Cynical Nation

Why am I not overly concerned with this whole thing? Granted, the arrogant a-holes in the WH could've gone to the FISa court and gotten the necessary OKs. Looks real bad from a PR standpoint and all, but...
...from what I understand, they're targeting people whose names, numbers and e-mail addresses have been found on captured PCs, phones and address books of terrorists.

Unless I start booking a vacation at the Sunni Triangle Marriott Resort and Terror Training Camp via the Internet, I don't expect this to affect me the other 295 million law-abiding Americanos.

Barry, please send me my $15 stipend for not knee-jerkishly siding against Bush. Thanks.

Great post, Barry.

To continue what Dick Morris wrote, the criminal investigation model doesn't work here because there is no crime to investigate. The task is to PREVENT the crime from taking place.

The current program is purportedly limited to terror investigations - tracking phone calls and emails eminating from the U.S. made to various suspected "terrorist fronts and targeted individuals, as well as foreign calls and emails made from such groups and individuals into the United States.

IT WAS NOT MADE POSSIBLE BY THE PATRIOT ACT...AND IT IS NOT NEW!

Six years ago this February, 60 Minutes did a piece on the previous administration doing the same thing, only then, it wan't limited to terrorism.

“In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

AND IT WAS USED FOR ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE BACK THEN;

In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence.

"We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."

...The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror.

But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.

In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified."

"I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."

During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/19/114807.shtml

Dick Morris is not a serious person and can not and should not be taken seriously.

A) Blue Wind has it right
B) Steve Kroft had it wrong.
C) Clinton used the program, as far as we know, within the bounds of the law, but if he violated the law then he violated the law. That doesn't make Bush's violation of the law correct.
D) FISA allows wiretapping to begin and then requires the state to apply for the warrant within, I believe it is, 72 hours. It does not require, as far as I know, that the wiretapping then cease, so if the court were slow in responding to the request for a wiretap, the tap could continue. However, the involvement of the court meets, as far as the law is concerned, 4th Amendment guarantees and therefore would be legal.
E) No request (zero) for a FISA warrant was ever turned down during the Bush Administration. The notion that FISA was somehow restrictive and made it harder for the president to "protect us" is false.
F) What exactly did Clinton do with wiretapping that you claim was the same as the Bush actions? Did Clinton spy on organizations of vegans and LGBT as Bush has apparently done? Did Clinton spy on US citizens with no foreign associations, or extremely loose foreign associations, with no evidence of wrong-doing, just to "data mine" in the hope that they might, randomly to a large degree, accidentally strike gold?

It can go on. The Clinton citation, you really need to check on that one. It reminds me very much fo the Clinton citation where people say, "Clinton wanted to get rid of Hussein too, and he also thought there might be WMDs in Iraq." They never mention that Clinton had the same option to start a war too, but didn't. You have to go a long way to prove some sort of "Clinton stamp of approval" in this one, and none of the talking points offered so far by the right to justify this violation of the Fourth Amendment has satisfied that requirement.

Okay, a little more since I have a few minutes right now while a process is running. You quote Morris as saying:
"Why didn't Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn't looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside -- and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off."

Are you therefore agreeing that the government has the legal power to do whatever they want, to eliminate any and all vestiges of privacy in order to maybe, possibly, in some way unknown, stop a crime? That is exactly the rode you walk with this argument. This isn't a slippery slope, it is a direct pathway with easily made logical connections. You either stop this sort of thing before it undermines the Fourth Amendment or you concede that the Bill of Rights is dead entirely, and I mean that without hyperbole. The same arguments that allow you to undermine the Fourth in this case can be applied to every other right. We can, for example, have a right to free speech, but the White House has claimed loudly and vociferously that free speech is damaging their war effort, so therefore they can limit or eliminate free speech. The basis of the argument is the same as that which is being used to justify the wiretaps.

No, Barry, I see no defense for these actions on the part of the White House. In fact, they are so indefensible, and so egregious a violation of the Constitution, that immediate impeachment is only barely in time as far as I am concerned. We can never, under any circumstances, allow a president to have such power, or Congress, for that matter.

> In fact, they are so indefensible, and so egregious a violation of the Constitution, that immediate impeachment is only barely in time as far as I am concerned.

Jesus, DBK, chill out, you're hysterical. Christ, no matter how badly the GOP fucks things up, they can always count on the Democrats to overplay their hand, and that's exactly what you're doing right now. Now breathe into a bag and listen:

First of all, you've become so irrational on this issue that you've completely distorted and misinterpreted much of what I've said. I did *not* say or imply that the actions of Clinton's Justice Department, whatever they may be, made this "okay." I said explicitly the opposite, in fact.

If you're at all concerned about accuracy, you must also admit that I am not reflexively "defending" the actions of this administration. I've been very clear that this action was puzzling and ill-conceived at best, and quite possibly illegal at worst.

In other words, I'm trying to have a calm, rational dialog about it. You want no part of that. You think that if someone isn't hyperventilating and readying the gurney for Bush's lethal injection right now that they aren't taking it seriously, or are knee-jerk Bush Kool-Aid drinkers.

I'll tell you another thing, too. If any of these intercepts were ever used to convict an American citizen in a court of law, then I would join you in your outrage. That doesn't seem to have been the point of it, however.

You can rest assured that Congressional hearings and court rulings will hash all of this out in very short order. Meanwhile, calm. The Hell. Down.

And one more thing. If you Democrats are thinking about going into the mid-terms slamming Bush for being overly zealous in his efforts to prevent another terror attack? All I can say is "Please do." Really, I'm begging you. Please.

Oh and BTW, Blue Wind is never right. That was my first indication that you weren't lucid. ;-)

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/

I knew the "Clinton did it too" argument was bogus and all I had to do was wait for it to find out.

Chill out? I'm not as sanguine about the shredding of the Constitution as you are.

Prevented terrorist attacks? I don't believe a word of that. They had a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" and did nothing, but all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the most incompetent administration in history, the one that had complete incompetents trying to prevent the destruction of an entire American city (New Orleans) with such famous success, has been preventing terrorist attacks.

Anyway, I AM discussing the issue. Why you want to turn this into "Democrats better do this or not do that" I don't know.

Anyway, I don't see what I said that wasn't rational. I stated a position.

The following, written by you:
"Jesus, DBK, chill out, you're hysterical. Christ, no matter how badly the GOP fucks things up, they can always count on the Democrats to overplay their hand, and that's exactly what you're doing right now. Now breathe into a bag..."
is just rhetorical bullshit. You didn't address a single point I made, which had a lot to do with your Clinton remarks.

Yes, I know, you were trying to appear objective and rational. However, I can manage to look at something objectively and come to a conclusion. Are all the facts in yet? Enough of them are in. Besides, I tend to be a Constitutional absolutist. I don't think there is any justification for taking away my civil rights. Here's a cite that might give you some food for thought:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4728

> I'm not as sanguine about the shredding of the Constitution as you are.
When you're ready to have a real debate instead of slinging around that kind of ridiculous, hyperbolic sound bite, let me know.

It's not even topical, BTW. It's left over from the days of Ollie North and Fawn Hall. Get it? "Shredding" the Constitution?

DB, I agree with both you and Barry that debating to what extent Clinton did the same thing is not especially helpful. Still, I feel obliged to point something out regarding your thinkprogress link. If I were you I'd be cautious in relying on a left wing think tank staffed with former Clinton officials as an authoratative source on this matter. Why don't you take a look at the primary source instead? Here is the executive order in question. Note that it does not include the exclusion that thinkprogress claims it does.

Oh and BTW, Blue Wind is never right. That was my first indication that you weren't lucid. ;-)

Hey Barry,
Thanks for the kind words. Now I am completely reassured. If you say so, I must be ALWAYS right. Cheers.

I don't know that this changes my point at all.

"Foreign" surveillance. Foreign. Not surveillance of American citizens. And all within the rules of FISA. Which required application for warrant within a set period of time which could also be after the wiretap occurred.

Nothing you show me says that Clinton authorized spying on US citizens without due process. Bush authorized spying on US citizens without due process. Muddy the waters as much as you want, there is no getting around that.

I don't know that this changes my point at all.

"Foreign" surveillance. Foreign. Not surveillance of American citizens. And all within the rules of FISA. Which required application for warrant within a set period of time which could also be after the wiretap occurred.

Nothing you've shown me says that Clinton authorized spying on US citizens without due process. Bush authorized spying on US citizens without due process and has admitted it. Muddy the waters as much as you want, there is no getting around that. Barry's hysterical efforts to give the Bush apologists breathing space so that they can spin this one notwithstanding, it is still a criminal act and impeachable. Barry's hysterical demand that we none of us reach any conclusions until courts tell us what to think is tactical, but not argumentation.

He should really calm down and not get so overwrought just because people have opinions and express them.

Barry, you've shown infinite patience with DBK. You suffer fools well. I can't believe DBK just told us that you "should really calm down and not get so overwrought just because people have opinions and express them." Hey DBK how about when people have facts and express them? Barry showed you something that your kooked out fringe wacko brain just couldn't absorb: Clinton acted as Bush is acting.

Don't believe me? Check out Byron York's piece.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512211147.asp

I never look to the Clinton administration for validation, but you'd think these Democrats could see the point. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, nutjobs. Face reality, then come back for debate.

There is NO EXPECTATION of PRIVACY when making any phone call or sending any email to places on terrorist watch lists (ie. those on the State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism").

That is a fact.

It WAS a fact, pre-9/11 and is a basic self-defense, necessity post-9/11.

But the current controversy is even more ridiculous than that. The NSA has a list of destinations noted as "al Qaeda points" and sending an email or making a phone call to one of these ports gets automatic scrutiny.

The FISA courts can and do give blanket, or "open ended" warrants in many cases and has given "open ended" warrants on such targeted "al Qaeda points."

There is no way to argue that each phone call requires its own warrant, as that is simply not true and NEVER has been true.

Look, I'd support arresting anyone calling or emailing any listed "al Qaeda point," and then finding out, under vigorous interrogation, why they contacted that particular point. This program doesn't come close to doing what I feel needs to be done.

After all, what kind of American citizens contact such points?

Yes, mainly Arabic and Muslim males who sympathize or support that cause, along with the occasional Lynn Stewart and John "Taliban Johnny" Walker-Lindt, who are also "fellow travelers."

Does anyone anywhere have a problem with possible al Qaeda operatives within the U.S. being targeted for special scrutiny, not of a random fashion?

Of course not. We're all onboard with America's "global war on terrorism" (on Islamo-cultism and the rogue states that sponsor and support it) now.

Does anyone anywhere have a problem with "Americans" like Lynn Stewart (thankfully now doing hard time) and "Taliban Johnny" (also thankfully in prison) being targeted for scrutiny when they make phone calls to enemy points?

Again, only an idiot would, because there is NO EXPECTATION, NOR RIGHT TO PRIVACY when contacting such ports. The mere contacting of such points makes one a "suspected enemy combatant against the interests of the United States."