1 Wiil Feingold still be around after Jack names the criminal dim in the Senate?

2 Of course the Democrats wants the wire-tapping bill to fail !
Otherwise, someone might listen in on all the sick liberal phone sex that goes on...

3 There is already a legal means for Bush to intercept calls between the US and elsewhere.

Why doesn't he just use the FISA court, which was set up for this purpose?

Bush's explanation for not using the FISA court - it's just too much trouble to obey the law.

4 "Otherwise, someone might listen in on all the sick liberal phone sex that goes on...
Posted by: Darth Vag "

I think you are confusing the Democrats with the minority party.

5 "And when the terrorists attack you know they'll blame it on Bush.
Posted by: Buzzy"

Again, you are confusing the Democrats with the minority party.

When, not if, the terrorists attack, again, the Democrats will put the blame where it belongs - on the terrorists.

Unfortunately, we can't go back and undo all of the many mistakes that President Moron has made, that have created a more dangerous world.

Currently, Bush is ranked as the second most dangerous man in the world, Osama still being number 1.

But Bush is trying harder and he still has 2 more years to fuck things up even more, before he leaves.

6

And when the terrorists attack you know they'll blame it on Bush. 

7 By piddledick's lefturd logic, because all the world's lefturds and
muslims, i.e., America's enemies, hate Bush, then they must be right.
Simply more evidence that a good lefturd is a dead one.

8 "Why doesn't he just use the FISA court, which was set up for this purpose? Bush's explanation for not using the FISA court - it's just too much trouble to obey the law."
 
Hey puddleduck, the FISA court has issued something like 8,000 warrants in 10 years.  There are over 300,000 suspected terrorists.  DO explain how the court handles that number of people?
 
This all deals with cross border traffic.  When you enter the US, you can be searched with a rubber glove, and no warrant is needed.  It is trickery to let people believe that their cross border phone communication is sacred yet all their belongings with them are not.
 
What do you think the government is listening for anyway?  You give yourself too much inportance within this machine.

9 The secular socialist progressive Democratic party has gone out of its way to villify anyone and everyone except the terrorists.  When Hezbollah crosses into Israel, kills and kidnaps soldiers we hear them cry as one with their Islamofascist brothers that Israel should not respond with violence.  As Shia terrorists and Sunni terrorists alike kill thousands of newly free Iraqis we hear that US troops will be withdrawn in 4 to 6 months.  We all heard the drivel about a new course in the war under the Democrats, it's surrender, it's about giving American rights to terrorists who never set foot in this country, it's about the control of international law over the laws of our own nation. 

10 Max, you need to join an anger management program. Get back on your meds guy.

11 The Democrats will very soon change their minds about using these tactics, which I believe to be constitutional. When Lebanon falls to Hizb'Allah, and massive missle attacks are a daily occurance in Israel, there will be a change of heart on all but the Leftist wing of the Democratic Party.

The ME is now about to enter the meltdown stage. Hizb'Allah is poised to take over Lebanon, Syria and Iran are spoiling for a military confrontation with Israel, and events could easily deteriorate into full scale war.

The radical Islamists see the outcome of the recent elections here in the US as permission to proceed, and that is what they are about to do.

12
When, not if, the terrorists attack, again, the Democrats will put the blame where it belongs - on the terrorists.

ROFLMAO! 

You really do live in a fantasy world.

13 piddle,

your comments indicate you know nothing about FISA or about how the NSA collects information.  If you were a serious commenter I'd try to enlighten you.

14 President Wilson and FDR would call the dems cowards and traitors if they were here.The dems have not always been cowards and terrorist excusing panty waist like they are now.

15 If you were a serious commenter I'd try to enlighten you....said Carlos.

Exactly, Carlos, puddleduck is nothing but a troll. He never offers anything other than invective, and should just go to Kos or Indymedia where he can participate in a circle jerk.

People like NoFear, tbone, and other liberals who post here(even the good professor on some days) at least offer reasoned thought. You can discuss differences that don't deteriorate to name-calling. Are you listening, puddleduck? Look at some of the other commenters from the liberal side and learn.

And yes, I have resorted to name-calling, but I know better. And have tried to improve. So can you, puddleduck. Or go to an echo chamber like Kos.

16 "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. " - G.W. Bush
 
It's called the 'Patriot Act' not the 'Destroy the American Way of Life Act'. I mean that's gotta be a good act, right? Why else would they call it a Patriot Act?

17

 Are we talking about the Patriot Act? Or the interception of communications which originate in a foreign country?

18 Thanks JJ, I do try to better my opinions. However, I'm only liberal about some things - terrorists aren't one and that's why I love the Jawa (I danced in the streets of NJ the day we attacked Afghanistan). I also think this board can use some Liberal balance or IMax and a few others would tip you all into the drink.

19 I think the Intern'l intercept is a part of the Patriot Act?

20 Bush's explanation for not using the FISA court - " it's just too much trouble to obey the law."  

Here is another infamous McChimpyBush quote:  " The constitution? It's just a goddamn piece of paper! "

21 At any rate, we definitely have fun Bush quotes to last a lifetime!

22 Just when I compliment some of the liberal commenters, up pops Larry with an attempt to prove me wrong. Damn.

Larry, meet puddleduck. You two are made for each other. You will probably take your last gasp in the embrace of a duck. 

23 joe,

that's not how I read Larry's comment.  I might be wrong though.

24 Thanks for the backup, Fred -

"Hey puddleduck, the FISA court has issued something like 8,000 warrants in 10 years. There are over 300,000 suspected terrorists. DO explain how the court handles that number of people?"

For President Moron, it's just two much trouble for him to obey the law, so he broke it and then admitted it, only, after he got caught.

25 No Fear -

"Max, you need to join an anger management program. Get back on your meds guy.
Posted by: No Fear"

He and the others just can't help it.

They have developed an extreme case of PESD (Post Election Stress Disorder) over the last week.

They don't seem to be having much fun, anymore.

26 Sorry, JC, I misjudged you -

"piddle,

your comments indicate you know nothing about FISA or about how the NSA collects information. If you were a serious commenter I'd try to enlighten you.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos "

My apologies. I didn't realize that you worked at the NSA and had a Crypto clearance.

But as I cautionary note, watch what you say.

Loose lips sink ships.

I really don't want you to reveal any classified information, here, just to attempt to prove your points.

The terrorists are reading this blog, and for you to reveal this information would be considered to be treason.

Now, you wouldn't want any of your buds to think that you were a traitor, would you?

27 Oh, no, tbone -

President Moron couldn't have lied to the American people.

Let's just say he "mislead" the American people, again.

""any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. " - G.W. Bush

It's called the 'Patriot Act' not the 'Destroy the American Way of Life Act'. I mean that's gotta be a good act, right? Why else would they call it a Patriot Act?
Posted by: tbone "

Bush knew the law and chose to break it.

And JJ -

"Are we talking about the Patriot Act? Or the interception of communications which originate in a foreign country?
Posted by: jesusland joe"

Both

BTW - The Patriot act does not say that a warrant is no longer required from the FISA court, but President Moron has interpreted the Patriot Act and the US Constitution to mean that he no longer has to obtain a FISA warrant.

Here's some light reading for you -

Sufficiency of FISA

On the December 19, 2005, U.S. Dept. of Justice Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, William Moschella, wrote a letter to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, defending the NSA program:

As explained above. the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the President might have sought specifically to create such an early warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities. Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations. In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.

Fourteen constitutional scholars and former government officials[23] wrote a response dated January 9, 2006 to the Department of Justice letter, and transmitted it to Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate concluding that "the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program... appears on its face to violate existing law." [12]

An excerpt from their letter:

In conclusion, the DOJ letter fails to offer a plausible legal defense of the NSA domestic spying program. If the Administration felt that FISA was insufficient, the proper course was to seek legislative amendment, as it did with other aspects of FISA in the Patriot Act, and as Congress expressly contemplated when it enacted the wartime wiretap provision in FISA. One of the crucial features of a constitutional democracy is that it is always open to the President—or anyone else—to seek to change the law. But it is also beyond dispute that, in such a democracy, the President cannot simply violate criminal laws behind closed doors because he deems them obsolete or impracticable.

[edit] Wiretapping without warrants and FISA emergency authorizations

On January 20, 2006, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee along with lone co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 350, a resolution "expressing the sense of the Senate that Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military Force does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens." An excerpt of the proposed Leahy-Kennedy resolution follows: [24] [25]

Whereas Congress created the FISA court to review wiretapping applications for domestic electronic surveillance to be conducted by any Federal agency;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 provides specific exceptions that allow the President to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes (1) in emergency situations, provided an application for judicial approval from a FISA court is made within 72 hours; and (2) within 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended over time by Congress since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States;

Whereas President George W. Bush has confirmed that his administration engages in warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans inside the United States and that he has authorized such warrantless surveillance more than 30 times since September 11, 2001;

On January 27, in response to growing criticism, the Department of Justice released an informal four page document titled The NSA Program to Detect and Prevent Terrorist Attacks - Myth vs Reality defending the NSA program. It argued that "he NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA" on the grounds that:

* FISA expressly envisions a need for the President to conduct electronic surveillance outside of its provisions when a later statute authorizes that surveillance. The AUMF is such a statute.
* The NSA activities come from the very center of the Commander-in-Chief power, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if FISA were read to allow Congress to interfere with the President’s well-recognized, inherent constitutional authority. FISA can and should be read to avoid this.

However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al. He argues that the President had the "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and also mandates that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", where "the Laws" refer to federal statutes passed by Congress. Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The president is an officer of the government of the United States, so is subject to Congress's sole authority to make all laws for carrying the powers of the president into execution, while the president is specifically charged with the duty to take care that those laws be faithfully executed.

One court has said that the President's Commander-in-Chief authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Whether such declarations apply to foreign intelligence has been examined by few courts. It is also uncertain whether the allegation that surveillance involves foreign parties suffices to extend law governing the president's military and foreign affairs powers to cover domestic activities. The Supreme Court voiced this concern in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruling that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of the Library of Congress, released a detailed report on January 5, 2006 regarding the NSA electronic surveillance of communications, titled "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information" and concluding that[26][27][28]

From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA or any activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to cover the entire field with these statutes. To the extent that the NSA activity is not permitted by some reading of Title III or FISA, it may represent an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb, in which case exclusive presidential control is sustainable only by “disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.” While courts have generally accepted that the President has the power to conduct domestic electronic surveillance within the United States inside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment, no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance, and has not ruled on the extent to which Congress can act with respect to electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information.

Duty to notify Congressional leaders and Congress

Under the National Security Act of 1947, §501-503, codified as 50 USC §413-§413b, [29] the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed of U.S. intelligence activities, "to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." For covert actions (which are specifically defined in §413b(e)(1) not to include intelligence gathering activiities), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the so-called Gang of Eight. [30]

According to Peter J. Wallison, former White House Counsel to President Ronald Reagan: "It is true, of course, that a president's failure to report to Congress when he is required to do so by law is a serious matter, but in reality the reporting requirement was a technicality that a President could not be expected to know about. Lawyers and laws have always made distinctions between violations of law that are malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited) and those that are malum in se (wrong in themselves); reasonable and moral people are expected to know what is malum in se, but not necessarily what is called malum prohibitum. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, there is always a lighter punishment for violating a rule that is malum prohibitum..."

The administration contends that with regard to the NSA surveillance program, the administration fulfilled its notification obligations by briefing the Gang of Eight. Eight key members of Congress (thirteen individuals in this case between the 107th and 109th Congressional Sessions) have been briefed on the NSA program more than a dozen times (but they were forbidden from sharing information about the program with other members or staff):

* Speaker of the House: (Dennis Hastert (R-IL))
* House Minority Leader: (Dick Gephardt (D-MO); Nancy Pelosi (D-CA))
* Chair and Ranking Member of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: (Porter Goss (R-FL); Peter Hoekstra (R-MI); Jane Harman (D-CA))
* Senate Majority Leader: (Trent Lott (R-MS); Bill Frist (R-TN))
* Senate Minority Leader: (Tom Daschle (D-SD); Harry Reid (D-NV))
* Chair and Vice Chair of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: (Pat Roberts (R-KS); Bob Graham (D-FL); Jay Rockefeller (D-WV))

On January 19, the Department of Justice issued a report outlining the legal basis for the program.[32] "These NSA activities are lawful in all respects," Gonzalez said in a letter to Senate leaders in releasing the Justice Department's 42-page legal analysis[33].

On January 18, 2006, the Congressional Research Service released a report, "Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions". [34] [35] That report found that "ased upon publicly reported descriptions of the program, the NSA surveillance program would appear to fall more closely under the definition of an intelligence collection program, rather than qualify as a covert action program as defined by statute", and, therefore, concluded there was no specific statutory basis for limiting briefings on the terrorist surveillance program to the Gang of Eight:

If the NSA surveillance program were to considered an intelligence collection program, limiting congressional notification of the NSA program to the Gang of Eight, which some Members who were briefed about the program contend, would appear to be inconsistent with the law, which requires that the "congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities," other than those involving covert actions.

However, the report goes on to note that limited disclosure is also permitted under the statute "in order to protect intelligence sources and methods," noting in its concluding paragraph:

The executive branch may assert that the mere discussion of the NSA program generally could expose certain intelligence sources and methods to disclosure, thus making it necessary to limit the number of those knowledgeable of the program in order to reduce the risk of such disclosure occurring.

Thus, although the specific statutory Gang of Eight notification procedure for covert action would not seem to apply to the NSA program it is not clear if such limited notification procedure intended to protect sources and methods is prohibited. Additionally, should the sources and methods exception apply it will require a factual determination whether it should apply to disclosure of the program itself or only to specific sensitve aspects.

As discussed below in "Propsed FISA Amendments", the administration has argued that it did not seek FISA amendment to accommodate the NSA program because getting such an amendment would "have been difficult, if not impossible" without disclosing "the nature of the program" and that such disclosure would likely have harmed national security. Whether avoiding disclosure of the "nature of the program" also justifies limited disclosure under the National Security Act is unclear.

Fourth Amendment

In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an important foreign intelligence opinion, In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001. The Court of Review examined all the significant appellate decisions. They noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was such constitutional power. Furthermore, if there was such power, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power." However, In Re Sealed Case "[took] for granted" that these cases are correct. Furthermore, professor Orin Kerr argues that the part of In Re Sealed Case that dealt with FISA (rather than the Fourth Amendment) was nonbinding dicta and that the argument does not restrict Congress's power to regulate the executive in general.[36]

In In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001 the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review [13] ruled, "Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

The balancing test from Keith referred to above is a legal test that asks whether the primary use of the warrantless search or tap to collect foreign intelligence as per presidential authority or was the primary use of the warrantless search or tap to gather evidence to use in a criminal trial.

There may be significant legal problems should information gathered under President Bush's authorization be used in criminal trials. Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures". It continues that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". A number of cases have found that authorization for surveillance under FISA did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is couched in reasonableness. Courts have long recognized exceptions from the warrant requirement for "special needs" outside "the normal need for law enforcement." It is not superfluous to note, however, that the American Bar Association's position, a bipartisan organization, as stated by ABA president Michael Greco on the program DemocracyNow! (7-26-06)[14] is that:

"...the ABA's position is there's no reason to do drastic surgery on FISA. That bill, enacted in 1978 to address abuses by the then administration of spying on Americans, has some very important safeguards in it. It requires that, before someone is spied on, that a warrant be gotten by the Justice Department or by the prosecution or the prosecutors. Any amendment to FISA -- and some of these bills, including the Specter bill and others, would eliminate that requirement of a warrant, and in doing that, damage, fatal damage, would be done to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And we can't afford to have one of our Bill of Rights so easily dismissed. The Fourth Amendment requires that there be a warrant issued and that there be probable cause existing before someone is spied on. Any bill that Congress enacts must continue to have those two Fourth Amendment protections."

In In Re Sealed Case, the court recognized foreign intelligence surveillance is different from surveillance used for criminal prosecution. In addition, courts have rejected arguments under the Due process or the Equal protection clauses. This is not clearly the case for authorization given to the NSA by the President. Other cases have allowed the use at criminal trial of evidence obtained incident to authorized FISA.

Courts have only addressed this issue with respect to authorized surveillance of foreign powers, their agents and those communications incident to such surveillance. The courts have never specifically addressed whether it is reasonable to use evidence gained from broad warrantless surveillance, which may more broadly cover the communications of US persons. The National Security Act of 1947[37] requires Presidential findings for covert acts. SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) (5) of that act states: "A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

The Patriot act does not authorize anyone to conduct wiretaps, without a court order, although President Moron has interpreted it to be so.

If President Moron didn't agree with the FISA law, why didn't he just ask congress to change it, instead of just breaking it and then saying the he was complying with the law?

Lying to congress about a national security issue should be grounds for impeachment, even worse than lying about a blowjob.

28 "At any rate, we definitely have fun Bush quotes to last a lifetime!
Posted by: tbone"

Talk about the "gift that keeps on giving".

I'll probably be receiving the "Bushisms" desk calendar for Christmas for several more years, as there is much more material that can fit into just one year.

29 No Fear -

"PD, I just get frustrated when all I read from a poster are his violent comments. It doesn't led to open dicussion."

If you can't refute the messenger's comments, then kill the messenger.

Problem solved.

They learned from the best - Moron #1 (the HMIC).

30 PD, I just get frustrated when all I read from a poster are his violent comments. It doesn't led to open dicussion.
 
However, I still think that max and n.a. have serious problems. I can understand name calling, it comes from frustration, I have gone down that road, but constant threats?  <sigh>

31

FEINGOLD is the coauthor of the infamous CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM he should be voted off the planet

32

Only an islamocrat needs to cut and paste.