Mickey

Tell that to the Miami Hurricanes of the late 80's and early '90's or just about every Raider team that won a superbowl. For the record, I don't think character without talent wins much either.

Yeah, they bitched but that was it, when push came to shove, they were good little senators. Doesn't it make you feel better to know that they were "deeply troubled" and "gravely concerned"?

Because it is a classified program and because there is no investigation being undertaken, we just don't know the numbers. We do know how many applications for orders (for some reason they don't call them "warrants") there are each year because they have to report it to congress. For example, there were 1,758 in 2004. About 2,000 a year is what they are averaging at this point. Of course, one emergency situation could cover 100 taps. For example, field agents could say that there is an emergency such as a potential attack and submit a list of names or something to the AG and say that they are all ivolved so we need to tap them all right away. That way, the AG authorizes a whole bunch all at once in the same e-mail or whatever he does to "authorize" the taps. The Act forsees a situation where Person X is of interest to agents and so they want to tap his phones, any communication device he is using. You start out with a person whose identifiable and known devices which he is expected to use for communication. Maybe what they are doing is essentially searching a stream of data they are tapping into with certain technical abilities to find a drip here or a drip there worth further, particularized investigation. If so, they wouldn't have a "person X" or even known devices to tap. A good analogy would be the difference between knowing a bad guy is going to be at the Ralph on a given sunday and wire tapping his seat. That would be easy to get a FISA order. On the other hand, some enterprising agent might suggest that there are a lot of people going to the Ralph on Sunday to see a game, 75,000 or so. If there were a terrorist there and there could be with so many people there, if we could listen to all the "chatter", the stadium din, and use fancy software to sort through it, we might be able to get the seat number of anyone who says "Muhammed". We could then focus in on that person x and see what he is up to. A google search only the database is a sea of actual conversations going on in a stadium rather than text across the web. FISA, I don't think, would be able to address that because that was not the kind of surveillance Congress wanted to legalize. Its not covered because its illegal was meant to stay that way. I am pretty sure that we wouldn't that kind of seraching or surveillance going on. If the CIA or NSA could listen in to every single private conversation in the United States with perfect accuracy and be able to identify all terrorists cells in the US, if that technology existed, would we want it used? If the technology was really there for big brother to know all and see all, not metaphorically but actually, would we want them to?

From the definitions section of FISA: “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General." Under the FISA provision for emergency orders: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that— (1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and (2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists; he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance." We are not talking about a written certification chock full of facts and details justifying the action. The AG simply has to determine that an emergency exists and if he does, the tap is authorized. You are right in that a field agent can't authorize taps but in an emergency, that isn't really a big issue. If there is any idea that an emergency is afoot such as a pending attack, you go ahead and tap even if it then takes an hour or two to get the AG himself on the phone for him to okay it. If it is an emergency involving the national security of the United States, the AG should and I beleive is, available almost immediately. EVen if he isn't, you could use the DAG or any one serving as "Acting" AG which is anyone appointed as such to cover an absence. Getting the AG, etc, on the horn to say, "okay" shouldn't really take that much time. Don't they need time anyway to put the tap in place? Maybe there is a problem finding someone for 30 minutes or so but that doesn't stop much. They would simply tap anyway and the worst that happens is that they lose the use of the info in court gathered in the first 30 minutes or so before they found the AG. They would still have the info needed to stop the attack. The only reason you would need that info would be because the guy tapped was in fact a terrorist up to no good so I doubt that a conviction would be lost because of that unusable 30 minutes. Our prosecutors would have to be pretty bad if they couldn't get a conviction of a terrorist who was so active that tapping his phone presented an emergency. Besides, with the new detention rules, we could just send the guy to Gitmo without trial anyway. Who needs admissible evidence for a conviction anyway? Stopping attacks and nabbing terrorist doesn't have anything to do with this. All we are really talking about is admissibility in court and even that, provided they have a hot line established to the AG, the DAG or Acting AG, it shouldn't be an issue outside of a "24" episode. If the AG and the DAG don't like being on call 24-7, they need to get another job.

Wrong. Outstandingly wrong. I was talking about a different provision apart from the 72 hour emergency provision you are referring to. Addressing that provision, under the emergency provision, the AG certifies the tap and then they have 72 hours to listen in while they are gettig their application for the warrant from the FISA court. The tap has to end when they get the info they were looking for, the application to for the warrant is denied or within 72 hours of the AG's certification, whichever is earliest. Of course, if the warrant is granted, they can continue listening in. The only time the info is not allowed in court is when the tap was not ultimately approved by the court. When that happens, it means that the court decided that the the AG's certification was bogus. As we know, the court approves the all applications at about a 99.5% clip. So bottom line, the info is allowed in court if it was in fact a bad guy they were tapping as the AG certified when he started the emergency tap. Here are the provisions: "In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial..." and: "If the United States district court pursuant to subsection (f) of this section determines that the surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, it shall, in accordance with the requirements of law, suppress the evidence which was unlawfully obtained or derived from electronic surveillance of the aggrieved person or otherwise grant the motion of the aggrieved person. If the court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized and conducted, it shall deny the motion of the aggrieved person except to the extent that due process requires discovery or disclosure." The law authorizes a 72 hour emergency tap and use of the evidence thereby obtained as long as, when the application is ultimately heard by the court, the order is, after the fact, granted. Thus, such info would be "lawfully authorized and conducted" and as a result, admissible in court. Quite apart from the emergency orders is the provision which allows them to tap a guy for a whole year with extensions available simply by notifying some big wigs and the court. You know, even if your friend was right and he isn't, your argument isn't that the taps were legal, just that they were justified albeit illegal. Its what OJ's attorneys might have called the "they needed killing" defense.

Forget the Fourth then, what about FISA? By its own terms, I think it absolutely applies. By its own terms, it allows the warrantless taps I described. Many who defend this thing, do so by arguing its outcome, nabbing terrorists. Since that is the standard they are using, that is how I approach it with them by asking the question over and over, why couldn't the same terrorists be nabbed under FISA which allows them to tap their proverbial warrantless fannies off? That is usually when they stop replying.

There was no oversight by democrat and republican representatives alike, not even close. A handful were informed of the program and told it was classified so that if they breathed a word of it, they were comitting treason. They were not shown who was being tapped, no details, nada, zip, zero. Sorry, this is the same lot that told us all about WMD's, I'm not trusting my constitutional rights to their promises. Please tell me why it is that the ability to tap anyone they want for up to a whole year for the low, low price of simply informing a few congressional big wigs and the FISA court is not enough? Really, if this were a democrat doing this, the impeachment hearing would be in their tenth week by now.

Congress is stupid, no doubt. But you have to give some razz to the administration, not like they handled it very well. That is, I think, the kind of thing you and CTM have been harping on right? Incompetent.

I beleive you owe me a beer bib. My prediction on the port deal: "It is as dead as my dream to one day become a judge....of the Miss Porn USA pageant. Seriously, I haven't the foggiest idea as to what economic and security issues are at stake here. Politically though, if you have Charles Schumer and Bill Frist both against it and a lame duck Prez who is getting lamer by the second, where else can this possibly go but into the "nevermind" bin? The administration has bigger fish to fry so they are not going to hitch their wagons to this lead balloon." Your prediction: "I say the "deal" goes through." Instead of a beer I'll take a year's subscription to Smithsonian. Care to hear my prediction on today's SU-Uconn game?

The port thing came up like last week or something. The failures RK was listing are a lot older than that. Unless the port thing is so bad it is powerful enough to create a warp in the space time continuum, reverse time and destroy our image in Europe, the middle east and elsewhere 3 years ago, then it hasn't done anything besides make the situation worse. Is the ports fiasco what caused Abu Ghraib? Is the ports fiasco what casued Bush to announce a crusade? Is the ports fiasco responsible for the WMD shim-sham? Is the ports fiasco responsible for failing to end the insugency/civil war/daily blood bath in Iraq? I don't know if you think the Bush foreign policy has been a smashing success, an abject failure or something in between but whatever it is, it is not the fault of the port deal or, as it now appears, undeal.

Its like Jewish only better.

You posed the question about why people would be more concerned about ports than airlines, silly me, I thought you were sincerely wondering why people would see them as different and were asking for some help so that you could better understand the criticism. I gave you some suggestions as to why they would think that to consider. I thought that might lead to a discussion of how those concerns could be shown to be unfounded but that isn't what happened. Instead, the next thing I know you have cast me in the role of Mr. anti-Dubai and are throwing "smelly brown people" comments at me. I have no opinion on this issue and in fact, have said that on more than one occasion: here and here Please show me where I was being a hypocrite and why, with a clear record of not having a position on this issue, you are so bent on pretending and misrepresenting that I am against Dubai? My only real concerns here are watching the Republican Party finally display a tiny crack in their otherwise monolithic and mindless unity. That and the one trick pony response of destroying anyone who dares to disagree. They can't simply be wrong, ill-informed or misguided. Nope, they have to be racists looking to smack around some smelly brown people.

A big huzzah for the wonderful job the Bush regime has done. Outstanding.

Yeah, owning a gun is soooooo difficult now-a-days. You conservatives make me laugh, just when I think there is a part of the Constitution they have read beyond the 2nd, they prove me wrong. Well, I guess as long as they aren't bugging gun dealers its okay.

The specifics of one search or another is not really the issue. Whether a given search is reasonable or not isn't, nor should it be, the focus of the debate. It smacks of an outcome determinative standard, ie, the ends justify the means. The question with regard to warrants and reasonableness is who makes that determination? Under the administration's view, the executive does without any meaningful judicial review. Thus what is or is not reasonable, what does and does not require a warrant becomes subject to the whims of one man. If that is "constitutional" then "constitutional" means nothing. As for the specifics of a search, how do you know they are only listening to calls from foreigners to US Citizens? How do you know that they aren't listening to calls to John Q Uscitizen from his cousin Pierre Frenchcitizen about an upcoming family reunion? Because they say they aren't? Is that what passes for safeguarding constitutional rights, a politician's promise not to abuse them? I don't get the idea of defending a program which, on its face is more than arguably illegal without even so much as a whiff of an investigation to see what in the world is actually going on. It reminds me of the old Lets Make a Deal: Tell you what Monty, I'll defend the administration policy behind curtain number 2 though I don't even know what it is using the one-defense-fits-all-excuse: TERRORISTS. What is that old saw about nothing to fear but fear itself?

I thought these arson attacks were supposedly the work of jewsish black anti-christian homosexual democrats. Hmmmph. Go figure.

Infer what you want about others if you will. Your reply was to me, not them, what criticism of the new owners did I make? Oh, you noticed that, good, so don't pretend that I did. Looking or making up reasons like "smelly brown people"? Again, you refer to "people" but your reply was to me. Everyone is scanned, aren't they? I didn't "suppose" the cargo waltzes in, I simply asked you whether everything coming in was scanned. I see, so mocking out the search and destroy character assasination machine that has become the republican party must mean that I'm against the port deal? Not exactly. I'm against tagging anyone who dares to object to the deal as a racist out to get smelly brown people, you know, like you're doing. Let me try your logic. I'm looking for a reason as to why you would start throwing around hysterical ravings about smelly brown people at someone who hasn't even taken a position on the deal. Clearly, the only reason there could possibly be is that your an ****. 621552[/snapback]

I'm trying to understand how it fits in to the "small government is good" ethos. Maybe it's a somtimes in, sometimes out kind of ethos? I think some call it "moral relativism". Apparently being against moral relativism is a relative thing.

oh, don't worry, its just the Fourth Amendment, my mistake. I suggest we reword the Fourth Amendment so that it accurately reflect its new status: "The right [mostly imaginary] of the people [some of them at least] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [mostly], and no Warrants shall issue [except for the ones that are issued], but upon probable cause [or slightest suspicion], supported by Oath or affirmation [not really], and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized [psych!, just kidding]." Where are those strict constructionists when you need them?

It is easy to be on our side now, it isn't costing anyone much. If military force is used against Iran, I don't know if we will keep that "support", such as it is.

Please point out in my post any references to "smelly brown people" or withdraw the accusastion. Please point out in my post where it is that I stated the reverse as you imply. Please point out in my post where it is that I offered criticism of Dubai Ports. You asked why one would worry about ports and not air lines, I offered, "for the sake of argument" some reasons why, none of which you have addressed other than to talk about "smelly brown people". Do you not understand the commonly used phrase "for the sake of arguement"? Please point out where I expressed concern with DP's control of operation in my post as opposed to pointing out how all passengers and bags are scanned individually. How many containers, shipping containers, boxes, bags, whatever, are scanned prior to entry? How many sailors go through metal detectors? How many vessels are searched? You may not see that as a difference with a distinction which is fair enough but to start foaming at the mouth about "smelly brown people" is a bit unhinged. 621093[/snapback]

I was talking about the NSA wiretapping outside of FISA.

The democrats didn't cave. The Senate Select Comm. on this voted on party lines to reject the democratic proposal to investigate the program and instead, passed a ball washing alternative which was directly approved by the White House, apparently proposed by "Senator" Bush. I don't know where that 89-10 figure is coming from, maybe confused with the vote on the new and improved Patriot Act? In short, democrats did what they could but the monolithic, of one brain Republican Reichstagg kept dear leader safe even from inquiry. Yet another example of why we need divided government resulting from the mid-term elections. Why doesn't the President respect the constitution and the other branches of governement? Because he doesn't have to. Thank you Olympia Snow, Mike DeWine and Arlen Specter. I am comforted by the fact that they are oh so concerned and deeply troubled by all the executive power grabbing going on. Not enough to do anything about it you understand but still, they are "troubled". Too bad, the only way any brakes get applied to this administration are if the so called moderate republicans start actually voting differently than the not so moderate republicans. When push comes to shove, they keep reaching for the rubber stamp.

Where are you getting that 89-10 vote figure? The NYT article says that it was a committee vote which, according to Rockefeller was 8-7 on party lines. This was yesterday, did they already vote on it?

For the sake of argument, here is a difference: all bags are scanned before being loaded on a plane, including Emirates Air. Further, all passengers have to go through various detection devices before getting on the plane and thereafter, have to clear customs. Is every cargo container, every vessel, every sailor, etc. scanned prior to entry? I don't think the situations are comparable.