conversation with M.Atta in Florida does not?

kim

Suivant, CTD, which party, since Nixon, has produced national leaders less interested in using the executive power of surveillance domestically, and which has produced leaders more interested? You are absolutely correct that this is a power about which we must remain suspicious. All the more reason to have a political movement capable of recognizing and promoting those with the requisite ethical character.
=======================================

Extraneus

Who would be left standing if all candidates were measured exclusively in terms of ethics and competence?

kim

To market, to market, to buy a fat fren'.
Home again, home again, trust 'em again.
========================================

CTD

kim, I stand with Extraneus[sic] here. No one is 100% virtuous. This is why I want a systematic legal solution, rather than a political solution. If we leave it up to trust in the individual office holders, eventually someone WILL be abusing the power.

boris, please continue dodging my question about Canada, using deceptive indentation (6:20 post), thinking we can't tap all calls to al-Qaeda, and asking, "how is it abusive to tap all calls outside of the US?".

boris

dodging my question about Canada

You're serious ???

but again, that's something you could get a warrant for.

Now let me re-ask you - should the government be allowed to spy on you if you're visiting Canada and calling your Mom? Because right now the Attorney General seems to be saying that's OK.

No that's not something I can get a warrant for.

Does the NSA have a legal wiretap on you or your Mom ???

No the Attorney General says nothing of the sort.

Politely ignoring rank stupidity is not the same as dodging.

CTD

^there's my argument - restrict immigration.

kim

Douane, you be ignoring my load of baggage.

The exeacutive has, and it is necessary that it have, the authority to do what Bush has done. The legislature and the judiciary have remedies to address abuse of that authority, and they failed to invoke those remedies. Might it be because the authority was NOT abused?

But it might have been. So what is your remedy? Clearly, FISA was inadequate.
=================================================

kim

By the way, I'm fairly happy with a political solution rather than a purely legal one. Isn't politics the extension of law by other means?
======================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame