Frank P–whether BushCo illegally spies on Americans who are naughty or nice, it still is illegal spying.
karen allen | 12.22.05 - 7:23 am | #
———————————————————–
I agree with you, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make. So far, the Bush team has framed this as a debate between national security and civil liberties. I’m perfectly willing that have that debate. I’m staunchly on the civil liberties side, but I realize that there are folks on the national security side.

My larger point, though, is that I’m not convinced that that’s what we’re debating here. I have yet to see any evidence that national security is at all enhanced by these illegal wiretaps. If we’ve been doing it for years, we should have SOMETHING to show for it. If you’re going to argue that you need to trample my civil liberties to protect America, you should at least be able to show that you are, in fact, protecting America.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY FITZ!!!!!!!!

And let me put it in another way, Redd.

Consider the President’s attitude toward the judicial system of America:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....26_pf.html

One judge [of the secret FISA court], speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president’s suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

Of course, if the President’s power is sufficient to bypass the FISA court, it is sufficient to bypass any court — as we have seen the assertions of the Government to be in the “enemy combatant” cases, including the one involving Jose Padilla that has the 4th Circuit now in an uproar.

The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

OK, so FISA maybe complies with the constitutional requirements of the 4th Amendment. But such requirements and restrictions — whether statutory or perhaps even those in the Bill of Rights/4th Amendment — are too onerous for this President:

Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists.

The “need to operate outside the FISA system” is another way of asserting that the Government needs to operate outside any laws established by others — by the Congress, or even by various provisions of the Constitution itself.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant.

Try that sentence on for size in a wide variet of contexts. The Bush administration believes it is not possible to provide the evidence that the normal rule of law requires. For example, the normal rule of law, under the 4th Amendment, requires that the police have “reasonable cause” before they stop you, ask you questions, slam you up against a wall, sneak into your house at night, listen in on your telephone, etc., etc.

The police cannot (change that to “could not,” to represent the past) do any of these things simply in the hopes of finding something suspicious. We chose to design a country where the suspicions have to come first, not second. But such a country is not the one that George W. Bush has designed:

Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious.

Well, that’s true. And one answer is that therefore you just can’t listen in, or arrest, or interrogate (the answer provided in the Constitution for which men fought and died in 1776, in 1812, in 1860, in 1917, and in 1941-45 — and the one that the President takes an oath to uphold) . But our Government has a different answer in 2005:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

That is, he tried to find a way to operate within the law, but failed.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

“For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,” said the official. “They couldn’t dream one up.”

They could not even dream up an excuse that would satisfy an independent court in this nation of ours.

So what to do?

Set aside the normal rule of law under the claim that the President’s own power in time of “war” or “terrorism” is beyond every restrictive provision of the Constitution.

This is not hyperbole. This is, in fact, the argument of the Administration.

The President’s power as an “executive” and as commander of the military — both found in Article II of the Constitution with no more elaboration than those simple words — is plenary. It is unlimited.

It is not only the statutes that can be ignored.

All other provisions of the Constitution can be ignored.

Now go and read the WaPo article in the original, with the concerns expressed by some federal judges.

But keep in mind that those concerns don’t matter to the President, because even the part of the Constitution that sets up federal judicial power (Article III) (as well as the part that sets up federal legislative power, Article I) must yield to the President’s Article II authority.

There are no limits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....26_pf.html

.

Sorry, I meant “probable cause.” I was steamed.

.

And of course, women fought and died as well.

It’s the blisters on my fingertips that caused these errors, I suspect.

.

Prof — that steamed thing is going around a lot these days. ;-) I know I’ve got a case of it this morning. (As if you couldn’t tell from the article above, eh? lol)

They’ve taken the dark glasses off and come out from under the raincoats…they really are fascists and we gotta start callin’ em what they are…THEY’RE FASCISTS FOLKS!!!

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE FUCKIN’ AMMUNITION!!!

That pissant/Those pissants Big Lied this country into waging war. Why anyone is shocked or surprised at anything crime they perpetrate is beyond me. I sometimes feel as though I am the only sobersides in a room full of sentimentalizing drunks.

Well, I’ve been trying to keep my public persona more reserved (at least until I switch screen-names), but it’s getting hard, really hard.

This is a truly scary time for America.

Yesterday on PBS evening news a lawyer (quite articulate) who thinks like they do was arguing with David Cole (law prof at Georgetown), and he said that the Youngstown case is not applicable because it was just about steel mills, but this is about the need to gather information.

I wanted to climb through the television and get in his face directly:

That may have been “just” about steel mills and private property but this is about the most sacred parts of our Constitution. It is about INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY..

Could it be just pure incompetence as attorneys and govenrment administrators as well? Listening to their arguments and reading the Yoo and Bybee memoes that are public are painful reminders of what a bunch of hacks these people are. They’re just barely competent enough to have a good start of destroying the Republic (because they start with the power of the Presidency), but completely incapable of protecting us from real threats.

re: Redd and Prof.

My God. How do we stop this?

His “Harriett” thing seems to make a little more sense now.

Joe Scordato, no, it is not “just pure incompetence” on the part of their lawyers.

It is about a complete view of the power of the Presidency.

Recall VP Cheney’s remarks about the erosion of Presidential power as a result of the Vietnam War and the abuses that were uncovered. The task is to put Presidential power on steroids now.

A simple question for nominate Samuel Alito:

“Do you see there to be any limits on the President’s Article II powers? If so, can you please give a few examples of those limits?”

This is not a question about a case. It is a question about how he will view the Constitution.

.

nominee

not depressed enough yet? read WaPo’s major story about the stillborn DHS http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02327.html

Redd and Prof: Good way to get tired blood moving in the morning is to have a good “shout out”. Gets that blood pumping.

Couldn’t agree more. Prof, in your very good, sizzling one might say, comment, the words “plenary” and “unlimited” are in that article and is what Gonzales is basing his opinions on. But please tell me that is not the end of the story, and that those words do not allow him to proceed in this vein, DO THEY??

I am afraid that some of us might need a refresher course on constituional law. I have read that while Bush has great powers during war, even those that might be against whatever laws are in place, that he does so with the full expectation that he answer to the American people to explain those actions. And to accept whatever consequences result.

Is that what they are arguing now? That the ‘war on terror’, being neverending like it is, is the excuse?

And, Prof, if you missed my thanks yesterday for your further explanation of why the denial of Padilla’s transfer to civil court is actually good for Padilla, as well as enjoying the smackdown of the DoJ, — Thanks again.

While we’re collecting urban legends, Saddam’s purported assassination plot against the chimpster’s daddy also hangs on perilously slender threads, I believe.

And Dubya’s sobriety may prove to be a bourbon legend.

Meanwhile, catching up on FDL neologisms from the last two threads: Is a coup de tat a quid pro quo for coup de tit?

Telling outright falsehoods has become old hat for the Bush Administration, hasn’t it?

the lie of all lies was the 2000 election that propelled chimpy into office in the first place.

if anyone wants to believe that chimpy is competent enough to actually pull that one off, well some wonderful land to sell ya in NOLA

Chimpy’s lies are the least of our problem — the real issue is the people behind them, that “catapult the propaganda”

Not only are they very competent liars, they are powerful liars and they us MSM and the resulting “echo chamber” to manufacture myths and create the illusion of consensus.

Personally, aside from the war and torture lies where people are physically harmed or killed, the most offensive lie came from those behind the chimperor the MSM — the meme that people would rather have a bee with an abusive alcoholic/cokehead instead of a thoughful, articulate man that was willing to look at different sides of issues.

yeah, right…

It would be hillarious except that it paved the way to a second stolen election.

Wow - this was linked down the page at Rawstory.

Certainly a MUST READ. Authored by none other than Howell Raines.

I think I mentioned here a few days ago that I despise the Bush famil with the fire of three sons. This article gives a succint explanation of why.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/.....-miscreant dynasty/2005/12/18/1134840743188.html#

speaking of “steaming” anyone else remember:

Let us say, and why not, that yesterday a six-foot tall steaming pile of shit was inaugurated President of the United States. There in the spankin’ new Cadillac limo, cruisin’ past all the protesters, was a six-foot tall steaming pile of shit which, being a six-foot tall steaming pile of shit, didn’t really pay attention to the thousands of citizens who thought perhaps America might be led more competently if, say, a six-foot tall steaming pile of shit hadn’t been elected. There, outdoors, in the cold, the six-foot tall steaming pile of shit was extra steamy. The onlookers were pleased at the chilled air because if it had been more temperate, well, then they would have had to hold their noses while the six-foot tall steaming pile of shit took the oath of office from the gasping visage of William Rehnquist, six-foot tall steaming piles of shit being noted primarily for their stench.

and the good news is it is in 3 parts!

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com.....s-fun.html

Patrick Fitzgerald–We’re looking for a Rove indictiment tomorrow.

Defiant wrote: My God. How do we stop this?

By devoting a whole day — a whole week — to reaching your member of Congress and both your U.S. Senators. No matter what their position, reach them.

No, not by e-mail. That doesn’t take a whole day. What takes a whole day is to drive down to the local offices and stand at the desk and show with the presence of your body that you are trembling afraid for our Constitution.

Read this, please, from Justice Jackson’s famous concurring opinion in Youngstown:

But I have no illusion that any decision by this Court can keep power in the hands of Congress if it is not wise and timely in meeting its problems. A crisis that challenges the President equally, or perhaps primarily, challenges Congress. If not good law, there was worldly wisdom in the maxim attributed to Napoleon that “The tools belong to the man who can use them.” We may say that power to legislate for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only Congress itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers.

The Supreme Court said, “only Congress itself,” Defiant. Think about that.

Drive down to your local newspaper and ask to speak to the Editorial Board.

Take a copy of Youngstown after you have read it and yellow-highlighted it.

Look at Jackson’s concurrence, but all the rest also.

This legal case is not all that difficult to read. Believe me. At times it exudes the passion that we feel here.

Find it at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=579

.

sorry folks…lot of typos in that last post…need more coffee…..and you will have to copy and paste the url…can’t get it to behave

Happy Birthday Fitz…..Are you going to come out and play tomm.? We would really like you to.

No, the judge would not rip your head off with her bare hands; she would order the baliff to do it.

Sons — here’s your URL

http://www.theage.com.au/news/.....43188.html

Big Brother is wearing protest buttons. From today’s Times:

Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.
In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.
[snip]
Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and provoke trouble.
[snip]

If their real purpose is to keep order and protect free speech, by far the best way to do that is to appear in full uniform and be observers, not participants. As participants there is more than zero chance they can or will provoke unrest and violence, the very thing they are supposed to prevent. This is the Patriot Act in action

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/22/.....jfm84EQHbQ

LOL Thau — you don’t know the judges in these parts. ;-)

1. The beauty of the law (and being a lawyer) is that statutes - when you poke em, research em, analyze em - of a sudden rise before you as living, breathing creatures, trying themselves to digest and negotiate the real world. So often the wisdom of legislators comes shining through the statute itself. FISA’s living, breathing, wise attempt to govern is expressed as : we know the technology explosion will - with lightening speed and startling ingenuity - put amazing new tools in the hands of our intelligence community, and WE WANT OUR COURTS TO KEEP AN EYE ON THOSE DEVELOPMENTS. That’s all. FISA doesn’t create any real burden. It just says, basically, GIVE US NOTICE so we, the courts, can keep an eye on the extent of intrusion on U.S. citizens by amazing new gadgets with amazing new spying powers.
The administration is using new technological tools, but refusing - even now, after the public hoopla -to let anyone, anywhere know what those tools are.

2. The FISA “just tell us what you’re doing” philosophy is there because Presidents (and bureaucracies) are: a) fallible and or b) sometimes motivated by bad intent. If it is true that George Bush believes he has a hotline to God, the FISA statute is taking a cue from the BIble, history, mythology and real life, saying, George, what if God happens to hang up, and you’ve actually been getting whispers from the Devil? W.Wilson

Regarding the intellectual laziness of the Administration’s position on domestic spying, what else could one reasonably expect of Bush? He has half-assed his way through his entire life. He has ridden his father’s coattails from one failed enterprise to another. To expect him to show rigor at this stage is unwarranted. The most rigor he can manage is his excercise program.

On a related tangent, did anybody catch Senator allen on Hardball with Inquisitor Mitchell yesterday? Friends, the future was there to see. Allen was quite comfortable with the plenary powers of the President,

darn - hit enter in error!

Anyway, Allen acted like he can’t wait to excercise those plenary powers. And with the GWOT stretching as far as the eye can see, we can understand why Cheney broke the tie to cut stuudent funding. They need jobless young people that can’t afford college to fight it.

Happy Festivus to all the FDL visitors today. Here is a bit of dialogue from a kinder and gentler era. AIR those grievances!

————————————————

Frank Costanza: Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.

Cosmo Kramer: What happened to the doll?

Frank Costanza: It was destroyed. But out of that a new holiday was born . . . a Festivus for the rest of us!

Cosmo Kramer: That must’ve been some kind of doll.

Frank Costanza: She was.

Redd,

Thanks….only partially functional this morning…up too late finishing up work before holiday.

Hope you had a chance to read the article. I think its well done and somewhat on point to the previous thread.

As long as we are discussing it, it’s COUP D’ETAT. It’s an expression from the French, but also used in English meaning a sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in a position of authority.

My God. How do we stop this?

some believe we can do this with prose, logic, reason, and perhaps even rhyme.

Others believe that if this were possible, we would never find oruselves in this mess in the first place.

Does anyone really believe they can craft the “perfect” message that will find its way to the receptive masses at just the right teachable moment to cause an internal change and overcome the corruption, fraud, and theft of democracy?

Sharing ideas and getting the word out is part of this answer, but money talks — always has and always will.

When the great leaders of the labor movement, civil rights, progressive reform, and even the peace movement in the 60’s-70’s wanted change — they boycotted.

Money talks, people listen

Consumption used to be seen as a vice, a character defect. The very ntion of a “consumer society” had to be carefully created in the MSM because Americans would not have accepted these excesses.

Many now see consumerism as a god given right — in the process they give the neocons and repug all the tools they need to beat us over the head and steal our democracy.

Is the pen mightier than the sword? I don’t know and don’t care — neithe accomplish squat without the dollar.

GrandmaJ: Refresher course in constitutional law.

I will say it again: Read Youngstown..

As long as people think that only lawyers can read either the Constitution or the most famous case in American history interpreting the limits on Presidential power — as long as they leave it to the experts — they will be ruled by experts not of their choosing.

Those “experts” have read Youngstown and are squirming their way around it.

I will feel satisfied, and will have all the Christmas present that I want this year if one single reader of FDL goes to Youngstown, reads through it (OK, just skim through it for the good parts) and reports back here that some eyes were opened.

You don’t need a professor to say “yes” or “no” on the Constitution.

You need to apply your own eyes to the text of Youngstown because every single court case, every single legal talking head from the Administration, every single member of the Judiciary Committee relies on, or tries to evade, Youngstown.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/.....;invol=579

And if those who are free on the words that 13 year-olds giggle at would spend some time reading Youngstown, they might even have their vocabulary enhanced.

I actually turned on the television last night while wrapping Fitzmas gifts, watched Tweety with Andrea and Olbermann with ????, some cnn and some of that woman with the voice yammering about Aruba. Then I caught Miss Vicky telling Bamford that the applications to the FISA court are so thick that it would take weeks and weeks just to finish them. She was so condescending and smarmy, I had to change the channel; Bamford is resolute and unruffled and I loved that. I also saw about 3 minutes of Tucker Bowtie, but that was like lying down on broken glass, so then I cleaned up and went to bed. That was the longest TV session I’ve had in months and it was torture without Olbermann himself.
I understand so much more about the hallucinogens they have put in the kool aid. I understood about the indoctrination and the wholesale purchase of these talking heads, but I could not put faces with the names, and while this is of value, I don’t think I will be doing it more than once or twice a week. Fortunately we have Crooks and Liars to provide us with the clips of the best and worst.

Oh, and thanks for your thanks, GrandmaJ. I did see that and appreciated it.

GrandmaJ, you also wrote, “ I have read that while Bush has great powers during war, even those that might be against whatever laws are in place, . . . .”

No he doesn’t.

Youngstown.

.

Me3 from last thread,

You still don’t get it. It is not that simple. I sure as hell wish it were! So does Clark I bet.

“I wasn’t talking about soldier so much as Iraqis. They are the ones dying by the thousands.”

This is the result of Bush’s obsene plan for spreading “freedom” Which Clark did everything he could to convince Biden and the other boneheads not to give Bush the green button for shock and awe. Clark says over and over “you only go to war as a last, last, last, last resort. But they didn’t listen.
Can you not see the consequences to the Iraq Sunni population once the Shia Islamic fundamentalist take power. The payback that will insue will fuel Iran’s power in the region. This will lead to even more human suffering and loss of life. Bush’s spreading of “democracy” has created a potential monster if left unchecked. It is crutial that the political work be done now or millions will pay the price, Suni, Shia, Iraqi, Iran, US, all will pay. And don’t forget how a greater conlict will spill over to other areas of the middle east. There already is tentions spilling over in all parts of the world with regard to religious fundamentalism, including here. I really thought we as human beings would have evolved intellectually enough that this would not be possible in these modern times but just by witnessing what is happening in my own country truely blows my mind.
Listen, if it was up to Clark we would have taken action to stop the bloodshed in Rwanda and Darfur. He is not what you think. He cannot be painted with your “If it’s military it must be bad” brush. Suggested reading on these issues: Samatha Powers “A Problem from Hell”
http://www.anca.org/press_rele.....p?prid=503

Thanks Me3 for the discusion, I appreciate all the activism and motivation you do on all the blogs.

Big Brother is wearing protest buttons. From today’s Times:

Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.
In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.
[snip]
Provided with images from the tape, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, did not dispute that they showed officers at work but said that disguised officers had always attended such gatherings - not to investigate political activities but to keep order and protect free speech. Activists, however, say that police officers masquerading as protesters and bicycle riders distort their messages and provoke trouble.

My comment: If their real purpose is to keep order and protect free speech, by far the best way to do that is to appear in full uniform and be observers, not participants. As participants there is a chance they can or will provoke unrest and violence, the very thing they are supposed to prevent.

There may be a fine line between keeping order and surveillance, but they are crossing that line when they start videotaping demonstrators. This is the Patriot Act in action.
http://nytimes.com/2005/12/22/.....jfm84EQHbQ

I would like to remind people of another George who (among other offenses) was accused thusly:

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

I think the FISA judges aren’t just mad about being bypassed, or being nothing more than window dressing, but especially for being used to cleanse illegally obtained information, whether from the NSA listening/wiretaps or, worse, from improper/illegal interogation methods. I don’t think any federal judge, especially one who maybe reluctantly accepts the serious reponsibility of being a FISA judge, wants to be nothing more than a laundromat.

On the bin laden phone myth

OF COURSE IT IS NOT TRUE!

Has you ever tried to coordinate a terrorist assult on democracy between all the breakups, garbling, and dead spots of that generation of mobile phone technology?

Sorry, but I double-posted. Not my fault. I kept coming up with “that page not available.”

uuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmm, on second thought, if you have, I wouldn’t recommend posting it here.

Big government has big ears

Discussion of the issue on On Point out of Boston on wbur:

Gergen on now, can’t remember who else will be on

This is a good show, always.

http://www.wbur.org/listen/

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20051222.html

Findlaw up with first substantial paper on spygate.

Diogens, it is not an “intellectual laziness of the Administration’s position on domestic spying.“

If you saw the Bush-supporting lawyer on PBS last night, you would say (as did my lawyer wife), “he’s pretty smart.”

It takes smarts to get around the huge roadblock, barrier, line-of-defense that is Youngstown.

What I find most interesting about this particular power grab is that nothing useful seems to have come from it. I think it’s safe to assume that none of the monitored calls were ever used in a court case–even the densest defense lawyer would’ve raised holy hell over it. Did it disrupt any terrorist plots? Doubt it–someone would’ve told us about it in order to trumpet the program’s success. Did it save any lives? Unlikely, for the same reason. So it doesn’t look like warrantless spying does any good, at least on the terrorism front. So was this a power grab just for the sake of gaining power, or was something else going on? Keep in mind that we still have no idea (Give that some thought, too. At a minimum, Bush spied on several hundred people. We don’t have a single name to work with.) who was spied on.

Prof, Redd, Jane,

How do we stop this? Is there anything that we can do?

My mother grew up in nazi Germany; I have foster children that spent part of their childhood in communist Vietnam. I heard their stories of living in countries where there was no freedom of speech, countries where the government could search personal documents whenever and wherever it wished. I have always been thankful that in this country we had the Fourth Amendment to protect us.

What can we do to stop this?

“Big Brother is wearing protest buttons”

Memmmoorriees light the corners of my mind . . .

Protesting the Cambodian Invasion at the Polo Grounds in SF, Dick Gregory exhorted the crowd of 25,000 to look around and find “the spit shine sandals” among us, sure enough, about a dozen young men beat a hasty retreat to the Police cordon. This being SF, 3 of them jovially waved back

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/g.....51221.html

ACLU calls for special counsel to investigate Clusterfuck’s illegal spying.

There are several posters who prefer to be “anonymous”. How can one tell which anonymous is talking, or tell what they have posted previously? Do we have 5 “anonymous”, 20, or more?

Heh. Kinda fun thinking about the secret thoughts of WH advisors sucking up to the Preznit…

“God, what DO they put in Texas drinking water?”

“This dumbass is going to sink the whole enterprise eventually.”

“You’d think that the Leader of the Free World would wear a better wristwatch, or learn to eat something other than mediocre Tex-Mex.”

“I only do this for the money and the prestige, the money and the prestige…”

Another lie- what a big success the Iraqi elections were. Proving once again that a lie can travel the globe before the truth gets its boots on. It now appears, a week after Georgie took his victory lap, that the election was so fraudulent it would make an Ohio Republican blush. Worse, the election will end up handing 2/3rds of Iraq to the Persians. Heckuva job , Georgie!

Pat Buchanan was on the Today Show this morning claiming that getting a warrant from the FISA court meant having to WAIT 72 hours before you could start your wiretap. And I don’t believe he didn’t know that he had that absolutely backwards.

Does anyone else think that the whole right wing “out of control activist judges” meme was cooked up (or pushed) for just this moment? So the rubes would be believe the Bushhead had to go around them? Come to think of it, the whole “the separation of church and state thing in the Constitution doesn’t mean that we have to keep the church and state separate” meme plays right into this too.

Toensing and consort show Springer show guests what a little extra schooling could do for people like themselves.

Frank P–whether BushCo illegally spies on Americans who are naughty or nice, it still is illegal spying.

Hope everyone will get behind the ACLUs call for a special prosecutor.. if they handle it right- even goopers may end up supporting it as a way out of the thicket.

If you saw the Bush-supporting lawyer on PBS last night, you would say (as did my lawyer wife), “he’s pretty smart.”

exactly my point — we can bitch about chimpy and his appointees and their incompetence all we want

in the meantime, some really sharp people are pulling the strings and making it all happen

where we should work for change should be obvious

rwcole, well, some parts of the opinion piece that you linked on FindLaw were OK, including this paragraph:

The President’s real argument, however, is not based on the AUMF, but - once again — on what he claims is his inherent constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. Here, the President’s claim seems breathtaking in scope. He appears to be claiming that the President may disregard every law as he - in his own discretion - deems necessary, to fight a war on terror that has no clearly defined scope, nor any clearly defined foe, nor any knowable end point.

Sort of sounds like my own morning rant (see above).

But the author, Edward Lazarus, a criminal lawyer, cites no cases except a couple of ones that aren’t very relevant.

He left out the main case: Youngstown.

.

The speculation that Clusterfuck was presented with some new intelligence gathering technology that would be impossible to get warrants for makes sense– he loves big new ideas–whether they are legal or not..

He decided that it would help him to get to level 24 of whatever silly game it is that he is playing and that the risk of getting caught was minimal…

This is how an IDIOT destroys the constitution- on a lark.

What I find most interesting about this particular power grab is that nothing useful seems to have come from it.

respectfully,

OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH PPPPPPPPPUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZ

That is the most “out of touch” statement I have read in years!!!!!

PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY HANDS OVER FIST ON THIS

BILLIOINS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ

Many other billions are accounted for, but represent obscene markup and profit margins.

Not only are the rich getting richer beyond avarice, the military industrial complex is raking it in on an unprecieented scale!

This is what will force generations of americans to come to struggle with social security and rational healthcare issues — the government will be broke and the democrats are now the “keepers of fiscal responsibility” which means NO MONEY FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS!

It an evil way it is genius and certainly immensely powerful.

The inability of some to open their eyes and talk about the economic issues that are responsible for all of this never ceases to amaze me

Prof- Yeah I thought it was a bit weak as well- but I have been monitoring findlaw and the aclu to see how they are going to respond- and this is the first shot out of the box.

Your posts here have been more substantial and thoughtful.

I agree, Prof, his argument would be strronger if he had cited cases, but if the reader gets through it, folks who are not attorneys, his last words are helpful.

“But even worse, such a scheme threatens basic democratic principles. This Administration wants virtually unlimited power with essentially no accountability. I might almost be able to stomach Bush’s “just trust me” claims of Executive power, if the President could be made truly accountable for his decisions down the road. But Bush wants the power with no public debate and a minimum of public disclosure.

I wouldn’t trust any Administration with such a blank check. And this isn’t just any Administration. It’s an Administration with a deeply troubling history of mistakes and obfuscation, an Administration that seems to expand its definition of terrorism however it finds convenient, an Administration that brooks none of the internal dissent that might check authoritarian impulses.

Against that backdrop, the new revelations of warrantless wiretapping, and the Administration’s latest set of explanations, sound less like a plan to fight terror than like tyranny’s engines, raring to go.”

Edward Lazarus, a FindLaw columnist, writes about, practices, and teaches law in Los Angeles. A former federal prosecutor, he is the author of two books — most recently, Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court.

I can’t afford, physically and mentally, to let my blood pressure rise so high this early in the day.

To offset this fury, let me provide two small bits of light beaming hope AS A RESULT of Junior’s flagrant abuses.

The first is a website I found by following a link at the bottom of the great Michael Berube essay on “the end of conservatariansm” linked to by Atrios last night. For your reading pleasure:

www.republicansforhumility.com

Now, stop laughing. The motto at the top of the website states “Country Before Party.” The posts there are quite good. Georgie has managed to piss off the vast majority of the country, and there ARE Republicans of honor in the electorate who are outraged by King George. Check this guy out; we need to connect with folks like him.

Second — Enjoy this dKos diary called “How to Recruit Republicans”:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...../201550/85

It seems a Dem activist in Louisiana invited a bunch of neighbors over for lunch, a group including seven Republicans. By the time they left, 6 of the 7 were swearing they would go to the polls to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

How did she do this? After hearing all the Republican guests tearing Georgie a new one over the domestic spy business and other un-Constitutional atrocities, and hearing them state they would support impeachment of the Boy King (!?!!), she declared that Republican Congresscritters would never take them, the Republican voters, seriously on this matter. To prove the point, she dialed their elected Republican senator (would that be Vitter? sp?) and put the call on speaker phone for them all to hear.

What ensued was hilarious, and opened the eyes of her luncheon guests.

Here’s the diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...../201550/85

Hope you enjoy these bits. As much as my blood is boiling, I do believe that the public’s outrage will be expressed ever more loudly in the weeks to come. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I’m furious, outraged, yet hopeful and more determined than ever.

Off to do chores now.

Great story Mrs. K- thanks for sharing it!

Prof

Just being snarky about the quality of their lawyers - I know their view of absolute Presidential power is serious on their part. Their arguments are just so transparently baseless, in their failure to deal with USSC cases like Youngstown Steel. They do need to just come right out and say “L’etat, c’est moi” , so the country can see them for what they are and throw them out.

See Glenn’s post today:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

Laurence Tribe just stated that Bush has broken the FISA law and the 4th amendment. Very strong statement, he interrupted Tom(interviewer) to say this.

The charges against Clusterfuck are pretty clear:

1)He broke a law that was specifically designed by congress to prohibit EXACTLY what he did.

2) He has openly defied the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibiting unreasonable search.

Clusterfuck’s defenses are now out on the table:

1) Congress gave him the authority to do what he did in the resolution authorizing use of force.

2) The second amendment to the constitution gives the president inherrent powers in a time of war to do whatever the fuck he thinks is necessary to prosecute the war.

Prof has- I think- totally shredded defense number two. Defense number one is laughable.

If this ever comes before a court- it will likely be destroyed in a millisecond..

The question is how to get it to court.

Any ideas?

His strategy is to keep the issue in the political realm where his REAL defense “I had to do this to protect the american people” is likely to win out with the frightened minnions.

If he is successful in avoiding a real legal battle- he just might win.

Perhaps Prof has shredded the other defense as well–I can’t remember.

Findlaw lists 57 Supreme Court cases citing Youngstown, and it even leaves out some.

Findlaw lists 32 Courts of Appeals cases citing Youngstown.

Just click on the link and then use Ctrl-F with the words (including comma) “jackson, concurring” and then hit PgDn 4 times. You will come to observations such as these:

I did not suppose, and I am not persuaded, that history leaves it open to question, at least in the courts, that the executive branch, like the Federal Government as a whole, possesses only delegated powers. . . .

Justice Jackson even talks of King George III:

The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence leads me to doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image.

And he compares the assertions of unlimited executive power to be totalitarian:

And if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the executive powers in those governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian.

And then Jackson turns to the issue of being Commander-in-Chief. (I am sure that putting on the flight suit with the codpiece was part of dressing up for that part.)

The clause on which the Government next relies is that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . . .”

And what does that mean to the constitution-evading President and his advisors?

this loose appellation is sometimes advanced as support for any presidential action, internal or external, involving use of force, the [343 U.S. 579, 642] idea being that it vests power to do anything, anywhere, that can be done with an army or navy.

Yes, like breaking into people’s homes or communications. that could be done with an army, couldn’t it?

But Jackson’s seminal Supreme Court opinion would have none of that:

the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander in Chief of the [343 U.S. 579, 644] Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants.

Note that Jackson talks not only about “industries” but also “its inhabitants.”

And he also talks about the “internal affairs” of a nation:

That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history.

Can the President’s power to command an army trump the provisions in the Bill of Rights?

Jackson responds:

Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for the Third Amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Thus, even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.

What is good for the 3d Amendment goose must surely also be true for the 4th Amendment gander — the right of people to be free of searches lacking warrants or probably cause.

Can the President turn his awesome Commander-in-Chief power inward, into the domestic communications of its citizens?

I should indulge the widest latitude of interpretation to sustain his exclusive function to command the instruments of national force, at least when turned against the outside world for the security of our society. But, when it is turned inward, not because of rebellion . . . , it should have no such indulgence.

President Bush is commiting a sin according to the analysis of Justice Jackson:

No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role.

Oh, there is more, much, much more.

.

FISA is about wiretaps, no? Listening to conversations in real time? What Bush calls “monitoring”.

But Bush says he needs to “detect”. This requires data mining, combing the internet and other networks for numbers, url’s, patterns, and much more than simply “listening in” on “calls” i.e. people speaking to each other.

It’s blind searching and not what FISA is set up for. This gives him access to everything. Since the capability exists, he will use it. Isn’t the technological genie out of the bottle on this one? Even if he were “made” to stop, how would we know that he hadn’t?

I was about to post that even with the obscene, anti-Constitutional fascist power grabbing, these guys still can’t wage a war or run a government, but for some reason I’ve been blind to the money argument: of course… it’s the greatest robbery in history. They stole the budget surplus just for starters, and the “war on terror” opens all kinds of coffers.

Pure unadulterated evil, that’s what it is. Of course, one look at Barbara Bush should have alerted any sensitive soul that GWB would turn out to be the spawn of Satan. Er, so to speak.

I really can’t believe how bad these people are. THAT’S how they get away with it, too: no one can grasp the full extent of the horror. It’s like the White House chef serving broiled hurricane victims for supper.

Prof- have you already addressed the defense argument that congress gave the president the authority for these taps in the authorization for the use of force?

If so- could you repost it?

Thanks for your help!

Zenn- that’s exactly what is needed right now in my opinion– well respected legal minds coming out publicly and saying “he broke the law and violated the constitution”.

Otherwise many will view this as a political pissing contest- which will go to the side with the biggest pisser.

Seems like BushCo and the Media are all part of the “Lucas Task Force” now……

Old hat, old times…..

“broke the law”

“violated the constitution”

“impeachable offense”

These are the only words that will attract attention from the general public in my opinion.

Frank—You are making a good point- but I think that Clusterfuck will win the argument if it goes in that direction. He will claim that attacks have been foiled- and then say that the details are classified- hard to penetrate that defense..

It seems to me that we have to stay on the legal assault- there is defense is almost non-existant..

Paul Krugman was correct years ago when he wrote that the Bush Administration is composed of radicals. They hate civil servants, lawyers, public school teachers, union members; in their world view, anyone sucking on their tities of wealth.

What sells their lies and propaganda is that they actually believe all of it. Plus, corporate media owners havenÂ’t quite grasped yet that their wealth and their families in their gated communities are at peril with these true believers in charge.

Gergen on WBUR just reminded a caller that it was the US govt that sent their ill-gotten “evidence” of infidelity on MLK Jr. to his wife and suggested to MLK that he take his own life.

Gergen then repeated: “absolute power corrupts absolutely” …

Is it any wonder that congress, the press, are afraid of Bushco. He’s had 4 years to gather his “evidence”.

I agree, Prof, his argument would be strronger if he had cited cases, but if the reader gets through it, folks who are not attorneys, his last words are helpful.

Sorry, Zennurse, but the analysis is not. I went back and re-read what I quoted from the article, and even that is wrong. Lazarus says it is not about the AUMF resolution. He is flat wrong about that. The AUMF resolution is how the President tries to fit within category 1 of Justice Jackson’s opinion — where the Congress has explicitly given power.

That is definitely part of the Pres. argument.

So matter how inspiring some of Lazarus’ writing, he does not understand constitutional law, sad to say.

“The Founders of this Nation were not imbued with the modern cynicism that the only thing that history teaches is that it teaches nothing. They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature. It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power, if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the power of governors over the governed.”

Justice Frankfurter, concurring

Merry Fitzmas, Prof.

Re: exposure if identity, just be safe, if needed. You don’t need to prove yourself here.

new thread (new BDay)

“Even a Snopse ain’t safe from the Snopses.”

Well, Prof. I have now read the case of Youngstown. [please consider the case underlined]

Quite the case. And the fact the Truman was the President that seized the property, all the more surprising. Wonder if this was why his approval rating was so low when he left office.

Anyway, it was a great read and truly stated in full voice the reason that Presidents do not have this unfettered power. I have difficultly determing who was actually writing the brief — Black or Frankfurter.

The brief itself goes through all the supposed aliterations that Bush could propose to be tacit approval for his ‘taking’ of our information and debunks each and every one.

There is one assumption here — and that the seizure of “information” does, in fact and in law, equal that of seizing property. The Youngstown case does fairly rely on the fact that Congress has already considered what to do in cases of labor disputes and had rejected Trumans’ actions specifically.

But there is a much larger argument that this case does make about presidential powers. Truman’s argument that the court cannot control the president (separation of powers) is not persuaive, to me at least, as the President much abide by the law of this Country. And the Constitution specifically gave Congress the sole right to make laws.

P.S. I worked as a legal secretary in a fairly high profile lawfirm for over 30 years. And worked for a very good lawyer who knew how to write a brief. That last part of Youngstown (written by Frankfuter??) was excellent in that it put forward every argument the other side could possibly make, and then refuted each and every one. I used to read legal briefs as casual reading. Been a while. And I certainly haven’t followed the footnote or highlighted cases as my attorney taught me to do. He said that without fully understanding the cases cited, you couldn’t tell a good brief from a bad one, despite excellent writing.

Thanks for giving me the link to this case. I have marked it to read more fully later.

Great pos as usual red but I thought this was pretty obvious from the get-go.

If you don’t want to bother with the minimal p;rocedure required under FISA it’s because you don’t think you can even satisfy that.

As obvious as that it, it’s helpful that somone is actually doing real “reporting” and pointing out the obvious. That the judges are this pissed off to talk is what’s most amazing.

rwcole — He did, Prof killed the first defense dead.

says:

(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution. Pp. 587-589.

(d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President’s military power as commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. P. 587.

(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 587-589.

(f) The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times. Pp. 587-589.

(g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution “in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.” Pp. 588-589.

Youngstown is the slayer of any argument for the absolute power of the Presidency.

Prof deserves a standing ovation for citing this case and hammering on it.

Redd,

Thanks much for this excellent post. Several themes to work on.

wrt to the WaPo article, its worth reading all the way through, because it shows several layers that haven’t hit the rest of the media yet.

First, the example used by Bush et al to berate “leaks” by the press of our intelligence capabilities goes back to a 1998 or so Washington Times article, but as the WaPo article notes, that Times article did not say that the US could monitor bin Laden’s use of satellite phones, only that he used one. Further it turns out there were numerous public reports well before that that he was using such phones.

But the supposed “harm” is about reporting our ability to monitor, not reporting bin Laden’s use. The NYT expose is about reporting the ability to monitor. So I expect we’ll here more from the other side about this distinction.

But the WaPo goes on to report conversations by reporters with bin Laden in which he expressed concerns, way back in 1997, about the US ability to monitor any electronic communications. So it’s not as though the NYT telling us that we can monitor electronic communications is news to anyone except the most naive. It certainty would NOT be news to those who regard themsevles as at war with the US.

So then the question becomes, is publically emphasizing that “guess what, we can listen to anything that’s electronically communicated” a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose one can argue that if the bad guys are incredibly stupid, they will assume they can chat with each other without being overheard, and we’ll get useful intelligence. But another view might be to send out a message that any way they pick to talk to each other outside their own cave can be monitored. So it forces the bad guys to move to much lower levels of communication. Is there a tradeoff here?

The point is, it’s not clear that the NYT has done anything harmful, even if you buy some of their arguments, and the only people who didn’t quite understand what was going on were naive Americans who might be shocked that our Prez would do such a thing as spy on Americans.

Agh. I think I’m suffering from the anger-induced typos, too.

“says:” = “Youngstown says:

Wow, while I was reading Youngstown, people had a full blown discussion going about it. How can you all read that case that fast. Or had all the brilliant minds here read it previously. So, now there is a new thread.

And Rayne, you are right, Prof should be applauded for reminding us, more than once I might add :-), to read the case. Thanks Prof. He mentioned waaay up top that he was considering changing his posting name. Those little snooping federal elves can get a person to wondering. heh.

…..civil servants, lawyers, public school teachers, union members…

Whoa….I resemble that remark. Me thinks most all of us do.

Ya’ll do know that my man Howard is asking people to sign up for the FOIA files. Go here and sign up.
http://www.democrats.org/page/.....sticspying

Make Your Freedom of Information Act Request

George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court. After initially refusing to confirm the story, the President has admitted to personally overseeing this domestic spying program for years.

These actions are explicitly against the law. But the administration says that other laws somehow allow for this unprecedented use of a foreign intelligence agency to spy on Americans right here in the United States. According to reports, political appointees in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote still-classified legal opinions laying out the supposed justification for this program.

Governor Howard Dean is filing a formal demand that they release these documents. You can add your name to a Freedom of Information Act request by providing the information below.

I want to strongly back Prof when he says

“As long as people think that only lawyers can read either the Constitution or the most famous case in American history interpreting the limits on Presidential power — as long as they leave it to the experts — they will be ruled by experts not of their choosing.”

I have no legal background beyond that of the average person who has caught some episodes of Law & Order. So let me report that ANY of us can read Youngstown, and the 4th Circuit rulings. In fact, they are surprisingly accessible reading.

The FISA statute covers all electronic surveillance regardless of the technology. The statute was amended sometime in the 1990’s precisely to close any loopholes created by new technology.

The Republican talking point that FISA only covers “old fashioned” wiretaps is bogus and meant to mislead.

The Republicans are truly frightened by the revelation of the wanton criminality of their Dear Leader and his stupid admission of guilt. They are spinning disinformation as fast as they can.

rwcole, The second amendment to the constitution

It’s not an amendment. It is Article II.

Prof,

No doubt Bush can hire brains.

My point is, he is so lacking in rigor, the folks around him get lazy, too.

Have any of his defenses on domestic spying withstood scrutiny for more than 24 hours?

They tried Clinton and Carter did it. That was refuted on the blogs, and by Mrs. Greenspan on Hardball last night.

They tried because the Constituion says so. Lindsey Graham, an attorney, JAG AND Republican, said on Face the Nation said not so.

We both know Bush is trying to keep his base baffled with bullshit. Those folks are beyond any convincing.

I want to convince swing voters a change needs to happen in 06.

This is why TIA was ostensibly killed. It was one VERY big fishing expedition against EVERYONE all the time looking for “patterns” and naughty phrases and such so the “perps” could be spotlighted. With good reason TIA was killed, but the whole operation was taken up in one form or other by private concerns or from within other projects. The monster just wont die the death it deserves.

They can’t do the paperwork and do the legal dance because what they are doing is a full-open, full-bandwidth tap of ALL network traffic and phone usage with the garbage being passed through software to highlight the “naughty bits”. Of course, the software is no better than website blocking software, catches legal speech including dissenting speech, and violates the Constitution and federal law in any case. Too bad, so sad.

We managed, somehow, to make it through 60 or so years of Cold War without this sort of tool sucking any and all communications and THAT was about an existential threat. A bunch of yahoo terrorists are far from an existential threat. No matter how awful the Twin Towers attack was, it was nothing in the overall scheme of things. It is not something worth losing the Bill of Rights over, even a little bit.

Damn, how the GOP and neocons are such friggin’ cowards. Not a one of them has the balls, or HAD the balls, to get on the tip of the spear and actually DO military service but they are all so fast to put those of us who do out there to swing in the wind and respond to every nothing sound in the dark. As ugly as the 9/11 attack was, it sure as hell never got me scared or in any way willing to give up a single right. Nothing at all is worth that. Nothing.

Praedor — absolutely right. And you can’t tell me that in the years of the Cold War, when we were constantly threatened with the spectre of nuclear annihilation that our civil rights were somehow more important than they are now.

warrants? we don’t need no stinkin warrants.

maybe a little OT or already posted;
shell games &
the bedfellows they keep:

Ex-FBI translator’s case may reveal Plame’s crucial CIA role
By Mike Mejia
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Dec 16, 2005, 00:52

http://onlinejournal.com/artma....._340.shtml

When I was in college in the early 70’s there was a persistent rumor in the counter culture that Nixon and the phone company were somehow monitoring all phone conversations looking for key drug related words. According to the rumor, if the words were detected, you would soon be under surveillance by the FBI.

Given the technology of the time this was nonsense but 35 years later the rumor becomes fact. The huge computer driven fishing expedition that this administration has been running goes beyond illegal wiretaps. This is a First Amendment issue.

Do we really want to watch what we say on the phone or write in an e-mail in order to avoid having FBI agents show up to question our friends, employers, and associates?

new thread

Perhaps someone should explain to our conservative friends that a Data mining tool used to create a list of suspected terrorists, based upon a profile, can easily be “re-tasked” to create other kind of lists.

For example, you could change the profile and create a list of likely gun owners. Terrorists might need guns yes? I suspect many on the right would be unhappy about that.

Since the administration is creating a precedent for using this technology beyond regulatory control (without any meaningful checks at all) there is nothing to prevent this or future administrations from using it in new “creative” ways. Only a whistle-blower could try to stop it. You can see from the reaction of the administration and their apologists in this case how effective that is. If this policy is allowed to stand, a few years from now there will be no way to contain it.

This technology is a dagger pointed at us all… All Americans… not just Democrats.

If conservatives can’t understand this then conservatism truly is dead.

Two of the last three posts (sorry Prof, the new thread post didn’t make my cut) really nailed what this administration is up to. It’s why Bush said there’s a difference between monitoring and detecting… a statement which no reporter seemed interested enough to follow up on.

Sanas (Irish etymology) of Crony

“because they fear the Preznit and his crony pals have tainted the entire legal process…”

Comh-roghna (pron. cuh-rony)
Mututal-favorites,
fellow-chosen ones,
mutual-sweethearts,
fellow-pals

this is the more pertinent issue
lest folks forget amidst the drama of the moment:

White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 ‘political enemies’
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 8, 2005, 06:40
Email this article
Printer friendly page

Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies.

The “enemies list” dates back to Bush’s days as governor of Texas and can be accessed by senior administration officials in an instant for use in campaigns to discredit those who speak out against administration policies or acts of the President.

The computerized files include intimate personal details on members of Congress; high-ranking local, state and federal officials; prominent media figures and ordinary citizens who may, at one time or another, have spoken out against the President or Administration.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com.....7625.shtml

I’m not surprised, given that Bush thinks this is a valid method of telephonic communication.

i thought the requirements to obtain a fisa warrant were looser and less onerous than that for standard criminal wiretapping?

in particular, you don’t need to show “probable cause”, but you do need some clearly articulated reason.

Since W was so pissed at the leak of this, why doesn’t some reporter just ask him the following simple question:
“Would it still be a disgraceful thing if Rove leaked it?”

What’s so hard about that?

The FISA leak may have come out specifically because of the rumor that Bush said the Constitution was “just a god damn piece of paper”. There are some people who’d be offended by such a statement.