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.