Jammies, eh? I didn't know she'd taken up blogging.

Yeah, but AC, you did see the qoutes around Secret Agent, correct? Apparently, despite the referral by the CIA for improper disclosure of secrets, the fact that her identity was marked as secret, and the fact that Fitzgerald defined in his indictment that her identity was not known prior to Rove/Libby/Cheney outing her, Mitch doesn't seem able to understand English, and still thinks it was all a joke.

Mitch, perhaps you consider the outing of the President's secret wiretaps a joke too, apparently he doesn't, but, goodness knows, you know best..

I know I've been laughing about it since Friday, but probably not for the same reasons you are.

PB

On a more serious note:

After reading the President's words on this subject.. that he will continue this practice as long as "there is an enemy out there with the intent to attack us", Wow, so as long as ANY terrorist exists, anywhere, the US Government, specifically the President, will forgoe adherence to the law, and will monitor, through blanket scans, ANYONE, ANYWHERE, for any reason they see fit.

And you all criticize the Dems for "big government". This is perhaps the most open-ended, aggregious and alarming act by any President since Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in Maryland. I strongly suspect the President will get shot down by the SCOTUS (thankfully), but that he would try this, is unreal. In a war without end (like the war on drugs), he thinks the President should have essentially unchecked powers to "protect the US." Here's a thought, do something substantive to protect us from our dependence on foriegn energy, do something to reduce our debt risk to foriegn governments. The threat terrorism represents (outside of the extreme outlier of a nuclear device), pales to insignificance against these two threats. But no matter, President Dictator focuses on those things which make him the "War President" and allow him to destroy protections against an over-reaching State, and ANYONE, whether it be Valerie Plame or AC, who exposes their actions, they're gonna PAY!

Nice, and you all used to complain about the high-handedness of Clinton. Go take a really, really, really long look in the mirror. If we can use the threat of ANY terrorism to justify stripping legal protections, then nothing is protected, nothing.

PB

When lefties collide.

AC, meet PB.

"Yeah, but AC, you did see the qoutes around Secret Agent, correct?"

One might hope so.

" Apparently, despite the referral by the CIA for improper disclosure of secrets,"

Yes, because goodness knows the CI-freaking-A is on the President's side, and wouldn't do anything as tawdry as tart up one of their not-so-"secret" "agents" to try to foment a scandal to embarrass the Administration that they, truly, desperately, hate. Would they?

The CIA (and State) detest Bush; stop pretending that they (or Plame) are an innocent aggrieved party. Neither are.

" the fact that her identity was marked as secret,"

As was her parking space at Langley, where she's been based in an utterly non-secret capacity.

The general word about Plame is that *everyone* knew Joe Wilson's wife was a "secret agent".

"and the fact that Fitzgerald defined in his indictment that her identity was not known prior to Rove/Libby/Cheney outing her, Mitch doesn't seem able to understand English,"

You're the one with English trouble, Peeb. There is CONSIDERABLE debate over Fitzgerald's assertion.

" and still thinks it was all a joke."

Gosh - our super-hush-hush "intelligence" agency, staffed with gobs of Ivy-league Club Democrats, which hasn't actually done any successful *intelligence* work since the 1960's, and which is working all-out to thwart the President's policy at every turn (at least at Langley) is playing doop-di-doop games with the identity of a bureaucrat who is so 'secret' she walks around with a friggin' "CIA" badge and appears on the cover of "Vogue".

Nope. Nothing funny about that.

"Mitch, perhaps you consider the outing of the President's secret wiretaps a joke too,"

No, I think that since actual harm to national security has been done, and since the leak apparently came from within the CIA, the President needs to appoint a prosecutor and start moving some Ivy-League Chaunceys from Langley to Leavenworth. Or Guantanamo.

Wouldn't THAT be cool?

"apparently he doesn't, but, goodness knows, you know best.."

As usual.

"I know I've been laughing about it since Friday, but probably not for the same reasons you are."

Yes. We have different reasons indeed: I am right. You are wrong.

I'm always glad to clarify these things.

Meh. Small beans compared to ECHELON.

Some day, PB, I'm sure you'll give us all a nice, long-winded, largely point free expanation on how to successfully conduct a war, whilst simultaneously monitoring dangerous individuals on the domestic front.

As with many, if not most, on the Left, you seem great at asking questions, but abysmal when it comes to any answers.

"After reading the President's words on this subject.. that he will continue this practice as long as "there is an enemy out there with the intent to attack us", Wow, so as long as ANY terrorist exists, anywhere, the US Government, specifically the President, will forgoe adherence to the law,"

Whooops. Blew that one.

This round of wiretaps were reported, per FISA regulations, to Congress and the President. There was no "forgoe"-ing of the law.

" and will monitor, through blanket scans, ANYONE, ANYWHERE, for any reason they see fit."

Makes for a nice inflammatory statement - but isn't really based in reality.

"And you all criticize the Dems for "big government". This is perhaps the most open-ended, aggregious and alarming act by any President since Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in Maryland."

Ah. As opposed to packing the SCOTUS, to Nixon's enemies list, to the CIA doing domestic surveillance under Truman and Ike and JFK and LBJ...?

"I strongly suspect the President will get shot down by the SCOTUS (thankfully),"

Not only do I doubt it, but given that this surveillance DID apparently conform to rules for such things (reports to Congress and to FISA judges after the fact), and given the prudential reasons for the taps in the first place (the NEED to bypass the red tape becuase of the capture of the likes of Ramsi Binalshibh, which would not remain unnoticed among Al Quaeda for long), I suspect they'll be upheld - or perhaps FISA will be streamlined. We'll see.

" In a war without end (like the war on drugs), he thinks the President should have essentially unchecked powers to "protect the US."

Unchecked?

Given that the taps were reported per FISA regs, and given that the ONLY evidence we have of rushed extra-procedural wiretaps is of international calls to people for whom there was serious reason to believe intimate AQ involvement, what is "unchecked", here?

"" Here's a thought, do something substantive to protect us from our dependence on foriegn energy, do something to reduce our debt risk to foriegn governments."

Both fine ideas - and neither of them really germane, to the point of non-sequitur.

" and allow him to destroy protections against an over-reaching State, and ANYONE, whether it be Valerie Plame or AC, who exposes their actions, they're gonna PAY!"

What protections have been "destroyed?"

How has Valerie Plame "Paid?"

"Nice, and you all used to complain about the high-handedness of Clinton. Go take a really, really, really long look in the mirror."

Damn. Missed a spot.

You were saying?

" If we can use the threat of ANY terrorism to justify stripping legal protections, then nothing is protected, nothing."

Bollocks. Learn the facts of this case.

"After reading the President's words on this subject.. that he will continue this practice as long as "there is an enemy out there with the intent to attack us", Wow, so as long as ANY terrorist exists, anywhere, the US Government, specifically the President, will forgoe adherence to the law,"

Whooops. Blew that one.

This round of wiretaps were reported, per FISA regulations, to Congress and the President. There was no "forgoe"-ing of the law.

" and will monitor, through blanket scans, ANYONE, ANYWHERE, for any reason they see fit."

Makes for a nice inflammatory statement - but isn't really based in reality.

"And you all criticize the Dems for "big government". This is perhaps the most open-ended, aggregious and alarming act by any President since Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in Maryland."

Ah. As opposed to packing the SCOTUS, to Nixon's enemies list, to the CIA doing domestic surveillance under Truman and Ike and JFK and LBJ...?

"I strongly suspect the President will get shot down by the SCOTUS (thankfully),"

Not only do I doubt it, but given that this surveillance DID apparently conform to rules for such things (reports to Congress and to FISA judges after the fact), and given the prudential reasons for the taps in the first place (the NEED to bypass the red tape becuase of the capture of the likes of Ramsi Binalshibh, which would not remain unnoticed among Al Quaeda for long), I suspect they'll be upheld - or perhaps FISA will be streamlined. We'll see.

" In a war without end (like the war on drugs), he thinks the President should have essentially unchecked powers to "protect the US."

Unchecked?

Given that the taps were reported per FISA regs, and given that the ONLY evidence we have of rushed extra-procedural wiretaps is of international calls to people for whom there was serious reason to believe intimate AQ involvement, what is "unchecked", here?

"" Here's a thought, do something substantive to protect us from our dependence on foriegn energy, do something to reduce our debt risk to foriegn governments."

Both fine ideas - and neither of them really germane, to the point of non-sequitur.

" and allow him to destroy protections against an over-reaching State, and ANYONE, whether it be Valerie Plame or AC, who exposes their actions, they're gonna PAY!"

What protections have been "destroyed?"

How has Valerie Plame "Paid?"

"Nice, and you all used to complain about the high-handedness of Clinton. Go take a really, really, really long look in the mirror."

Damn. Missed a spot.

You were saying?

" If we can use the threat of ANY terrorism to justify stripping legal protections, then nothing is protected, nothing."

Bollocks. Learn the facts of this case.

Peeb,

Let me make sure we're absolutely clear on this: The "wiretap" story itself is a NON-story; the Administration acted within its prerogatives AND brief Congress about exactly what had happened (according to all rational evidence we have). It had to, due to the fast-breaking nature of the need (the need to exploit the capture of Binalshibh, Sheikh Mohammed, etc), and the Administration as far as anyone has shown us acted *according to the law* in dealing with the issue.

The ONLY story is the leak - which should be not only investigated and prosecuted, but punished as ruthlessly as the law allows.

"the Administration acted within its prerogatives"

Suppose the President said killing Mitch Berg was necessary to defeat terrorism. He orders the Dept. of Defence to send a couple of boys over to the Midway and execute old Mitch. The DOD boys say "Whoa, Murder is against the law in MN". Pres. Bush says "I have the perogative to ignore the law in order to defend America. Go get rid of Mitch."

Should our boys in green obey the Pres. and execute Mitch?
From where does the President get the perogative to ignore the FISA law without getting the perogative to ignore all laws?

I think the larger story here, the one the PB hasn't noticed, is that powerful cliques in the CIA and the State Department have decided that they, not the president or congress, will determine American foreign policy. This is very dangerous; Bush will be gone in three years, the dems could take control of congress in 2008, but the hired help at Langley and Foggy Bottom is not answerable to the public they are supposed to serve. This is why spooks and State Department career employees are not supposed to play politics. The president, his staff, and some conservatives seem to understand this, the left doesn't.

"Suppose the President said killing Mitch Berg was necessary to defeat terrorism."

That's an utterly absurd example.

According to what we know, all the wiretaps (not killings) were for cases that were breaking too fast for the regular FISA process.

Congress, per procedure, was notified; it's not in any way the rogue operation you depict in your example.

"From where does the President get the perogative to ignore the FISA law without getting the perogative to ignore all laws"

Nowhere. He didn't "ignore" anything; Congress was notified, FISA was notified (after the fact, and if any wires were wrongly tapped, the opportunity to fix things is there.

Lousy simile.

Mitch enlightened: "The ONLY story is the leak - which should be not only investigated and prosecuted, but punished as ruthlessly as the law allows."

Man, I just hope it wasn't Scooter Libby. That dude's in enough trouble already.

For those who think the only reasons for bypassing the FISA warrant process have to be evil, I suggest reading this: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html. It's a congressional report on failures within the FBI that helped 9/11 happen, and yes, it includes criticism of the way FISA was used (or not used) to gather intelligence.
I especially recomend Section III.C.1, "The Mishandling of the Moussaoui FISA Application."
But if you have to stuff everything into a "Bush is Evil" narrative you won't learn anything from it. Might as well head over to Kos or Atrios & get your paranoid, hidebound ideas bounced back to you.

I'm confused. What's the problem here? It was perfectly alright for the Dems to publish Newt Gingrich's private cellphone conversations on the front pages of the WaPo and NYTimes, and they're still hot on the trail of Rush Limbaugh's medical records in search of a crime. And garsh, it was okay to shoot a woman in the back at Ruby Ridge, burn alive women and children at Waco, and put a machine-gun to the head of a 6-year-old boy in Miami. But, golly, gee whiz, just let the current administration sneak a peek at enemy plans for the mass murder of innocents in the middle of a war, and NOW the suspected violation of privacy laws is a Democratic concern?

Jeepers. Do you think maybe this latest Democrat-MSM fabrication about Executive "spying" on American citizens has its origins in the revelations contained in the Barret Report, where we learn the extent to which the former administration used the IRS and the Justice Department to target law-abiding American citizens in peacetime and, uh, without a warrant? How come after the investigation was concluded, the Dems have suppressed the report?

Just wonderin'.......

Bingo.

First, you have ONLY the President's word that it was withing FISA. If it were within FISA, why not get a FISA warrant (they didn't).

Second, as for extreme example, Mitch I know an officer in a SOG, I asked him once whether he'd agree to kill an American citizen on US Soil, his response, "I'd answer in the affirmative," so maybe not quite so extreme.

You all want to accept the President's view that it was fully disclosed, fine, but remember that he restricted disclosure to 6 Senators after 10/01, so hmmm... maybe not so fully disclosed after all. Given the uproar, I think, NOT is the right word.

You all appear ready to allow the President, and remember that we have DOMESTIC terrorism as a concer (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind), you appear ready to give him carte blanche to do anything. YOU say it was legal, given Bush's track record on trampling the Constitutional liberties and general freedoms, I'd say your view is at best utterly, hopelessly niave'. They've backtracked from EVERY abusive position, so I'm just not quite ready to buy your argument, because you've been so utterly and hopelessly wrong in the past.

1. Gitmo detentions without representation
2. Hamdi detentions
3. Denial of review
4. Denial of review by a judge
5. Use of non-US soil as "outside" the law

Seemingly, you don't know sheet from shinola on this subject. The Bush administration has been rebuked TIME AND AGAIN by SCOTUS, including by Antonin Scalia, and you all claim, well, when it does, the system is working. My God, so the President violates the law, argues for three years he can assault liberty legally, and when it's about to come before SCOTUS he gives up, yeah I guess that means the system is working because I mean, it's not like he violated the law for three years or anything.

Here we are again, in an MUCH MORE questionable situation, FISA does not allow for taps against classes of individuals, you may find that out when they start doing the investions, it allows for taps against named individuals or those who may come into contact (which is pretty typical for warrant stuff), where FISA deviates, is there isn't much requirement for proof. The reason they didn't get FISA warrants is that they didn't necessarily have any names, meaning they were blanket tapping, which is probably illegal under the 1978 wiretap law - a law which, unless what I've read so far, FISA did not change to allow for classes or general groups to be tapped.

Bottom line, if these searches were done w/o appropriate warrants, no matter WHAT notification was done with Congress, it's illegal. Congress does not grant the power to violate the Constitution to the President. We're back to Iran Contra, the Executive saying, under the blanket of "national security" it can do anything. Rumsfeld v. Hamdi already refuted this unqualifiedly, that Bush told a few cronies in Congress, doesn't change a thing. Did he get SCOTUS to agree? No.

PB

"First, you have ONLY the President's word that it was withing FISA. If it were within FISA, why not get a FISA warrant (they didn't)."

Already noted.

Fact is, the President has the right *under the Constitution* to act in the interest of National Security. He can act via Executive Order; the orders are open to review.

"Second, as for extreme example, Mitch I know an officer in a SOG, I asked him once whether he'd agree to kill an American citizen on US Soil, his response, "I'd answer in the affirmative," so maybe not quite so extreme."

You're mixing apples and axles, Peeb. Would a soldier follow orders to kill a US citizen? Sure. So would plenty of cops, a lot of Motor Vehicle employees, and probably some high school teachers. The question - the ONLY question - is "is the act lawful".

Your SO officer would not be acting lawfully.

The wiretaps - which were NOT done in pursuit of an indictment or conviction, apparently - were lawful.

"You all want to accept the President's view that it was fully disclosed, fine, but remember that he restricted disclosure to 6 Senators after 10/01, so hmmm... maybe not so fully disclosed after all. Given the uproar, I think, NOT is the right word."

And you'd be wrong. The six senators provide more direct oversight than the vast majority of federal programs.

"You all appear ready to allow the President, and remember that we have DOMESTIC terrorism as a concer (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind), you appear ready to give him carte blanche to do anything."

Oh, give it a rest. I, unlike you lefties, was a libertarian BEFORE John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General. There's a huge, definable gulf between *doing limited, time-critical surveillance of conversations between Americans and key Al Quaeda figures overseas, with Congressional oversight and with after-the-fact FISA court review* and "carte blanche". There is no rational comparison.

" YOU say it was legal, given Bush's track record on trampling the Constitutional liberties and general freedoms,"

OK, Peeb - right now, with no prevarication, name one civil liberty we've lost under Bush.

Because I can name quite a few we lost to the "War on Drugs" with nary a peep from the left.

"1. Gitmo detentions without representation
2. Hamdi detentions
3. Denial of review
4. Denial of review by a judge
5. Use of non-US soil as "outside" the law"

1-3 are perfectly legal against enemy non-uniformed non-citizen combatants. 4 is only slightly dicey under those circumstances, and 5 is a loophole. Don't like loopholes? Then sic your SOG friend on all lawyers - but until the last lawyer is strangled with the intestines of the last Code Enforcement officer, that's how the law works.

"Seemingly, you don't know sheet from shinola on this subject."

No, Peeb, the more you talk the more you reveal how incredibly, even comically, misinformed you are.

Where to start? Hugh Hewitt - an actual lawyer and Constitutional Law professor when he's not kicking the mad talk skeelz - pretty well ties up the Hamdi decision for you with a big blue bow:

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/12/18-week/index.php#a000818

Short version: PB is wrong again. Hamdi

" The Bush administration has been rebuked TIME

"Here we are again, in an MUCH MORE questionable situation, FISA does not allow for taps against classes of individuals...The reason they didn't get FISA warrants is that they didn't necessarily have any names, meaning they were blanket tapping, which is probably illegal under the 1978 wiretap law - a law which, unless what I've read so far, FISA did not change to allow for classes or general groups to be tapped...Bottom line, if these searches were done w/o appropriate warrants, no matter WHAT notification was done with Congress, it's illegal."

You need a little refresher course on the power of the President in wartime.

During WWII, FDR ordered (via his intel surrogates) the opening and skimming of EVERY letter entering and leaving the United States. The law allowed it, and so did the Constitution.

The President has the power to order such limited actions. There is NO evidence that the wiretapping wasn't both extremely limited (to people where there was evidence of contact with captured Al Quada figures) and prudent (to prevent the clear, present danger of attack on the US - which was, in fact, the case).

I'll defer to my various friends who are, actually, lawyers on this one.

More to come.

And then there's the fact that we released "Dr. Germ" today, you know, the Queen of Spades from our list of people (I don't know she was the Queen of Spades, she was in the deck), so the President's intell is once again WRONG, and he held someone without charge, without trial for almost 2 years, but hey.. you can TRUST him.

As for needing a refresher, Mitch, that would be the PRESIDENT who needs one, Rumsfeld v. Hamdi clearly identified his powers are far from limitless, and actually there is HUGE evidence it wasn't limited. First and foremost, the President's own lies regarding his office's involvment in the Plame affair - when he HAD to have known because his staff (Rove) advised him, of their involvement in Sept 2003, yet he came out in October 2003 and denied involvement. Regardless, the President has been repeatedly rebuked for his excesses.

Whether or not he'd kill you, an admitted hyperbole on AC's part, the better example is, would he imprison you, without charge, indefinetely? Think not? Think again, he already has done so. Would he monitor your communications without a warrant? Yes. In fact, the evidence that it wasn't limited is bound up in the fact that he didn't use FISA, a notoriously EASY route to get a warrant. If the set were limited, he'd have gotten a warrant easily. The most logical reason to not use a warrant is that he could not define what he was "detecting" even in the very general FISA statute, and he couldn't define the actors. So Mitch, if anyone needs a refresher, he's sitting in your chair. You have so frequently been wrong on the President's legal position, you lack almost any credibility.

The real issue though is, how far will you go for safety. Today it's forieng communications, what about tomorrow, domestic? Limited to whom? Anyone? Given the President's office's clear attempt to intimidate Plame for her husband's actions (ok that's my supposition, but much of it rings true and is phrased similarly in Fitzgerald's write-up), how can you be sure he'll use it appropriately, not for nefarious means? Because you trust him? Ok, so I assume you trusted Clinton too right when he said he didn't have sex. No? Ok, so then you're willing to gamble your right to protection against random search but hell will freeze over before you let Presidential infidelity slip by, all because YOU WANT TO WIN, and whatever it takes, whether that be Constitutional devaluation and defending the indefensible, is OK BY MITCH. This step is flatly unprescedented, the risk posed by unnamed people that can't be covered under FISA strains credibility against the immense harm doing away with random search protection does. Your position suggests that ANYTHING necessary in "times of war", a highly dubious claim (Iraq isn't the issue here, but terrorism), but even if it weren't dubious, that ANYTHING for national security, can be done/suspended under your supposed "limited" powers. What are those limits Mitch? Define what you think they may be. I consider the Constitution this jackass swore to defend, that I defend, to be those limits, you apparently see no limit as long as they are the right political color.

The definition of evil, is not some inherent malevolence, it is the means to which someone will go to accomplish their ends. I used to think Bush was merely an ignorant tool, I now understand he's much, MUCH worse. There is nothing which prevented him from getting a FISA warrant under your scenario, except hubris, and under my scenario, nothing except that he knows full well it's patently illegal.

Go give your "lesson" to yourself, you BADLY need it, along with an ethics course or seven.

PB

Also,

FDR's example was allowable because it searched for specific exposure of defense actities thus was MONITORING FOR EXACT CONDUCT called exposure of state secrets. The other thing Mitch, the 1978 wiretap law occured umm... AFTER WWII, so the law has since been changed because bad people, like GWB might misuse it.

Sounds like you need the history lesson, as well as one in Constitutional law. I'm no lawyer, but as I understand, even under FISA, you have to name the kind of traffic you're trying to "detect", he couldn't and didn't, meaning they wanted to capture anything, a specific violation of random search and siezure. War Powers didn't give FDR the right to blanketly superscede the Constitution, that you would suggest it, suggests you are ignorant of the law.

PB

The real story here is the leak. Did anyone catch the President's remark about the leak that blew their ability to track bin Laden in the sacred time of utter safety before Sept. 11, 2001?

PB wrote:
"Given the President's office's clear attempt to intimidate Plame for her husband's actions (ok that's my supposition, but much of it rings true and is phrased similarly in Fitzgerald's write-up)"
-and-
"The definition of evil, is not some inherent malevolence, it is the means to which someone will go to accomplish their ends. "

How can anyone refute such flawless logic?

Shame I had to work so late and PB took all of the finer points I was contemplating all day... bastard...

That being said... I have a simple question for Mitch or whomever cares to comment.

The question is, "What is the goal of a terrorist act - what does the perpetrator hope to achieve?"

Please offer something more concrete than "to kill people"

Uh, Doug? To indimidate? To frighten? To. . . terrorize? In other words, to make people so scared, that they appeal to their elected officials to acquiesce, at the expense of their personal, and national, dignity?

I only answer in question form, because that's what the Left seems to understand.

Which, by the way, the U.S. didn't do in the wake of 9/11, and which Spain did.

How would you prefer your significant other wear her burqa? Or, if you're gay, his/her stoning/beheading?

Ryan. I don't think you understood the question. What does the terrorist hope to ultimately achieve?

Doug-
A terrorist has public policy goals. He uses violence in the hope that it will cause the targeted authority to adopt his goals.

If your point is that by authorizing the NSA wiretaps Bush will have advanced the goals of the terrorists you're mistaken. Al Qaida's goal is for the West to remove itself from Middle Eastern politics so they can begin the work of restoring the lost caliphate.

Doug wrote:
"Shame I had to work so late and PB took all of the finer points I was contemplating all day..."
I wouldn't admit that in public.
Doug, the publicly stated goal of these particular terrorists is to kill as many of us as possible IN ORDER to destroy our economy and drive us out of the mid east so that can create their Wahhabist paradise. Ultimately their goal is to turn the whole world into their Wahhabist paradise, and kill anyone who disagrees. Clear enough?
It's not poverty or poor self esteem caused by western colonialism, as the left likes to trot out as the 'root causes;' the left then views their terrorist acts as a means of overcoming these fictional root causes.
When the story of this war is finally written historical scholars will marvel at how we fought a nation-less enemy with so many enemies living within our midsts, with so few (as in none for citizens without any connection or communication with terrorist organizations) infringements on civil rights.
Oh, and Plame's status was the worst kept secret in Washington. Nice jammies though.

Chriss said,

"Doug, the publicly stated goal of these particular terrorists is to kill as many of us as possible IN ORDER to destroy our economy and drive us out of the mid east so that can create their Wahhabist paradise."

So your understanding of the GOAL is to destroy our economy and drive us out of the middle east...

Killing as many of "us" as possible is a means to that end correct?

Let's try it this way...

The European Union includes in its 2004 definition of "terrorism" the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country."

Would you agree with this basic premise? Yes or no.

Just got done reading and listening to a story on FISA and this situation.

I have to admit to incorrectly thinking FISA was part of what was passed in 2001, and the 1978 law was called something else.

Sorry, I'm sure it's more agregious than Mitch, who said John Kerry called our troops terrorists, when he knew full well Kerry didn't. Mine was one of misunderstanding.

However, in every other way, what I said was supported by both what I read and what was reported. FISA is a huge law, with many loopholes, the most relevant allows someone (the President in this case) to tap a line for 15 days w/o a warrant, and while it is POSSIBLE the President just repeatedly extended that request, evidence suggests that is not what he is doing. He says he meets every 30-45 days, not frequent enough to reauthorize, but more, the loophole was not intended to allow for repeated extension, thereby granting indefinite survailance.

I'm guess Alberto Gonzalez knew this full well, because you see, unlike what Mitch is asserting, Gonzalez, an actual lawyer, is NOT arguing this is legal under FISA. No, what the administration is arguing is that the 2001 provision allowing for the "use of all force necessary to destroy/punish anyone or state (sorry this is a paraphrase) involved in, aiding, or supporting the attacks on 9/11." gives him the power.

Essentially, Bush is arguing an authorization to attack Afghanistan gives him unrestrained authority to do pretty much whatever he wants. He used the same argument in Rumsfeld v. Hamdi, a case decided more than a year ago, specifically limiting his power and chastising him for even trying.

The President is asserting he can do whatever it takes, to whomever, to secure safety. He agrues, utterly incorrectly, and Mitch (et.al.) also argue, incorrectly, that Congress can give the President such power. The reality is, unless they pass a Constitutional Ammendment changing the random search and seizure law, NO, they can't. I'm suspicious enough to believe the President didn't go to SCOTUS because he understands full well that it would not have been approved. The opinions of Scalia and Rehnquist in Rv.Hamdi bear that out.

No, this President instead went to his cronies (or so he says), and you all march right along, accepting whatever comes out of his mouth. Trust him, he says, and you, who claim to be champions of liberty, march along. His arguments have proven time and again to be wrong, he userps rights time and again, illegally. He uses an act that I have no doubt nearly the entire Congress would say does NOT give him the right to extend his actions wherever he wants, he uses this act to rewrite our liberties according to his view (his administration's view) for whatever he wants for as long as he wants.

Some tidbits of safety are not worth the loss in liberty. Liberty isn't free is a point you love to champion, which is absolutely true, sometimes it means accepting that an open society, with freedom, isn't perfectly safe. Sometimes it means holding criminals accountable for thier actions. Sometimes it means finally smelling the stink, even when it's your own.

PB

Would you agree with this basic premise? Yes or no.

Posted by Doug at December 20, 2005 07:18 AM

I'd say yes. The Osamas of the world have correctly identified the American left as the the weaker or contrarian faction of the government. Identifying examples such as Vietnam and more recently, Somalia they believe that given enough mayhem the left will gain power and return to intenational negotiation through the U.N. They have also identified the U.N. as not only ineffectual, but easily coruppted and therefore useful.
Chriss is correct in identifying the ultimate goal of Islamofascism, soecifically a Universal Caliphate and world peace under the aegis of Shari'a law.

PB wrote "Essentially, Bush is arguing an authorization to attack Afghanistan gives him unrestrained authority to do pretty much whatever he wants."

Our 21st century Cicero cannot make an argument without bending facts. Below is the AUMF he seems to think only authorized attacking Afghanistan. Note that the word "Afghanistan" never appears in it.

_____________________________________________

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Bingo.

Posted by Colleen at December 19, 2005 06:35 PM

Wait, Colleen's a Catholic? I thought she was a fundie.

Kermit the Frog said: "Chriss is correct in identifying the ultimate goal of Islamofascism, soecifically a Universal Caliphate and world peace under the aegis of Shari'a law."

Lies! I swear by Allah you should have your tongue cut out!

AC,
Do you ever have anything to say?

Kermit, I think it's time for you to get over it already. I told you, I like you, but not *that way*.

You're the one with, ahem, unique fantasies regarding my tongue.

PB, "Some tidbits of safety are not worth the loss in liberty."
I wouldn't call preventing attacks that could kill hundreds of thousands would not be classified as 'tidbits of safety,' but that's just me.
In the balancing act between individual liberties and public protection this administration has done a remarkable job... as has the American public at large. Theo Van Gogh is murdered in Holland and mosques are burned. 19 men try to kill tens of thousands and we worry about too much profiling in pre-flight search processes.

A hysterical Chriss fretted: "I wouldn't call preventing attacks that could kill hundreds of thousands would not be classified as 'tidbits of safety,' but that's just me."

Oh crap, the sky isn't falling again is it Chriss? Better get out my umbrella!

"I wouldn't call preventing attacks that could kill hundreds of thousands would not be classified as 'tidbits of safety,' but that's just me."
...Just because I can't write doesn't mean I'm hysterical :-) Should have said I wouldn't call preventing attacks that could kill hundreds of thousands 'tidbits of safety...'
Anyhoo, AC, no it's not hysterical. If there was another attack on US soil in part because Bush didn't authorize a phone tap he would get savaged for dereliction.
If the price of preventing the sky from falling is that ears listen in while Mohammed L'il Chicken phones Jordan for advice on when and where to drop the acorn, I can live with that.
It seems to me the true hysteria is in the shrieks of the left who a) have forgotten the threat we face (or perhaps feel we deserve it), and b) blather about the government listening into routine, unthreatening phone calls.

Chriss a/k/a Maxwell Not So Smart said: "Mohammed L'il Chicken phones Jordan for advice on when and where to drop the acorn..."

You'll believe just about any little fevered spy story, it sounds like.

First ve kill Moose and Squirrel!

Chriss..

First, I certainly don't think they've navigated preserving freedoms well.. they've barely navigated it at all. The only liberties they haven't tramped on are those they haven't yet felt the need to.

Second, be clear about my point, my point is that the difference in terms of information that can be gathered between unwarranted taps, and warranted, is minute, the latter being easily obtained. So the difference in achieved safety is minute. Not that preventing attacks is minute. I like your comments, and so don't mean to be condescending, but your resonse was predictable, "oh, you mean preventing attacks is tiny?", No, I mean that the safety achieved by implementing an illegal act, is nearly non-existent, but it's harm, is immense.

Terry - I'd rather be Cicero than Antony. and oh btw, my shorthand for the Afghan war resolution ..wow I really mischaracterized it..

Hmmmm I said..

is that the 2001 provision allowing for the "use of all force necessary to destroy/punish anyone or state (sorry this is a paraphrase) involved in, aiding, or supporting the attacks on 9/11." gives him the power.

Essentially, Bush is arguing an authorization to attack Afghanistan... which is what the bill was.. but you're right, it didn't say Afghanistan, sorry, I'm soo bad.

and it actually said..

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001

Those seem pretty damned close Terry.. hmmm.. Cicero, I can't say I mind that, as I said, better Cicero..

See that's such a stretch as compared to saying Kerry called our soldiers Terrorists because they "terrorize innocent civilians when the invade their homes in the middle of the night." I'm sure it's equivilant, scaring people because you wake them up and point guns at them, a necessary act, versus throwing bombs at daycare centers... but yep, I'm misleading you all.

Let's see, so far..

1. Mitch argued it's allowed under FISA - subsequent statemants, no, it's not.

2. We argued taps have to name folks for specific acts, and that FISA only allows for 15 day taps...hmmm, seems borne out by actual sources of news, that in fact FISA only allowed this action against specific kinds of information, for 15 days.

3. Mitch argues that it's not a violation of the Constitution.

4. We (the opponents of the ultra-right) argue it IS because the President did not gain the power to use this law to violate liberties.

5. Congress and nearly every legal scholar outside the administration agrees with me.

Ok, I am (we are) bending the facts, unfortunately for Terry and all the right-wing goose-steppers, I'm bending them in the right direction.

The point is, none of us, no one writing here at least, is an expert, yet you all claim that nothing is wrong, when nearly all independent information says otherwise. You turn a blind-eye because YOU WANT TO, you turn a blind-eye to a gross violation of liberty. I don't have much respect for Nancy Pelosi, more than Delay, but that aint much, but she used the word impeachment, and other than the deception Bush perpetrated regarding Iraqi intelligence, I have not used the word previously, I don't agree with him almost all the time, but he did not break the law. I now believe he is in HUGE trouble, his administration is crippled beyond repair by this, if he's not impeached, he should be, but he won't be because partisanship has taken over. He, like Clinton, ought to resign. The scary part is that it would leave Dick formally in charge. If you don't consider secretly suspending protections against illegal search a high crime, but considered perjury related to adultery one, then you have some seriously skewed priorities.

PB

One quick side note...

Cicero subordinated philosophy to politics, I am afraid that most aptly is a frame for Mitch to fill. I support ethics, regardless of political persuasion... but otherwise, thanks for the compliment Terry.

PB

Hey! I've been promoted to "Right-wing goose-stepper"! Stand aside, AC, and let me at moose and squirrel!
PB, do you not understand what a "plural" is? Is the phrase 'Aghanistan is a nations' grammatically correct? it's likevixerunt versus vixistis, Cicero.

Damn html tag foulup. Read that "it's like vixerunt versus vixistis, Cicero." though in truth 'vixistis' should probably be 'vixivit'.

Terry,

What's funny is in your endeavor to appear smart, you've only made yourself look more foolish, or as Bush might say, more stupider.

The point, Terry, was that I was making a general reference to the bill passed to authorize the attack on Afghanistan.

Your initial point (irrelevant post) about it "not mentioning Afghanistan" and thereby being intentionally misleading, is assinine at best, it was the purpose of the bill. Your apparently NEW point, that it was about more than Afghanistan, oh boy, what a mind-blowing revalation. Yeah, Terry, that was why Congress insisted Bush not act on Iraq w/o reauthorization to the point of letting him know he'd not have funding. You indict your own position by criticizing a semantic clarification of the origination of a bill. It was neither my point nor my intent to argue that it was restricted to Afghanistan. My point was purely around the origin of the Bill... wow what a huge deception on my part.. Color me Cicero.. gasp!

Instead my point was that it restricted Bush to acting against those involved in 9/11, directly, and in the attacks not future actions... in no way does it authorize him to go on to circumvent, subordinate, or obviate the rights of citizens of this country involved in potential future acts. If you can point out in that article where it says that, I'll admit I'm wrong and apologize. Sans that, Terry, I think you probably owe the folks that read here the apology for implying that the bill suggests Bush has the authority to unilaterally set aside individual liberties, and for your mischaracterizations.

You see, in your zeal to make a nothing point, you make yourself appear the fool for not knowing that in fact this resolution did not pass muster when it came to Iraq and so therefore was limited to Afghanistand and therefore was in fact NOT Plural, at least as far as Iraq went.

The really important point though, besides our little bash fest, was that this bill was NOT passed to give carte' blanche to Bush to usurp civil liberties.

The point of the earlier post, was that he had NO need to do this, his options allowed him every chance to get wiretap warrants under FISA. That he didn't is the telling part, he didn't because he has determined he can pretty well do anything he says. All he had to do was use FISA, a court that has approved all but 5 of the 9000 plus petitions put before it. He didn't, because he didn't care to be limited. Again, it is the lengths to which we will goal in pursuit of a goal, that differentiates us. He could have adhered to the law and easily achieved his ends, but he chose, actively, not to.

So Terry, quote Latin, quote pig-Latin, for all I care, quote Air-Latino, apparently you're no more an expert on Latin than I am, but your quote neither makes your point, nor refutes any of mine.

PB

PB-
Where to begin?
Unlike yourself I have not, in this thread, made any statement as to whether I believe the warrantless wiretapping was legal or illegal. I'm not a lawyer. Are you? The 'article' you refer to is a joint Senate Resolution passed by a vote of 98-0. John Kerry voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Paul Wellstone voted for it. Presumably they, though not yourself, were smart enough to notice that the words "nations, organizations, or persons" is not a precise replacement for the word 'Afghanistan'. Also you seem to have some confusion about SJ 23 (posted above) and HJ res 114 (the Iraq War Resolution). I'm too weary at this point ot work my way through your tortured reasoning to discover what the source of your confusion is. Perhaps it's because 'Afghanistan', 'Iraq', 'Al Qaida', and 'Osama' all begin with vowels?
In your anger and inability to string thoughts together into a coherent statement you truly represent today's left. Your obliviousness to irony, however -- PB, that's all your own.

temporal displacement beam you saw a few moments ago The entire play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org]play65[/url] The last few rays of the afternoon sunlight filtered through the backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]backgammon[/url] Captain! Give us some coordinates! online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org]online backgammon[/url] Professor Brown took his eyes off the road a moment to look at Marty .

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

We recommend you to visit excellent furniture site. qY0ptan0x

gamble online Marty looked up facing the inevitable He might as well give his http://www.casinophiles.com gamble online whats in there [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] gamble online[/URL] the letters MM + SP on the cloud and drew and arrow through it like .

online casinos (mumbles) The day I show respect to Biff Tannen will be the day I win a http://www.casinophiles.com online casinos Youd like to see a nuclear holocaust [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] online casinos[/URL] a valentine He added at the bottom How about the dance Saturday .