You mean the NASA spy activity?

Seriously Mitch, given that most legal scholars commenting have been aghast at the President's conduct, I'm sure that the unbiased ultra-right has uncovered the penultimate truth.

I'll wait until someone credible speaks, as, of yet, everything you've said has been so shot through with holes it's repugnant.

Wow.. .just read your "article", to say it is factless is insulting to factless.

Hindraker as an expert? Since when?.. his claim is that it is not unreasonable to do what, violate the law?

Kerr states it doesn't violate the Consitution, but that it probably violates FISA, yet offeres no opinion why it doesn't violate the constitution. It's actually MORE likely the obverse is true, that it in fact DOES violate the constitution, and MAY not violate, FISA. Funny, but it was YOU who said yesterday it doesn't violate FISA.

You all talk out both sides of your face, and don't grasp that unreasonable search and seizure was violated. Broad spectrum tapping of the internet, sniffing for anything, is unreasonable, whether or not a politico like Hindraker, an obvious Repo Shill, says otherwise.

This is once again the issue Mitch, you all use your extremist, hate-land, echo-chamber, rather than real opinion.

I'll wait for actual experts and facts, and, as you've said before, for the investigation, before I cast my final vote, but it sure smells bad from here... really, really, really bad.

PB

Btw.. Mitch, the President's mission, since we are ordering missions about...

Was to protect the Constitution of the United States.

His responsibility, if he believed, as Hindraker asserts, that it was "reasonable" was to argue his point before the SCOTUS. He didn't and I'll bet he knew full well he wouldn't have won..

Hindraker's point is refuted by Hamdi, and was unquestionably disparaged by Rehnquist and Scalia, that the President doesn't have unlimited authority to just "rule" on his own, as Hindraker suggests, that he can change the law or what is allowed or what is "reasonable".

Arguments like: "You want to coddle terrorists", are so repulsive and wrong they they are alarming. First, terrorism isn't going away, so by that point, I guess we sign away are rights to the greater glory of the war on terror, but what's more, is no one said anything about coddling them. This is a vile strawman. The point is what can be gathered while adhering to the law, vs. what has been gathered through almost certainly illegal means. You have no proof of any activity prevented. You might as well say the prevented the complete anihilation of the world AND the invasion of the earth by green men from Venus, because it has as much proof. Conversely, given the habit this administration has of trumpeting even minor successes, we have every reason to believe they WOULD have touted a major attack being averted.

Finally, given that the Pres' conduct would NEVER hold up in court- because the Constitution was not ammended by Congress in 2001 to superscede individual liberty, all evidence would be excluded, this means that the administration, all of whose members are not idiots, had no intent to bring charges. They're options really would be either to illegally detain them (US Citizens) without charge, or what? kill them?, there really aren't too many other options. So what exactly do you think they gained? They didn't appear to stop anything, and they had information that they really couldn't use, unless they looked to further violate the law.

PB

PB,

The "credibility" you are willing to give to these anonymous "current and former officials" is amazing.

Tell you what, I've got credible evidence from a former official who was guaranteed anonimity due to the ongoing nature of this investigation, that Russ Sweingold, the pussy RINO from South Carolina, Ted Bloatennedy and Shrillary Clinton are running an illegal Iraqi detainee prostitution ring down at Gitmo, and Fidelio C. is their #1 client.

THAT is how ridiculous you sound.

But of course, talking to a lead wall gets Mitch, Chriss, Terry and all the others only so far.

A lead wall that drones on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and. . .

I'm wondering about the "unreasonable" part as well. Here's what I'm wondering....I’m going to be using analogies, so some folks may have trouble with this, but hang in there:

We all know that the police can't just pick a house at random, go in and search it, and then see if they find evidence of a crime. That's definitely an example of an "unreasonable" search.

If, as a result of an investigation, the police have evidence that might indicate that a particular house is being used for illegal activities, and they want to search it, they go to a court, present their evidence and if they convince a judge, they'll get a warrant. That's not an "unreasonable" search; that's a warranted search.

Now, if a police officer, walking his beat, hears a scream, runs to the site, sees evidence of a struggle, bloody footprints leading to a doorway, and just happens to see a thug dragging a struggling person through the door and the door closes, the police officer has “probable cause” to enter the dwelling and search because he believes that there is a crime taking place, and that time is of the essence. He needn’t go get a warrant beforehand, though his activities may be evaluated afterwards to make sure he acted properly.

Now, it seems to me, with regard to these so-called domestic wiretaps, that there are two things argued in their favor: first, they only take place on people who are communicating with foreign terrorists (we’ll assume this for the moment), which it seems to me is analogous to “probably cause”; and second, time is of the essence, which is the nature of this sort of intelligence gathering.

Am I missing somewhere? If the burden of what is an “unreasonable search” is the same as is used for police matters, then I don’t see how these wiretaps can be considered unreasonable. This seems persuasive to me, but I’m not a lawyer or a judge so obviously I may be missing some point of law.

Also, and I think this an important point, I am not subject to knee-jerk anti-Bush prejudice, so I may be more open to persuasion than some others.

Mitch-

Can I borrow your key to the extremist, hate-land, echo-chamber? I'm working on a post on the NSA wiretap story and seem to have misplaced mine. Our jobs as right-wing operatives have become much simpler since they installed the local RoveCo Echo-chamber a few years back. It's so much easier to use than "real opinion." I'll be sure to remember to wash my hands when I'm done.

Because Mitch doesn't allow links to CBSNews...

The Jist is, the Congress didn't approve of this, it frankly said it wasn't qualified to do so. The President's responsibility was to go to SCOTUS.

Regardless, the specious claim that divulging this amounts to some sort of security issue is repellant. First, do you REALLY think that Al Qaeda members or supporters thought they they might NOT be monitored via LEGAL warrants without their knowledge? This program did nothing a legal tap couldn't... it's exposure only does one thing, it undermines faith in our government and it's defense of our liberties. NOTHING else, nothing. Broad spectrum taps of named persons were fully possible. Claims by Cheney that "it's no accident we haven't been hit in four years" ring so hollow that they could be used for bells. First it was Iraq, next it was Guantanamo, now it's illegal taps... These measures, and this is the stupid part, were fully possible with a simple amount of work, but the arguement that he can do ANYTHING gave rise to doing ANYTHING.

Read the article.. as Mitch says.. it's your mission...to actually get something amounting to actual news... although it takes a lot of gaul to tell you what you HAVE to do.

(CBS/AP) Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisers that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.

"I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said in a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003. "As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney."

Rockefeller is among a small group of congressional leaders who have received briefings on the administration's four-year-old program to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to al Qaeda.

The government still would seek court approval to snoop on purely domestic communications, such as calls between New York and Los Angeles.

Cheney vigorously defended the program on Tuesday, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years."

He said he believes if there's any backlash coming because of the revelations about the surveillance program, it's "going to be against those who are suggesting somehow that we shouldn't take these steps to defend the country."

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

President Bush was defiant and unapologetic about the program at his final news conference of the year on Monday, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent John Roberts.

"I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and three, we're guarding your civil liberties," Mr. Bush said.

And he had harsh words for the officials who leaked the story – a devastating blow, he said, to national security.

"It is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly," he said.

Mr. Bush insists both the Constitution and congressional authorization for the war on terror give him the power to circumvent the courts when eavesdroping on suspected terrorists – and he says he is determined to keep doing it. But many scholars believe the program is utterly and completely illegal.

"I think their opinion is ludicrous," David Cole of Georgetown University said. "I think Congress expressly addressed whether the president could do this during war time and they said yes, but only for 15 days in an emergency situation. The president has now done it for four years."

Democrats charged that the president may have operated outside the law and tipped the balance of power, reports CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger.

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mi., said.

Precisely. no oversight, congress doesn't count and knew it.

PB

Can I borrow your key to the extremist, hate-land, echo-chamber?
Posted by the elder at December 20, 2005 10:52 AM

Haven't you guys installed biometrics yet?

I, for one, am damn glad the government is taking the war on terror seriously enough to monitor communications with suspected terrorists. I guess I don't consider the ability to communicate with foriegn nationals that are linked to terror organizations that this country is at war with to be a "liberty" guaranteed by the constitution.

Kermit-

We've been waiting for the biometric security upgrade for a while now. Rumor has it that a production backlog at the slave labor facility in Halliburton Gulag #476 is holding things up. Apparently, there aren't enough detainees to keep up with the demand and the productivity levels of the laborers is down because they can't keep warm. Just not enough Constitutions to burn I guess. Once Alito gets on the court, we'll see a round up of the usual suspects and we should be back in business.

PB- Nice to see that you're displaying your usual moderation by avoiding a rush to judgment until all the facts are in.

I'll have to read up on this when I get home.

Meanwhile, thought experiment: Imagine President Clinton (no, the other one, sometime in 2011) has done the same thing to eavesdrop on gun dealers and pro-life groups because of recent attacks on ... oh, lets not go the planned parenthood route, but instead say it was armed attacks on staff at county hospitals in a three state area which permit abortions.

Permissible?

Quick amendment: suppose the wiretaps also included members of a few evangelical churces with outspoken pro-life stances.

Bill -- or what about wire taps of militia groups post OK City? Although, Bill, your analogy doesn't hold up on one level: We are talking about a nation-less foreign enemy that has declared war on the US, with operatives (including US citizens) living and working inside the US -- not just a domestic anti-abortion group targeting medical facilities.
PB's definition of an expert = someone who agrees with him.
You're damn right Bush is unapologetic. He believes he's right (and I agree, but then I'm not an expert). What, you expect him to say, "Oh, you caught me doing something naughty and I'm so very sorry?" His solemn duty is to protect the country. He's using every legal tool at his disposal, as he should.
Thank God preventing the next attack is no Carl Levin's job. Then again, what the hell is Carl Levin's job?
I am, however, shocked that a Georgetown law prof disapproves. That quote must have been hard to find.
As for a backlash, watch W's poll numbers continue to rise.

Permissible?

Posted by Bill Haverberg at December 20, 2005 01:18 PM

Absolutely. Provided said "gun dealers and pro-life groups" were of foreign origin threatening domestic attacks.
Apple to apples, Bill.

"Imagine President Clinton...in 2011) has done the same thing to eavesdrop on gun dealers and pro-life groups because of...armed attacks on staff at county hospitals in a three state area which permit abortions... the wiretaps also included members of a few evangelical churces with outspoken pro-life stances"

Domestic crime, covered by domestic statute. NSA is not supposed to surveil for domestic crime (exceptions exist).

Dealing with foreign aggressors is not a criminal investigation; it's an intelligence and military, as well as law-enforcement, activity, in which the President has constitutional leeway in setting policy.

Your example would be better if a group of, say, Belgian-based (but extranational and supranational) pro-life terrorists were linking up with American groups; if the "Front Belgienee Militaire Du Vie Des Enfants" had bombed dozens of clinics, killed hundreds of Americans, and launched a worldwide, extranational paramilitary campaign of terror against abortion providers worldwide (but especially American ones), then President Hillary! would be within her constitutional authority to issue a finding that in cases where time-critical information falls into our hands, and there's reason to believe that waiting for a FISA warrant would delay wiretaps until the enemy would likely know of the capture, and there was a strong likelihood that the information pertained to imminent (clear and present!) danger of attack, that agents could conduct the wiretaps (and report the details to FISA and authorized Congressional oversight afterwards).

The Elder, only Mitch leaped to judgement, the judgement that nothing is wrong.

My comment was that it is LIKELY a big problem, not that it definetely ISN'T one.

Mitch, given the fact that domestic terrorism is a concern, why would monitoring people who sell guns be an issue? This is an easy extension.

You all sign over carte blanche to the President at your own risk. Remember, there will be someone else in the WH who will not share your views entirely at somepoint, even soon perhaps. Then please tell me you are comfortable with this unlimited power.

Bill C and the rest of the clown gang, if you chose to write something worthwhile, and I have the time to read it, I'll respond... otherwise, you're a self-limiting feature.

Chad - given Mitch was, and seemingly so were the rest of his echo chamber buddies, nearly completely wrong about whether FISA allows this, I guess maybe I'll feel okay in thinking you all are fact challenged and think that posting a right-wing blog as evidence constitutes noise reverberation.. but hey, that's just me, I consider regurgitating factually flawed to be pointless redundancy proving nothing. You all MIGHT want to wait until real experts comment.

The bottom line is, that this President would even have the temerity to suggest that the 2001 Afghanistan authorization allows him to undertake these taps and that Congress approves.. we've seen just how much they thought they authorized this. Further, that the question was never legislative in the first place. The President's responsibility was to go to the Supreme Court. He didn't, he violated his oath, and frankly probably broke the law (I think probably is really definetely, but I'll reserve until I hear a bit more). I CAN say that John Hindraker cannot be seen as evidenciary for the same reason you declined to allow someone who donated to MoveOn to try Delay, he's clearly prejudiced, although I don't actually think only a Democrat can try a Democrat.

So before you declare Bush is guilt-free, try really hard to find independent opinion. FISA was not adhered to (as it extended for four years) - most likely, and even MORE likely, random search and siezure were almost certainly violated. The President doesn't have the perogative of deciding what is "reasonable" when it means directly controverting the Constitution. He doesn't have it during peace, war or psuedo-war, and he doesn't have the right to do so until made to stop by SCOTUS, he should never have started.

PB

Just wondering how comfortable conservatives would be with this policy if Hillary became president and deemed the "massive right wing conspiracy" a danger to the fabric of our nation and started wiretapping Rush, Hannity and anyone on their list of subscribers? Or anyone that logged on to this site? A little unrestrained power in the hands of anyone can be a very dangerous thing. Congress has bent over for GW so far that I think impeachment would be veeeeeerrry diffucult to achieve. But I wonder Mitch if this incident might give libertarians like yourself pause. The pendulum swings in politics. The weapons your side wields might be turned on you at another time. I'm not saying Bush is using the wiretaps against political enemies. But if a president isn't called for something like this, can we call him on anything at all. His argument seems to be that we're at war and he has liscence to do anything as long as a state of war exists. Given the rather fluid way the definition of a state of war has been used what would stop a president from declaring it in perpituity? Just wondering.

Phipho,

This is the same misdirection that I've heard a couple of dozen times.

Nobody - not one single person - has suggested that this wiretapping is being used against domestic opponents of the President or for any other politcal end.

Show me evidence that the NSA is tapping the President's political opponents (absent their being linked to Al Quaeda operatives captured overseas) and I'll lead the call for impeachment.

I'm not holding my breath.

Bill C and the rest of the clown gang, if you chose to write something worthwhile, and I have the time to read it, I'll respond... otherwise, you're a self-limiting feature.
Posted by pb at December 20, 2005 02:42 PM

WELL!! I'd be TOTALLY offended, if I actually read much of the peebster. Usually when I see four paragraphs scrolling out of the window I check the posted by line. Then I read Mitch's pithy responses. I'd say fifteen paragraphs is a self-limiting feature. Especially when you know exactly what they will contain.

PB-

This may be the funniest thing I've read on this or any other blog:

"...I consider regurgitating factually flawed to be pointless redundancy proving nothing."

Regurgitations? Check
Factually flawed? Check
Pointless? Check
Redundancies? Check
Proving nothing? Check

I think you're missing a word or two here but otherwise you've accurately described 99% of the comments that you've made at SITD.

I'd also like you to describe for us what you mean by terms like "real opinion" and "independent opinion." In your world, a Georgetown professor is apparently "real" and "independent" while the Wall Street Journal is not.

I can see why you might disagree with Mitch about whether the NSA wiretapping was legal and necessary. But don't pretend that you're some sort of objective observer, carefully weighing all the facts before coming to any conclusions. You're just as partisan as Mitch (if not more so) and, despite your contentions to the contrary, all the facts and all the "experts" do not agree with you on this issue.

"Given the rather fluid way the definition of a state of war has been used what would stop a president from declaring it in perpituity?"
--------------
Ummm....uh....er....elections?

For anyone who has maintained even a slight semblance of historical perspective in this latest onslaught of ignorance and propaganda, the only thing "new" here is the political party that has tirelessly labored to bestow American Constitutional rights on Islamic terrorists intent upon our mass murder, killed the Patriot Act undermining the war effort and our troops in the field, and whose union benefactors have just refused a 10% wage increase to shut down New York City transit at the height of the Christmas shopping season-- is now arguing that the President of the United States has been "illegally" protecting the country and demanding impeachment.

Wow. That's gonna win alot of votes.

"...the Congress didn't approve of this, it frankly said it wasn't qualified to do so..."

I didn't realize that Sen. Rockefeller spoke for all of Congress.

I just want to know who else was briefed and why they thought it was better to leave it alone (the letter to the VP was purely butt-covering, and a good job of it too) than try to modify FISA in Congress.

Oh, and by the way, this is the same political party which once argued the Clinton administration could bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." According to Gorelick, "the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place." This would be the same Jamie Gorelick who then issued the "extra-legal" memo in March 1995 prohibiting the sharing of information between national intelligence and law enforcement agencies. For our protection, of course......and for the children.

You might read the whole thing:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html

Mitch,

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my last post. I really meant that I don't think Bush was using the wiretaps against opponents. I was just wondering what would stop a president (not just this one)from doing it when there was no one to say no? The courts don't just protect the guilty, they protect the innocent as well. After all, if the wiretaps are secret who knows who the targets are? A few years ago I wouldn't have thought that the military would be spying on craven terrorists like the Quakers but it happened just a little over a year ago in Lake Worth Florida. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/ As I said before, I don't think impeachment will happen. Congress was far too willing to abandon any attempt at oversight after 9/11. I just don't want the government tapping my phone,reading my mail, or spying on me at a meeting I might choose to attend. I am a US citizen. These are rights I should be entitled to. Apparently the Bush administration disagrees. Your blog is one of the most ardent of advocates for 2nd amendment rights.
I find it amazing that as a proud self-proclaimed libertarian this issue does not concern you.

Eracus,

What's to keep a president who declares he is above the law from eliminating those little things called elections. After all, GW just did away with our fourth amendment rights. One republican, Senate judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, is smart enough to understand that this isn't a partisan issue, it is about basic constitutional protections for all of us, not just Al Queda supporters. I really don't care who is doing the infringing. If it was the Clinton administration it was wrong, if it is the Bush administration it is wrong. As citizens we need to step out from behind the political BS and stop it. I think both democrats and republicans have become increasingly skilled in getting the public to accept their own parties warts to protect them from the plague of the opposition.

I saw when at his word the formless mass,
This world's material mould, came to a heap:
Confusion heard his voice, and wild uproar
Stood ruled, stood vast infinitude confined;
Till at his second bidding Darkness fled,
Light shone, and order from disorder sprung.

Nothing helps order spring from disorder like a return to original docs, so I actually read the NYT article in question at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=print
.
The first few paragraphs are:

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. "

So according to the Times, warrants are "ordinarily" required, not "legally" or "always" required. Also note that the Times makes it clear that the wiretapped conversations are between someone in this country and someone not inside this country. This is not 'domestic spying' as most people would define it, but that's just my opinion.
How many people and who are they? Later in the article it says "While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began . . . ."
The wiretapped are ". . .American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners . . . " These people came under surveillance because of "[w]hat the agency calls a "special collection program" began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, as it looked for new tools to attack terrorism. The program accelerated in early 2002 after the Central Intelligence Agency started capturing top Qaeda operatives overseas, including Abu Zubaydah, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002. The C.I.A. seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories, said the officials familiar with the program. The N.S.A. surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible . . .."
What value did the informations have? "Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime . . ."
Where does Bush think his authority to operate this new program came from? "...classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups . . ." and later in the article "Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.""
In other words, the Bush position is that it would be unconstitutional for congress to try to curtail his ability to issue wiretapping orders under the NSA program.
Expanding on the question of Bush's authority to monitor foreign agents is this paragraph from the article: "Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review [the FISA court -ed.], which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, cited "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance.""
Who in congress was aware of the program? "After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.
It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls. "
Who informed the Times of the secret NSA program? "Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight."
One unanswered question in the article is why the NSA, rather than the FBI, was given the task of gathering this intelligence. The article isn't clear on the subject but it seems like it was a combination of the pres having greater authority over the NSA than he does over the FBI as well the NSA's greater capability and technical expertise in intercepting phone communications.
And last, how do we know that the info in this article won't help al-qaida kill more Americans? "The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
Don't worry boys, the New York Times has our back!

"Bill C and the rest of the clown gang, if you chose to write something worthwhile, and I have the time to read it, I'll respond... otherwise, you're a self-limiting feature."

You know PB, be glad Mitch has decency standards on his blog. You just firmly cemented my opinion of you in the same camp as Greg who calls you the c-word. He leaves off "pithy", however.

It's been a few years since I've read remarks from such a delusional, blindfolded-to-reality, safely-ensconced-in-a-glass-house-sitting-high-on-a-pillar liberal ideologue as you. Jeff Fecke, Angryclown, and Doug Abba can't hold a candle to you. Hell, you're even beyond Eva in my book.

And liberals can't understand why conservatives feel the way we do about them. (pot, kettle, line 1)

PB is THE POSTER CHILD for the "Do all you can do to piss off the right-wing and marginalize the left wing" crowd. Do you have Howard Dean's office on speed dial? Because you sure are doing a good job of convincing me that you're a charter member of the Deaniac Brigade.

Remarkable.

Arlen Specter is a Republican? Since when? Darlin' Arlen is whatever gets him on TV and is as much a Democrat as a Republican because he's as disloyal to both parties, which makes him a cad, but that's beside the point.

What keeps a president from declaring himself above the law and eliminating elections is we, the people, the 2nd Amendment, and the courage to lock and load. But what's really striking is the naive assumption that our 4th Amendment rights have only recently been violated by this president and not every other president, private corporation, financial institution, university, the clerk at the liquor store, your hotel room housekeeper, and every self-righteous journalist out to make the world a better place. The Democratic Party has never had any qualms whatsoever about violating the 4th Amendment to data-mine and expose, say, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's financial records or Rush Limbaugh's medical records, to say nothing of Clarence Thomas's video rentals. And yet that very same Democratic Party has today conferred the "right to privacy" to Al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporters by informing them of our collection methods, under the ruse this is somehow to your and my benefit that its hopelessly naive readers complain, "GW just did away with our fourth amendment rights." Really?

How do you think telemarketing and mass mailings work? Why are there numbers on everything you use, buy, sell, or trade? Why has corporate America spent billions on RFID, GPS, satellite communications, digital imagery, and a plethora of surveillance and detection devices? To protect your privacy? Or to invade it?

In the digital age, if you have one number, you have every other number. It is no more difficult to violate the 4th Amendment than to get out of bed. With a few clicks of the digital mouse, anyone can use a picture of your house as a desktop background. For $40, anyone can buy a list of all your credit card purchases, the balance in your financial accounts, your academic transcripts, license applications, charitable and political contributions, magazine and newspaper subscriptions, religious affiliations, birth certificates, property holdings, tax records, phone numbers, digital cable box address --and it is all perfectly legal. The only crime is "identity theft," when someone else pretends to be you to commit fraud.

The cherished "right to privacy" is an illusion; it does not exist. Your cellphone conversations can be monitored by anybody who is interested, and anybody can intercept your mail and e-mail or spy on you at a meeting. ANYBODY. And you're worried about the government doing it?? Shouldn't they be in the game, watching the people who are watching us? Shouldn't law enforcement, not to mention our soldiers in house to house combat in Iraq, have the very best, most accurate, most up-to-date information available? Why should our cowardly enemies killing our soldiers and plotting our mass murder and the slaughter of innocents abroad be afforded privacy protections we ourselves do not enjoy?

But more to the point, what all of us should really be asking is why the Democratic Party and its champions here and in the mainstream media insist that we must? Do you really think they give a damn about protecting our privacy and freedom? Or do they care more about defeating those protecting what's left of it? Whose cause, exactly, is advanced by the NYTimes' exposure of US intelligence collection methodology and killing the Patriot Act? Yours and mine? Or the enemy who is determined to kill us?

The answer, as always, lies not in what they have said, but in what they they have done.

Eracus you are wise.

How could we have been so blind? The answer was right in front of us. It isn't that we have too few rights but too many. We should volunteer for in-home cams and mike immediately so that we can be free of the delusions of freedom. It is a lascivious burden which dirties us all. Damn that freedom of speech ! It tires me. I want it no more. My front door and curtains are pathetic props in menagerie of liberty. I will take them down immediately. Of course this leaves me wondering what that freedom thing GW keeps insisting we are fighting for over in Iraq is all about. I remember him saying that the reason the terrorists wanted to destroy us is because they hated our belief in personal liberty and freedom. Maybe we could just tell them we don't have that stuff anymore and they'll leave us alone. I can see it now, Osama and Zarqawi sitting down for tea.

"Osama did you hear"
"No, my brother in hate, what news have you for me"
"The filthy pig Americans (spit stomp) they have forsaken their decadent lifestyle and liberties and agreed to live under the thumb of an oppressive regime like decent human beings should"
"You don't say. Zarqawi you old dog if you are lying to me I will tie your testicles to my fastest camel and give him a slap on the rear!"
"No Osama it is true! We can go back to shooting and blowing up our own people !"
"Praise be to Allah, I was getting tired of that Pakistani food anyway. Do they have to put curry on everything? Have they never heard of a little salt, a little pepper. (Osama and Zarqawi exit arm in arm fade to black)

Yes that is a wonderful picture you paint Eracus. An interesting argument too. We have no right to civil liberties because they've been infringed upon. Of course if you take that argument to its logical end we shouldn't object to being robbed at gunpoint because after all they already have our money and what’s the use of crying over spilled milk? Thank you Eracus. You've made all of our lives much simpler. Just give in and wait for the bullet to the brain.

In the face of stupidity, the gods always prevail in vain.

It is characteristic of the Left's failure to comprehend logic and reason that when confronted with both you resort not to studied debate, but to sarcasm and ridicule and pedestrian fantasies. Like a child unable to refute the argument, you have instead created your own out of pique, only to further demonstrate your stupidity. Are you really suggesting our government, which, through our elected representatives, created the laws at issue, has no right to participate within their bounds or enforce them?

Every interested private entity on the planet legally and routinely breaches your "right to privacy" to separate you from your money, but you're worried your government uses the same laws and device to protect your life and your livelihood? Which of your civil rights has the government abridged that you have not already signed away on every loan application, registration, or license agreement you've ever submitted?

Name one and to what end you have been harmed, other than having to wake up to the reality you are the only star in your own movie playing the cineplex where your brain used to be, if ever there was one. Any notion that the government can not, does not, should not or would not operate in the same realm of intelligence collection as the private sector, from Wal-Mart to Al-Qaeda, is absolutely ridiculous.

Are you really so naive?

Eracus,

I think there are two key points in your last post. The first would be the laws passed by congress; I don't recall any act of congress that authorized the warrent-less tapping of US citizen’s phones. Regardless of whether they can do it its illegal. The second point would be that little matter of the signed consent. I may not like that I give banks, insurance agencies et al. access to my affairs, but if I don't want to give them access to my affairs, I can decline their offer. I may not like the increased exposure, but if I choose I may give my consent. I don’t recall GW asking for mine or anyone else’s. No, I'm not naive about the extent to which our lives are pried into; I’m fed up with it. Are you so gutless that you will roll over just because it’s easier? Have a spine.

Phipho,
I think there are two key points in your last post. The first is you are totally clueless as to the law permitting warrantless searches, and two, you are totally clueless that when you sign one consent, you've signed all the others.

Gutless? Hardly. I'm in the game, pal, not hyperventilating on the sidelines with a paper bag over my head.

What you seem incapable of understanding is our government has been and still is so far behind the intelligence curve in the private sector that a rag-tag team of visiting crazy jihadis could hi-jack 4 airliners and blow up New York and the Pentagon. Meanwhile, you're complaining about the government's use of authorized technical means to gather intelligence for our protection, all of which are entirely legal and are used by Citicorp and the folks sending us catalogs and grocery coupons every day through the mail.

Our government is finally just beginning to use the very same private sector device and methodology to track down the people who are trying to kill us, and you want them to stop to revisit the debate over settled black-letter law less they encroach on the information you just gave your local gas station? Brilliant!!

Cry me a river.

Whoooa Eracus, you're "in the game?" you da man. I'm sure school children everywhere thank you. The role of the elementary school crossing guard is an important one. You never know where those raging granies will crop up. Be ever vigilant Eracus. The safety of the planet depends on good citizens like you. In other words, we're screwed.

Nice river! Weak, but nice.