don't take offense to this personally but...

The intelligence gathering assets of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Military are convenient scapegoats and targets for ignorant criticism.

This is a case of, and pardon my vernacular, "Build a thousand wheels, still not a wheel builder. Suck one cock, and you're a cocksucker."

The hair on the back of my neck goes up when lame ass civilians who benefit from the (relative) freedom our legal and military system provide for us bitch about the "Bad CIA, DIA, SRO, NSA...."

Bullshit.

If it weren't for CIA, NSA, SRO, and DIA we'd be, quite plainly, fucked.

The intelligence industry is a thankless, boring, tedious and difficult one with zero- I say again- absolutely zero reward. The only hope you have is to get out the other end to have some semblance of a normal life.

Remember please: The first American soldier to die in Afghanistan was a CIA Field Officer with a wife at home. He was unarmed when he died, beaten to death in a prison yard.

Afraid of the NSA eavesdropping on your Internet, cell phone, paper mail, text messaging? Why? that's a simple question. I am just here to try to help you, if you help me, I can help you... Help me help you. You're not afraid are you? Let's sort through this, I'm sure it's a mistake..... The sooner you let us know what's on your mind the sooner we'll sort it out...

You do have something you need to tell us.... don't you.

What are you so afraid of?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

No one is bitching about the role that the CIA, NSA, etc. plays. I am all for an effective intelligence force. I hope that we all would be after 9/11.

I am not, however, for the president deciding willy nilly that these forces can work outside the bounds of the laws created by the Congress, especially when it seems fairly easy to work within these bounds. Like I said before, it seems that there was no need here to completely cut FISA courts out of the loop.

At bottom, my problem is with a president -- or really a vice president -- who doesn't seem to think that they need to work within our laws and our constitutional framework. My issue is with an administration that has given itself the authority to cast habeas corpus, checks and balances, federal laws, etc, to the wind.

I think you entirely misread my point here, and, on top of that, you made your point obnoxiously. No offense, of course.

"...President deciding willy nilly..."

I would suggest that is an inaccurate characterization of the President's decision making process that lead to these events.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I have no idea how Bush arrived at that decision. But his decision-making track record -- eg Iraq -- doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

This is a reminder about the debate over the Patriot Act, which you find to be "ridiculous."

From Guilani's editorial in the NY Times today:

Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps a reminder is in order. The bipartisan 9/11 commission described a vivid example of how the old ways hurt us. In the summer of 2001, an F.B.I. agent investigating two individuals we now know were hijackers on Sept. 11 asked to share information with another team of agents. This request was refused because of the wall. The agent's response was tragically prescient: "Someday, someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective."

Art, if you read back, you'll see that what I called "ridiculous" was not the Patriot Act itself, but the premise of it in the context of what the NSA is doing.

The Patriot Act, which was intended to expand the powers of the president and the intelligence community for the war on terror, specifically requires the govt to get FISA warrants before they spy on citizens. But that was not enough for the administration, so they did what they wanted on their own. So what really is the point of the Patriot Act? Law or no law, this administration is just going to do what it wants to do.

"But that was not enough for the administration, so they did what they wanted on their own."

Not for nothing, but from watching this on the news, it seems as if what the NSA is doing has been going on for over a decade, so attributing this to the Bush administration might noit be very accurate.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not willy nilly there bud. The president does not operate in a vacuum. Your (and the NYT) blind hatred for the president is sickening. The congress knew what was going on so why don't you man up and complain about your congressman and senators who knew about it if you are so offended.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/17/D8EI32N00.html

The new tactic is to absolve the president of responsibility for his lackluster/problematic decisions by saying other people knew about it/signed off on it. And, of course, these were other republicans, who do whatever Bush says. Good one.

Separately, you're acting as if many people knew about the program and had some say about whether it existed or not. From what I have read, three people in the whole Justice Dept knew about the program. And only did a handful of senate/congress leaders. And they were all told about it after the fact. It's not like they were given a chance to give their approval. I could be wrong, but that is what I understand so far.

Finally, I am sorry that you are sickened by my dissent. While I have sided with the president on a number of matters -- I do support his decision, for example, to keep us in Iraq for the long term -- I do disagree with government action that breaks laws and violates the constitution unnecessarily (emphasis on unnecessarily). Maybe I will slowly come over to your side and we can both blindly follow what our great leader wants, and we'll all be happy.

From Bush's speech today:

" In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks."

What "news" were you watching?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I should and do apologize for saying your comments sickened me. If you read the link you would see that more than a handful of people knew about the decision. The president even went on to say he would continue to authorize the wire taps which I am all for. It is not like all of a sudden every single American is having their emails monitored.

I appreciate the apology. And, just to be clear, I am not opposed to wire tapping. Until a couple weeks ago, I lived in NYC and experienced 9/11 and by no means want to see anything like it happen again. But I do think it's important that the govt work within the structure that was created to allow for wiretaps. The structure seems pretty effective. FISA courts issue warrants all the time. And I would like to know why they weren't viable this time around. If we can have spying with some kind of oversight, it seems preferable to me.

It seems like there was quite a bit of oversight on the program. Congressional leaders were briefed a dozen or more times. The Executive order was reissued at, I think, 90 day intervals. At one point they shut down the program in order to insure its appropriate operation.

I don't know why the warrants were not sought in these cases and the security court didn't do its thing. The reason for this will surely be leaked over time.

The NY Times sat on the story in part no doubt because their analysis concluded that it was legal.

I still haven't had anyone answer my question. Isn't it the job of the NSA to intercept and analysis all foreign communication it can get its hands on? I assumed they did this to all international traffic to the best of their ability, not just to selected individuals.

If they don't, they should.

"What "news" were you watching?"

"CNN" Do the quotes make you feel smart?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Yes".

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Congressional leaders were briefed a dozen or more times.

Which does not mean that the action is legal. It means that those Congressional leaders are complicit in a crime(s).

The Executive order was reissued at, I think, 90 day intervals.

Illegal each time.

At one point they shut down the program in order to insure its appropriate operation.

What they should have done is cancel it, because it's illegal.

Isn't it the job of the NSA to intercept and analysis all foreign communication it can get its hands on? I assumed they did this to all international traffic to the best of their ability, not just to selected individuals.

The relevant portion of FISA:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— [/url](A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— [/url](i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or [/url](ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [/url](B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Afraid of the NSA eavesdropping on your Internet, cell phone, paper mail, text messaging? Why? that's a simple question. I am just here to try to help you, if you help me, I can help you... Help me help you. You're not afraid are you? Let's sort through this, I'm sure it's a mistake..... The sooner you let us know what's on your mind the sooner we'll sort it out...

You do have something you need to tell us.... don't you.

What are you so afraid of?

That scenario is exactly what I'm afraid of. You can shove that whole line about the CIA/NSA/Etc having thankless jobs, and only existing to help us, and how the first guy killed in Afghanistan worked for the CIA right back up your butt, Tom. None of that justifies them breaking the law, and carrying out illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens.

Tell me again what freedoms they're supposed to be protecting.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I seriously doubt that these actions by the President are illegal. You are going to have to show me a law that is directly on target to this situation and these circumstances.

Absent that, there is the obscure Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that states:The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The freedom that is being protected is the right to be protected by the federal government from foreign attack.

I seriously doubt that these actions by the President are illegal. You are going to have to show me a law that is directly on target to this situation and these circumstances.

Oh, my head.

We seem to have an outbreak of Refusal to Acknowledge Plain Facts here in the LR this week. People can somehow read something, and if they don't like it, they just reject it. Did you not read the portion of FISA I posted, Art? It is illegal to conduct a wiretap without a warrant if there's any substantial likeliehood of gathering information from a US citizen. It is most certainly illegal to directly target US citizens as subjects of surveillance.

there is the obscure Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution that states:The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Which you and the president think seems to mean that he has unlimited power, and is not even bound by the laws of the land, let alone charged with using his executive power to uphold those laws.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There's also an obscure section of the Constitution, coupled with a list of case law a mile long, called the 4th Amendment that prevents unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants for this type of behavior.

I honestly have zero idea how, as an allegedly classical conservative, can be ok with this level of intrusion. I further don't see how you can make any good faith claim to disagreeing with anything Bush does as it is apparent that in your eyes he can do no wrong.

This isn't the type of gov't activity that anyone should be comfortable with, legal or not. If you don't trust the gov't with something like money/finances, how can you possibly trust them with a program like this, which, in my opinion, if FAR more serious/delicate than financial issues.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Speaking of which, I don't recall your response to the speciation information I provided at your request...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I read the section you cited very carefully, and a cursory reading would indeed indicate that that that section of law does not authorize POTUS to conduct this monitoring of international communication.

The fallacy you commit is that you miss the obvious point that in order for an activity to be against the law, there has to be a law that specifically proscribes it. You have quoted no such law. Instead you quote an existing law does not specifically allow it.

If POTUS asserts that he has been taking specific actions in the exercise of his executive responsibility to protect this country from foreign attack, you are going to have a very high hurdle to get a court to limit the Executive branch's powers in that area.

I don't see how you get anywhere near an unreasonable search in this context. It is difficult for me to imagine that people who engage in international communication have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the extent their conversations might involve national security. I assumed that this monitoring went on by the NSA in all cases, not just selected cases. If it doesn't, it should.

The NY Times sat on the story for over a year, POTUS doesn't hesitate to publicly embrace and defend the action and Congressional leaders went along for the ride because they all concluded that the action was probably legal.

I have serious problems with Bush in many areas. National Security actions are not one of them.

I have no problem with the monitoring of international communications on any scale. I see no reason why it wouldn't be SOP for the NSA.

Tom, the NSA could've gone to FISA, which has the rep of never turning down a warrant. If it was an emergency, they could've started the tap, THEN got approval later.

This is a blatant violation of the constitution.

Remember the flack you slackjaws raised over Clinton's supposed abuses of the FBI's powers?

Imagine Clinton having the ability to eavesdrop on anybody in the name of national security.

That is an absolutely tortured reading of the statute. The law states that for the President to take certain action, the AG must swear certain factors are present. The President is taking the same type of action without following the necessary steps listed in the statute. That's not a legal method of acting. Your logic is essentially saying the statute is there for guidance, but doesn't need to be followed since it doesn't say NOT following the statute is illegal. That's absurd.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Speaking of which, I don't recall your response to the speciation information I provided at your request...

I have to say that, in addition to being a non sequitor, it's a bad comparison. I haven't denied evolution.

I thought it was interesting and notable. (Though I think the faq section of the evolution site someone else linked to was more comprehensive and convincing, particularly since it included accounts of the same phenomenon observed in the lab, which is more convincing than that observed in the outdoors, I think.)

Speciation has yet to be observed in animals, though, and that might (or might not) be quite different from speciation in plants.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The fallacy you commit is that you miss the obvious point that in order for an activity to be against the law, there has to be a law that specifically proscribes it. You have quoted no such law. Instead you quote an existing law does not specifically allow it.

You must be joking.

This is clearly, flatly, undeniably, irrefutably illegal- both according to the provisions of FISA and the American Constitution. There is no defense for it. At all.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Mine is not a tortured reading of the statute at all. This statute refers to any monitoring, not to monitoring of only international communications as in the current case. NSA listens to international communications all the time. If fact, that is just about all they do.

If the current situation involved carte blanc monitoring of all communications by a suspect as indicated by this law, my opinion would be different.

You seek to ignore the tight specifications of national security reasons only and international communications only. You ignore all this, and then you can conveniently arrive at your simplistic answer.

The situation is simply not simple.

This is actually a lot like the Elian Gonzalez (sp?) case. There was nothing in the law to require or even allow him to be returned to Cuba, and certainly not without extended hearings. POTUS has the responsibility to run foreign policy, however, not the courts. Once POTUS put that privilege forward, the case was over and Elian was on the fast track back to Cuba.

The guy with the button on the nuclear trigger has a lot of power with regards to foreign policy. If you ignore Article II, Section 1, you will arrive at a lot of wrong answers.

Mine is not a tortured reading of the statute at all. This statute refers to any monitoring, not to monitoring of only international communications as in the current case. NSA listens to international communications all the time. If fact, that is just about all they do.

If the current situation involved carte blanc monitoring of all communications by a suspect as indicated by this law, my opinion would be different.

You seek to ignore the tight specifications of national security reasons only and international communications only. You ignore all this, and then you can conveniently arrive at your simplistic answer.

What? Could you rephrase?

The situation is simply not simple.

The situation could not possibly be any more simple. The NSA or any other agency cannot wiretap Amercan citizens without a warrant. They have been "authorized" to do so by the president, in as flagrant a violation of the law as I can remember.

This is actually a lot like the Elian Gonzalez (sp?) case.

Put down the crack pipe.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Are you really trying to argue that a specific type of monitoring is not subsumed within a general definition of monitoring? That's even more absurd.

Has martial law been declared? National security means we can ignore statutory directives?

You act as if the statute wasn't specifically enacted for National Security purposes. As it is, FISA makes obtaining warrants much easier in certain situations. Guess that was insufficient for Bush, et. al.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I don't know the details of why they didn't get the warrants since that has not been leaked yet. One of the reasons already cited was in order to immediately follow up on the information from and the captured computers of high value terrorists.

You guys just continue to make a big leap here. POTUS can go in front of a court and say I am POTUS and this is the authority I need in select circumstances in specific situations as supervised by others in both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in order to protect this country. There is no law that restricts this ability and any law that purports to restrict this ability is an unconstitutional intrusion by another branch of government of the powers granted by the Constitution to the Executive.

I will wager that this is a winning argument. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans using this argument and prevailed. Clinton returne Elian to Cuba using this argument. Bush is just trying to monitor international communications.

I don't even think it is a close call actually, though you never know what a wacko judge will try to do.

POTUS can go in front of a court and say I am POTUS and this is the authority I need in select circumstances in specific situations as supervised by others in both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in order to protect this country.

No, he can't. Not when what he's done is violate the law and the Constitution.

There is no law that restricts this ability

The president isn't bound by the laws passed by Congress or the Constitution? That's pretty big news. I must have slept through more history classes than I thought.

I will wager that this is a winning argument.

How much? I will most certainly take that bet, and I'm not a gambling man.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That is one of the most profoundly ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Especially coming from someone that professes to cherish the text of the Constitution.

Moreover, the comparison to Japanese internment isn't apt as it has been pretty widely agreed upon that FDR didn't have that authority and it was a mistake, Constitutionally speaking, that no one called him on it...

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Art, from what I can gather, Bush/Cheney didn't go to get a court approval beforehand and there was no supervision per se after. The judiciary and legislative branches didn't participate in creating the program; they were told about it after the fact. That is a big difference, and I hope that you will pay attention to it and not act like you never heard it.

Now, I couldn't tell if you really believed that judicial/legislative approval and oversight matters, or whether you are essentially arguing here that the president can do whatever the hell he wants when he says he needs to. If that is the case, I wonder if you see any constraints at all. Can the president start having people summarily executed just because he says that they present an "imminent threat to national security"? If that is a possibility in your world, I guess we might as all live in China. Man, you're more of a big government guy than I am.

BTW, I will add this one point. There seems to be an assumption here that the our government doesn't need to be bound by laws and the constitution, because it won't abuse its power. We seem to be saying here that our democratic culture is enough to restrain the government, that the government will know and respect its own bounds. That seems like slippery slope logic that can't be good for the future of our democracy.

The issue of the Japanese interment did go to the SC who ruled in favor of it, 9-0 if I am not mistaken.

You guys can say this is simple all you want, but the fact is that POTUS has authorized this 30 odd times and is out front defending the program, his role in the program, and that it can continue. If you guys think he is doing this without his having high powered legal advice saying he is acting properly, they you must be high.

I can't explain it any better than I have. We will just see how it plays out.

You guys need to give some thought to the possibility that the fact that we have had no attacks on American soil for over four years might be caused by the fact that there are a lot of very capable people working very hard with considerable resources to protect us. Most of the time, we know nothing about it.

"You guys need to give some thought to the possibility that the fact that we have had no attacks on American soil for over four years might be caused by the fact that there are a lot of very capable people working very hard with considerable resources to protect us. Most of the time, we know nothing about it."

Art, you need to give some thought to the idea that just because something may be preventing attacks doesn't make it the right thing to do. The ends do not jusitfy the means in a democratic free society.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

As I said in a different thread, let's have an election. My side will advocate that monitoring international communications of those with suspected terrorists connections will be SOP. Your side will advocate that such a SOP might save lives, even millions of lives, but that we shouldn't do it because terrorists have rights too.

I grant I position the sides in an inflamatory manner, but you get the idea.

What you've explained is that you believe the President shouldn't be limited by the Constitution or statute with respect to national security,

The Supreme Court decision you reference is also considered one of the worst in U.S. history, analogous to you other fave, Dred Scott.

And in terms of legal advice, what's just as easily true is that the Bush admin changed the legal context to justify some type of legality. It wouldn't be the first time.

Maybe as more facts come to light, there is nothing illegal about it. I really don't know. Your view towards unlimited Presidential authority in the name of national security is scary. Furthermore, it's not a particularly good feeling thinking that the gov't is spying on people, regardless of cause/justification.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"Your side will advocate that such a SOP might save lives, even millions of lives, but that we shouldn't do it because terrorists have rights too"

Your speaking directly out of your ass now Art. The fact is that American citizens have rights, no matter what activities they participate in. We're not talking about the monitoring of foreign jihadists, but of Americans inside of America. Get some perspective.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"What you've explained is that you believe the President shouldn't be limited by the Constitution or statute with respect to national security"

I have said no such thing. What I have said is that limited monitoring of international communications is insignificant compared to the issues at hand.

I do agree that Japanese interment was one of the worst SC decisions of all time though.

It is interesting that none of the three of you who are upset by the policy have once acknowledged the very restricted application. Instead you equate it to summary execution and the like.

"It is interesting that none of the three of you who are upset by the policy have once acknowledged the very restricted application. "

What does it matter if something illegal or unethical is only done in a very "restricted application?" If it is illegal to spy on American citizens without a properly obtained warrant, then it is always illegal, no matter how "restricted" you think the offense may be.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I realize that you are always the absolutest slowguy, but it matters a great deal.

Rights always conflict in some contexts. The rights of suspected terrorists to privacy surrounding their international communications are going to be weighed against the authority of POTUS to protect the country. I don't think that is going to even be a close call.

Why do you think limiting things to international phone calls, emails, and the like is that narrow of an application? Contacting people internationally ain't what it used to be and a LOT of people do that now.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"The rights of suspected terrorists to privacy surrounding their international communications are going to be weighed against the authority of POTUS to protect the country"

The rights of American citizens, suspected terrorists or not, are supposed to be weighed against the laws of the land, not the President's determination that violating those rights might do some long term good.

"I don't think that is going to even be a close call. "

Sadly you might be right. However, just because there are those who are willing to trade liberty for security doesn't make it right. Don't get me wrong. I am a member of the National Security community. I have some education in the field. I am all for going after terrorists and preventing more attacks. However, I am all for doing so within the rules and guidelines set forth by U.S. law. I wish you would stop trying to obscure the issue by continuously referring to "suspected terrorists" as if they were not U.S. citizens. The whole point of judicial oversight is to help make sure I can't just decide you're a suspected terrorist and start infringing on your liberties. The only way laws like the Patriot Act work is if there is confidence among the public that they are being used properly and with the appropriate oversight to prevent abuse.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Speaking for myself, I have always assumed that no expectation of privacy exists in international communication. I would compare this to talking on your portable phone that could easily be picked up by a radio. If you expected privacy, you would have used a wired phone.

I would expect NSA to have antennas everywhere picking up any hint of international communications, whether one end was in the US or not. Using information from this source in national security situations bothers me not at all. Using it as part of, say, a criminal prosecution would get a different reaction from me.

Using this information from selected subjects for selected purposes is, at least to me, an obvious policy choice. It may be that most of the time this can be painlessly supervised by a court. I have no problem with this. When it can not, I also have no problem having it supervised by POTUS directed policies.

I do not know what circumstance would make avoiding the court necessary. To the extent the court might have been sidestepped for no reason, I might have a problem with it. It doesn't sound like that happened here upon initial reports, but more will be leaked no doubt.

This situation is very different from that involving only domestic communication. We spy all the time overseas. We shouldn't be spying domestically. I consider monitoring international communications to be overseas spying, at least arguably.

C'mon.....Are you familiar with the word "surveillance"? If you were out and about this weekend, do you know how many video/still cameras captured and stored your image without your permission? Many of these devices belong to private citizens and businesses. Do you have a problem with that? Does your city have traffic signal cameras? Does your employer monitor your e-mail or phone calls? Ever heard of RFID technology?

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

"Speaking for myself, I have always assumed that no expectation of privacy exists in international communication."

And yet, what you might expect, and what is legal are not necessarily the same thing.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I would expect NSA to have antennas everywhere picking up any hint of international communications, whether one end was in the US or not.

I read this to be exactly the same thing as saying that you expect that the NSA has always been in direct violation of black-letter law. OK.

Using information from this source in national security situations bothers me not at all. Using it as part of, say, a criminal prosecution would get a different reaction from me.

Criminal prosecution? Are you kidding me? These are terror suspects we're talking about, remember? It doesn't matter whether or not they're US citizens- they're terror suspects, therefore guilty, therefore don't merit an actual trial. Aren't you paying attention? After we spy on them in direct violation of US law, trampling all over their Constitutional rights, we're going to rendition them to some secret prison in Eastern Europe, or maybe one of our democratic allies in the Middle East, where they won't be tortured- wink!- because they probably might have some extraordinary information to offer us. God forbid any America hating civil servant put all of us at risk by leaking these vital practices, too.

When it can not, I also have no problem having it supervised by POTUS directed policies.

Sad.

I consider monitoring international communications to be overseas spying, at least arguably.

Not arguably. There is, you know, that law saying otherwise.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Are you really going to argue that having your picture taken in public is the same as having someone listen to your phone conversation or read your emails?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

The widespread cameras bother me a lot more than this policy. I don't have an employer, but fully respect that he can monitor my email and phone while I am working. Again, I don't like it, but I deal.

I don't get your point.

I don't have an employer, but fully respect that he can monitor my email and phone while I am working.

Great comparison, because it isn't as if the president works for us, or anything.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Art, My point is that there is "spying" happening everyday, in many ways and without peoples knowledge. With RFID technology, retailers and others will be able to 'track you down' wherever you go. For instance when you by a pack of razorblades at your local market and take them home, the package sends out a signal that allows the package to be tracked straight to your house. This technology will be on credit cards pretty soon and you are not going to have a choice to 'opt out.' People would be extremely naive to think there's no room for abuse with this type of technology, so where's the outrage? The government has been spying on Americans forever, this is how the FBI catches badguys. There are all kinds of methods being used and it's not just the government.

If I wanted to learn something about someone, I would hire a private investigator to follow them around and send me whatever information I asked for. They could park out side a persons house and monitor their computer. Anyone can do it.

A few months ago I had a tech come to my house and set up my wireless network. He installed some high tech security software so I could not be monitored. At the same time, he showed me how three of my neighbors had no security at all and if I wanted to "spy" on them, how I could do it.

I'm surprised that people don't understand the level of spying that already exists.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I didn't say anything like your spin about law enforcement. I made my points perfectly clearly that the illegality of the monitoring is unlikely. Not even the Democrats are willing to brand the action as illegal.

On the other hand, we do know for certain that those who leaked the information definitely violated the law. I hope you will opinine on what action you think should be taken in regard to their violations:

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 798) prohibits the disclosure of several narrowly defined categories of information, specifically including classified information regarding communications intelligence:

a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

***

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government...

***

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The following subsection (b) makes clear the applicability of the act to the informants and information related to the Times story:

The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.

I seriously doubt that these actions by the President are illegal. You are going to have to show me a law that is directly on target to this situation and these circumstances.


I was thinking this morning that this action by the President will finally be one where both sides agree he made a mistake because it is such a slam dunk, he was acting illegally.

I came here and started reading how the usual suspects were defending even this action and I am now convinced that Bush can do no wrong with about half the population. It is becoming clear that many of the pro-Bush supporters lack credibility because they can never even once admit their hero is human.

I honestly think that Bush could authorize the surveillance of any American, without justification, and half the population in the country would support him without question. Freedom and democracy are clearly things other countries should have.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

"I honestly think that Bush could authorize the surveillance of any American, without justification, and half the population in the country would support him without question."

Actually, I am quite certain you are being dishonest with that statement. At a minimum, you are just wrong.

The fallacy you commit is that you miss the obvious point that in order for an activity to be against the law, there has to be a law that specifically proscribes it.

The extent you will go to defend the President is very admirable, but this is clearly stretching things to the point of dishonesty. You really need to apply for a position in the White House, you are more of an apologist for Bush than anyone I have ever heard. Impressive really.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Your comments are not usually so devoid of content, Casey.

You're right. I honestly thought this morning that on this issue, the LR would be in full agreement and I just see you stretching a lot to defend the Bush policy.

I will admit that it is a difficult issue, in general, to balance constitutional rights with the protection of citizens but the last thing you can do is abolish the protections of the Constitution, and justify it by saying you are protecting the citizens, the Constitution protects, not the President's ability to circumvent it in difficult times.

I am surprised because I thought you would be against Bush on this issue. I have seen you say on other issues you think the administration is wrong (ie. on the spending side where the Republicans are out of control) and you are normally a staunch defender of the Constitution, so this surprises me.

In all honesty, I can't offer more insight because I thought it was a slam dunk issue but it just goes to show you there will never be something both "sides" can agree on. I guess that's healthy but I have to wonder if the battle lines are such that everything is becoming black and white, you are either with us or against us on all issues. I hope not.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying. It simply isn't. We are talking international communications only with lots of people in the loop to control the program.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying. It simply isn't. We are talking international communications only with lots of people in the loop to control the program.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

Okay, I can at least respect that defense and not the blindly following Bush because he said so that I have been hearing this morning (not from you).

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

Thank you. Occasional reminders of why I do like arguing with you are appreciated.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

But it does Art.

It involves international communications only.

You're wrong. In some cases the communication may originate overseas but the person on the other end, in the US, is an American citizen.

Art I'm pretty convinced by now that if George Bush arrived at your house, shot your dog, scratched your bike and f**ked you in the ass you'd be here the next day telling us that your dog was no good, you didn't like your bike much anyway and Dubya is great in the sack.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

I think we're down to about 35% now.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Art I'm pretty convinced by now that if George Bush arrived at your house, shot your dog, scratched your bike and f**ked you in the ass

Scratching Art's bike may be going too far.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

It's not a difficult issue. Obey the law. If you feel you must break the law to meet some higher goal, go ahead and break the law, but 'fess up and take the heat afterwards (like, if you tortured the wrong guy to get information on that "imminent" attack, you are screwed; if you were right and saved a bunch of lives, you get the Presidential pardon and everyone looks good).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

For instance when you by a pack of razorblades at your local market and take them home, the package sends out a signal that allows the package to be tracked straight to your house

Are you insane? Hear a lot of black helicopters at night?

---

_______________________________________________

The issue is presented as a complete JFK against MLK type of spying.

It is not being presented that way.

If it involved domestic communications of US citizens, my opinion would be different.

Why?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

He's not insane.



Most cell phones these days have an RFID chip which can be tracked by satellite. Most cars have them. Most laptops have them. Pretty soon all credit cards will have them. If your government wants to toss the constitution out the window and track the movements and converstaions of US citizens without a warrant, it is very easy to do.

GM will soon be coming out with a version of onstar where parents can track their teenage drivers on the internet..where they are, how fast they are driving etc.

Walmart uses RFID chip technology to track inventory and has chips in almost everything they sell....although the chips they use can only be tracked by a scanner at very close range.

Starbucks tried a program here in CA a couple of years ago where they put RFID scanners outside some stores that picked up chips in the phones of passers by and they received an automatic phone call telling them that Lattes were on sale or that they had fresh pumpkin muffins. The CA legislature got wind of it and passed a law banning telemarketing calls to cell phones.

RFID technology is here to stay and pretty soon we'll all have one implanted under our skin that will hold all of our medical records etc so that if we get into a car wreck or something the emergency room physician will know if you're allergic to penicinllin.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

In all cases only international communication was involved. Not to be an ass, but communication between someone in the US and someone overseas is international communication. It is not domestic communication.

If it involved domestic communication between US citizens, then the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the well established instances of expectation of privacy would properly come into play.

I don't even know why this is an issue, since I just don't see how anyone could have an expectation of privacy for international communications.

Prior to the order that is at issue, NSA only intercepted purely international communications -- foreign on both ends. This marked a change in procedure where one end of the communication was state side. I do not know enough about the various laws to determine if it is illegal. I am concerned about the increase in surveillance but am somewhat comforted that the court was notified as were congressional leaders including Pelosi and I think Rockefeller. I think the concern and interest is warranted. I think the outrage is contrived.

You can paint this anyway you want to but it is still unauthorized domestic spying on a US citizen.

I wish I had put it that way.

I am concerned about the increase in surveillance but am somewhat comforted that the court was notified as were congressional leaders including Pelosi and I think Rockefeller.

The whole controversy is over the fact that the Court was not notified. In conducting the surveillance the government acted without the Court's authorization as required under the law.

Maybe you didn't notice, but it was authorized. Also, lots of the people involved were not US citizens, though we don't know yet if that description applied to all of them.

As a foreigner in the US, do you really think you are entitled to full US rights including a right to privacy in international communication? In all the threads on this issue, no once has anyone been willing to address that threshold question.

The Court was notified, just after the fact in many cases.

Get your facts right next time.

So if I call my friend in Canada, normal laws don't apply and they can spy on me without a warrant? That may be your belief, but it is not the law.

Maybe you didn't notice, but it was authorized.

By who?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Maybe you didn't notice, but it was authorized

How was it authorized. From Bush's mouth to God's ear? Is that what you are talking about.

Art, don't move the goals posts. The issue is one of domestic spying on US citizens. If an American citizen is sitting in their living room watching Seinfeld reruns and talking to their sister in Beirut while the NSA is listening, with out court authorization to do so, it's unauthorized domestic spying.

Not a chance. RFID doesn't work at that distance. Meters or tens of meters, maybe.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Most new cell phones have GPS capable RFIDs. they can be tracked by satellite. My Blackberry has one.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Show us the distinction between my calling from New Jersey my brother when he is in New York, and when he is in London. Please include references in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that differentiates between domestic and international communications.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

By the Executive Branch of government.

The NYT article itself said that the court was notified of the change in procedure. Certainly warrants were not issued in accordance with this procedure. As I understand the NSA, computers scan e-mail and maybe voice communications for key words. Once a hot item pops up, they can seek authority for a more detailed tap. It is the first step screening for which warrants are likely too burdensome.

I don't see how you can seriously have an expectation of privacy when you call Beirut. I certainly don't see how you can call an international call domestic communication. The signals were actually picked up overseas by the way, not domestically.

So if the President gave himself approval to throw all members of Congress in jail and declare himself King George VI that would be perfectly legal? because he has approval from the Executive Branch?

What flavor is the Koolaid today?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Most new cell phones have GPS capable RFIDs. they can be tracked by satellite.

That's not how it works.

Your blackberry can track gps satellites. It can transmit the coordinates it reads to your service provider. It cannot be tracked by satellite. I'm not sure about the blackberry specifically, but cell phones allow the user the option of transmitting the coordinates all the time, or just for 911 calls.

None of this is done using an RFID.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The difference is the expectation of privacy. You don't have an expectation of privacy if you use a cordless phone since any intelligent person knows most of those can be easily and accidently intercepted. You don't have an expectation of privacy for materials you throw out and put out to the curb.

I wouldn't have an expectation of privacy for an international phone call or email unless I used some kind of encryption.

Maybe you think differently, but I have not gotten a response to this question despite many attempts for a reason.

I think you are wrong. The GPS and RFID capabilities are different. They may be integrated, but it is the GPS technology that communicates with the satellite, not the RFID.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Of course not. He has no power over a coequal branch of government.

He does have a lot of authority in national security matters, and he obviously believes for good reason that this action is within those powers. You can protest in simple terms and make stupid analogies all you want, but his position is perfectly defensible.

As an American citizen, I have an expectation of privacy when I talk on the phone: said expectation is that the US government cannot eavesdrop on that phone line without court approval. The fact that the other end is in New York or London is irrelevant. The fact that it is wireless or corded is irrelevant to the fact that the US government cannot eavesdrop on that phone line without court approval.

Where do you get this domestic vs. international dichotomy?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Matt is refering to passive RFID only which has such a limited range. Active systems like cell phones can be tracked and located in real time so long as they are turned on.

Active systems like cell phones can be tracked and located in real time so long as they are turned on.

Not really.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sure they can. You can even buy this feature from Nextel. You can give your kid one of the properly enabled phones, and track them in real time over the web. It doesn't even cost that much.

Sure they can. You can even buy this feature from Nextel. You can give your kid one of the properly enabled phones, and track them in real time over the web.

See my earlier post.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Don't argue with Art. As soon as you prove your point, you will find that Art was (according to him) talking about something completely different. For instance, once you demonstrate that RFID just can't reach satellites from the ground, Art'll tell you that when he said "active systems" a moment ago, he was talking about the cell phone, not the RFID technology, so he was still right.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I get the dichotomy from my general expectations guided by other precedents. It has been found that a crook who did his conversations by portable phone that were overheard as a result, didn't have an expectation of privacy.

My understanding is that the NSA picks up all international communication and is supposed to delete those involving US citizens. I would expect that if the person at the other end of the line were of interest, the call would be used for national security purposes only. I wouldn't expect it to be used for general law enforcement purposes.

My criticisms of the Gorelick/Clinton wall preventing law enforcement from sharing information with intelligence agencies are offered in the context of admitting that there is some justification for some limitations in some cases.

It will probably come out that the NSA was picking up these communications anyway, and the monitoring was just a decision to not throw them away.

I don't know what the precedent in this specific case is, or even if there is one. I am just stating that I wouldn't expect privacy in this context.

Anyone with a high gain antenna can track many active and passive RFID chips from a distance of many miles. If you shop at Walmart a person with such a device can tell what is in your fridge, how many pairs of clean underwear you have in your drawer, and what movies you rented from Blockbuster.

Starting next year all new US passports will have RFID chips.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Ok, now suppose person A receives international call from a questionable country. Assuming for a second that monitoring international phone calls to/from domestice sources is ok. Person A then phones Person B in a purely domestic phone call, but Person A is now under scrutiny from the prior international call. Are you really going to tell me that they will stop monitoring those calls simply because it's domestic?

Further, what is the difference between an expectation of privacy if I call a family member in New York or if I call that same person in Europe?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

You have a really creative way of reading Brick - here's what the article said

"A complaint from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the federal judge who oversees the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, helped spur the suspension, officials said. The judge questioned whether information obtained under the N.S.A. program was being improperly used as the basis for F.I.S.A. wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, according to senior government officials. While not knowing all the details of the exchange, several government lawyers said there appeared to be concerns that the Justice Department, by trying to shield the existence of the N.S.A. program, was in danger of misleading the court about the origins of the information cited to justify the warrants.

One official familiar with the episode said the judge insisted to Justice Department lawyers at one point that any material gathered under the special N.S.A. program not be used in seeking wiretap warrants from her court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not return calls for comment."

---

_______________________________________________

When Clinton was President, the FBI deployed two online detection software programs called Omnivore and Carnivore they're called 'packer sniffers' and they allowed the FBI to monitor all of an individuals online activity:

Which Web sites you visit

What you look at on the site

Whom you send e-mail to

What's in the e-mail you send

What you download from a site

What streaming events you use, such as audio, video and

Who visits your site (if you have a Web site)

These programs were the 'Black Box' attached to ISP's.

Clinton authorized the FBI to use these tools for the sole purpose of spying on American citizens.

Clinton did it, Bush is doing it........I'm not saying I agree......but to pretend that spying on American citizens is something that only George Bush has done is pretty lame.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Anyone with a high gain antenna can track many active and passive RFID chips from a distance of many miles.

No, they really can't track RFID chips from many miles away. I don't care how high gain the receiving antenna is.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

packet sniffers - are used to decode TCP/IP packets on a network

packer sniffers - an odd fetish for smelling Green Bay fans after a game

Sorry, I couln't resist. I use the PHLAK sniffer on my network and they give a lot more information than what you listed. The Omnivore and Carnivore programs were also smart enough to decode the packets and look for key words and phrases. Something to be said for high strength encryption and encrypted proxy services.

It was only the international call that was monitored under this program. It could certainly be that call triggers a warrant for futher monitoring, but a warrant would certainly be required, at least in the case of a US citizen.

Again, keep in mind the NSA is only set up to pick up calls internationally. They pick them all up as SOP, as I understand. This program probably didn't have anyone creeping around installing bugs or anything. It just had them pulling out calls from targets of interest using whatever technology they already had.

Put yourself in POTUS's shoes. You have all this information gathered as a matter of course anyway. Do you actually decide to go ahead and continue to throw it away even for persons of interest? I am thinking not.

The answer may be that you legally have the same expectation regardless of the international nature of the call. I only ask the question and offer my opinion.

Gee, I thought I asked about your domestic vs. international dichotomy. Silly me, to expect an actual answer to my actual question. What was I thinking?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

From Wikipeda

Another privacy issue is due to RFID's support for a singulation (anti-collision) protocol. This is the means by which a reader enumerates all the tags responding to it without them mutually interfering. The structure of the most common version of this protocol is such that all but the last bit of each tag's serial number can be deduced by passively eavesdropping on just the reader's part of the protocol. Because of this, whenever RFID tags are near to readers, the distance at which a tag's signal can be eavesdropped is irrelevant; what counts is the distance at which the much more powerful reader can be received. Just how far this can be depends on the type of the reader, but in the extreme case some readers have a maximum power output (4 W) that could be received from tens of kilometres away.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

JHC,

The article contains the following passage:

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States. The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues.

I think that clearly says the FISA court was notified of the program.

Funny how Congressional leaders are up in arms about this, Republicans and Democrats alike all calling for hearings.

Maybe they weren't notified and perhaps FISA wasn't either....does that mean the President is lying to us???

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

You're misunderstanding what that says.

What it means if that if an rfid chip is close enough to a reader, you can gain information about that rfid chip by picking up the reader's transmission from a significant distance. You cannot pick up the transmission of the actual rfid chip from any distance of more than a few meters.

In other words, you go to Walmart and buy a pack of underwear. The underwear has an RFID chip. When you get to the checkout counter, a reader sends out a signal to the RFID chip, and receives a response. Someone could be a few miles from the Walmart, and could be picking up the transmission of the reader- not the RFID chip.

Once you get out to your car, neither the reader nor anyone else can track the RFID chip.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You're right - I missed that.. sorry. But if you take that with the passage I quoted, she may have been informed but certainly didn't go along with it.

What we have here is an Executive Branch, which authorizes itself to break US law, and then unceremoniously announces to a few people it's going to do this, and somehow it's supposed to be accepted as legitimate?

---

_______________________________________________

Matt,

I believe that both Pelosi and Rockefeller have admitted that they were notified of the program. No one from the FISA court has denied being advised of the program. The Judge in charge of the FISA court appears to have known because she challenged whether information obtained from the program could be used to justify FISA warrants. It looks like she knew there might be a fruit of the poisonous tree argument if a warrant issued based on such surveillance. I have seen no reports where someone who the administration claims to have told has denied being so advised. Can you identify such a person? I think the procedure needs to be evaluated and we need either a decision or a consensus on (1) whether it is constitutional and (2) if so, is it advisable. As I mentioned earlier, the putative outrage seems contrived to me.

This might be the oddest intertwining of threads that I have seen in recent memory in the LR.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Ahhhh I see.

But the Active GPS chips still give those with nefarious intentions the ability to track our movements...they aren't RFIDs I know, but most people these days either carry one around with them in their phone or drive around with one in their car.

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

Sorry, Ken. You asked me a question, and I admitted I didn't know the final legal answer. I realize according to LR rules I am supposed to fake it, but I didn't think you would bash me that hard for telling the truth.

Tough crowd.

the Active GPS chips still give those with nefarious intentions the ability to track our movements...they aren't RFIDs I know, but most people these days either carry one around with them in their phone or drive around with one in their car.

That's true, but like I said, you can simply disable that function on your phone. It isn't really an "active" gps system. Your phone has a gps receiver, and can transmit the coordinates it reads to your service provider. It isn't like there are gps satellites picking up your phone's location reading it's coordinates.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If that was an answer, it got lost in the Gorelick/Clinton reference that somehow managed to appear in the middle.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Brick,

Nancy Pelosi says that she was notified of the wire taps after the fact. The fact remains that the President instigated a program of illegal spying on US citizens and it doesn't really matter who he notifies....its still illegal.

If the President drives his car drunk off his ass and tells Nancy Pelosi about it does that make it legal?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
John Sawhill

But if you take that with the passage I quoted, she may have been informed but certainly didn't go along with it.

Correct. I never said the court or the congressional leaders approved of the change in procedure but they were aware of it. The court appears to have had some reservations and the program was suspended for a time to address those. My point is directed at the putative outrage expressed by some on both sides of the aisle.

What we have here is an Executive Branch, which authorizes itself to break US law, and then unceremoniously announces to a few people it's going to do this, and somehow it's supposed to be accepted as legitimate?

Not at all. You know more than I if you can so definitively state that US law has been broken. After 9/11 the country was in a significant threat scenario. The administration took a serious step to address it. If they advised the people they said they advised and if the program was evaluated every 45 days as has been reported, then I think they were acting reasonably under the circumstances. Was the law broken or the Constitution violated? I don't know. The Constitution prevents unreasonable searches. Warrants are used to establish reasonableness. Warrantless searches are reasonable and constitutional under certain circumstances. Does the practice the administration used concern me? Yes. Am I outraged? No. If it is determined to be in violation of the law or the Constitution then it should stop or the law or the Constitution should be changed. The outrage that has surfaced seems to me to be politically motivated and somewhat irresponsible.

Nancy Pelosi says that she was notified of the wire taps after the fact.

The reports indicated that congressional leaders were told of the program. I don't know whether after the fact means after the decision to start the program or after the program started. The reports also indicated that congressional leaders were told of the program as they rotated into certain positions that warranted their notification. Do you know for how long Ms. Pelosi knew of the program? I don't think it really matters but I am curious.

The fact remains that the President instigated a program of illegal spying on US citizens and it doesn't really matter who he notifies....its still illegal.

I do not know that this is as clear as you contend. Time will tell. If the program was illegal then advising others about it does not make it legal. I never contended such. My point continues to be that I think the putative outrage expressed over the program is less than genuine.

My point continues to be that I think the putative outrage expressed over the program is less than genuine.

I can assure you that my outrage is genuine. I am appalled that it is not universaaly shared.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ask oneself this question:

If this had been implemented two months after 9/11 and found out 4 months later, would it be a big deal?

I'd submit the answer is no. The problem is, too many people living as if it were 9/10.

Hey SMU! How ya doin'?

"The problem is, too many people living as if it were 9/10."

Actually, I think the problem is that many people are living as if it is still 9/11 or 9/12 2001 and have been unwilling or unable to move with the rest of us into the present time.

Just as the world changed on 9/11, the world has continued to change since then.

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

You do know that Wikipedia's credibility is an issue these days I hope. It's not a reliable source for many things. Just remember, people (you or I ) can change the content and add to the content in Wikipedia. Much of it is unchecked.

You do know that Wikipedia's credibility is an issue these days I hope.

In this case, Wikipedia is correct in the technical details. Matt just misread it. No harm, no foul.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You get outraged over everything, Vitus.

Hey, you ever going to get around to answering that question about leaking classified information about illegal activity?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Was your question about the legality of leaking news of law breaking?

I would think the proper procedure would be to report internally, not to the NY Times. If internal lawyers smack down your complaint, I doubt you have the right to play amateur lawyer and overrule them on your own authority.

If you do decide to leak, you should go all the way and go public and take your chances, not hide behind some reporter's skirt. Since you are so certain you are right, you really have nothing to fear.

Of course leakers seldom do this. They leak to further their own agendas for the most part, not out of some outraged conscience.

That is the exact attitude which will yield more 9/11s.

I would think the proper procedure would be to report internally, not to the NY Times.

So let's get hypothetical. You're an NSA analyst. Your boss comes in one morning with an Executive Order from the president authorizing an illegal activity. . . No, wait, let me adjust the hypothetical for you. You're a CIA agent, and your boss shows up one morning with an Executive Order authorizing the assassination of select US citizens.

Who do you report that to internally?

I doubt you have the right to play amateur lawyer and overrule them on your own authority.

You are deft at evading the question, Art. The question remains: If an action is classified, but also illegal, do you think it's a crime to leak it? Yes, or no?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Is it a crime to leak it? Yes. Personally, I would probably contact a member of the appropriate Intelligence Committee after getting the order in writing.

I wouldn't go to the NY Times, unless I was willing to lose my job and go public.

Once all available options were explored in your obviously flagrent context, I might do exactly that.

The real world leaves things less black and white. In this case, illegality is unlikely.

Illegality is obvious to everyone but you Art.

---

_______________________________________________

That is the exact attitude which will yield more 9/11s.

There won't be any more 9/11's because we are fighting terrorists over there and not here and with the added bonus of illegally wire tapping and intercepting e-mails, which has the negative effect of infringing on our rights, but has the counter balancing positive effect of ensuring we will not be attacked again.

With those policies in place, I'm pretty sure we will not be attacked again. If we are and someone has the audacity to question why, the administration will ignore the hundreds of billions spent, the 2,200 soldiers lost, the abuses of the powers of the Executive Branch and resort to the old, "how can you politicize this tragic event" or "our enemies will stop at nothing and we now have to attack Syria and do more wiretapping to ensure this will never happen again" or my favorite "these new attacks are the result of Clinton's policies in the late 90's."

I am being sarcastic but is anyone else feeling that all of the policies in place since 9/11 are not really making us more secure? I know we have not been attacked, thank God, and I pray we never are, but honestly, do you feel safer?

I can honestly say that I don't particularly feel safer even though I am not privy to the inner workings of government, but our response to Katrina made me feel that we really don't have things together. Our big country is tough but I am convinced our efforts in Iraq, instead of fighting the real war on terror, are distracting us. Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

The only part of this that is surprising is that it is surprising (to some).

Personally, I'm stunned to learn that the government would abuse it's power in a situation where it feels it is justified. I'd be willing to bet that something that fits that description has occurred in virtually every administration.

Government spying? eavesdropping on its own? Whoever heard of such a thing? I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy, but is this really surprising to anyone?

Sure, it may be frustrating, but surprising? IMO, politicians are not ones you should to when you're looking to find integrity, morality, and adherence to the guidelines. Anyone that does all that probably couldn't win an election.

You give man power, and man will abuse it. It will happen. It should be corrected when it happens. But, it shouldn't be surprising when it does.

American history is full of abuse of power, spying, eavesdropping, etc. To act as if this is something surprising and new is strange. IMHO.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --