Mickey

I didn't realize you had responded yet in that thread. I just now had the time to read it and I agree in general that this issue is not so easily divided between criminal and security in reality the way they try to divide it up in the law. The distinction is a neat and clean one on paper but not in the real world. I don't see how that issue, accurate description of a systemic problem though it may be, explains why the provision I pointed out was not good enough or, maybe more accurately, why it is that I don't understand the need for them to have proceeded outside of FISA.

I don't know. I would imagine the STOFTU speech is gone over pretty carefully. I think it was one of those toss offs to make him sound like a moderate, if only for a night. Given the price of gas which has been pretty rough on anyone who has a car or a furnace, a BS statement like that wasn't a bad idea, especially since it is not going to be followed up with any acutal action.

That doesn't really answer the question. Of course ignoring the law renders it useless but that just moves the same question down the road a bit. If the law lets them do what they want, why go around it? Why engineer its demise? Even if that was their goal, and I doubt it was, then that is the arguement that they should make rather than telling us it was necessary inorder to tap terrorists. It wasn't. If their goal is to make the law irrelevant by simply ignoring it and hope that neither the Congress nor the SCOTUS have the balls to take them down for it, fine, that is a battle they will ultimately lose.

Seriously, there has to be a reason or they would have done it all under FISA giving them all the butt coverage they would need no matter what leaked out. What was gained by proceeding outside the broad, broad vistas of FISA?

Here is the text of the FISA section which allows warrantless taps, ie, tapping without a court order. The President and his defenders keep saying that they need to bypass FISA to listen in on terrorists. I agree, we should be listening to the types of calls the President refers to, ie, people talking to AQ in an overseas call. However, FISA allows us to do just that, legally. Thus, the President's claim that he had to do this makes no sense. We can legally tap the crap out of people without a warrant under FISA so why bypass that law? As you can see below, as long as the AG certifies that, basically, it is necessary to do so, we can tap a bad guy without a warrant for a whole year on his say so. All he has to do is certify it to the FISA court. The only potential snag is that he has to certify that there is "no substantial likelihood" that the converstion involves a "US person". However, the law defines "Agents of foreign powers" and "US persons". A person can be both, a US citizen and therefore a "US person" who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power". Such a person, being a foreign agent, loses all the protections of the slightly higher standards needed for tapping a US person. The end result is that the people the Predsident keeps talking about, Americans talking to AQ, can be tapped without a warrant at the discretion of the AG and it is all legal under FISA. Yet, even this wide open, tap anyone you want, provision was too cumbersome? I just don't get it. Why wasn't this enough? If it wasn't, fine, just tell me why. § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that— (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and © the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately. (2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title. (3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless— (A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title. (4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to— (A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and (B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain. The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid. (b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

It absofreakinglutely should. And they can, legally. Under FISA they could tap the crap out of you without a warrant for a whole year. All they had to do to comply with the law would be to notify the FISA court, a few congressional committee heads and have Alberto certify that you are a bad guy. What you say should be done could have been done, easily, and legally under FISA. This isn't about needing a warrant to tap, they can tap without a warrant under FISA utilizing a number of procedures. Arguing that "We have to listen in on bad guys" is pointless, everyone agrees that we have to and that the need for a warrant shouldn't stop us, FISA allows for that by providing numerous legal methods for warrantless taps and even more numerous methods to get an easy-as-pie warrant.

Good catch Pasta. At least they fessed up to it being total BS right away, we didn't need a full blown investigation and Senate hearings. He is such a "straight shooter" isn't he?

Yes, you did say that, in your fifth post in the thread, long after I was critical of your initial post and even before you elevated the debate with your "twit" comment that started our discussion. So yeah, you finally came up with something of substance after 4 insult laced posts. Take a bow. At least you showed that the poster doesn't know where bin laden is though, of course, neither does anyone else from the NSA to the CIA to the Army, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines. If that makes him an idiot deserving of your boorish scorn, he has a lot of company doesn't he?

So, you have never seen an NFL team utilize a player with special talents at different positions on occasion? You must not watch much football.

Yeah, its just plain crazy using a talented CB occasionally at WR. No one has ever,eve , ever (Deion) done that now have they? That is almost as nutty as playing a WR at CB which no one has ever been crazy enough (Troy Brown) to try. Next thing you know, people will be putting in defensive lineman to block on goal line plays (Banaan) or offensive lineman to clog the middle on goal line defense (Williams). This kind of thing is done all the time.

I don't want to ignore the tackles, I just think the priority is in the middle. I don't know that we are going to get a better tackle in the third round than we already have in Gandy and Peters. One of the problems is that with a line this bad, it is hard to determine just where to start fixing it. My vote is for the middle.

I read it, your "opinion" was that he is an idiot with bad grammar. I didn't see much in the way of an explanation as to what exactly was so crazy about wanting to get bin laden or wondering if more troops would be used if he should attack again. I don't see why those sentiments would be controversial let alone stupid. Here is what you said: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to point out exhibit "B" on the failure of American education. I doubt this poster could even LOCATE Afghanistan on a map unassisted, and yet, somehow he's qualified to comment on foreign affairs? We're doomed."

I think there is a littel more to the story though. Warrantless surveillance within the US for national security purposes was found to be unconstitutional in 1972 by the SCOTUS. What Presidents might have done before then is not relevant to what is or is not legal today. It wasn't illegal before 1972. Nothing from that era would be a valid precedent after 1972. A lot of the grey was cleared up then and more so in 1978. Recognizing that surveillance was needed for security and that it was illegal, congress came up with FISA to try and solve the problem. FISA made it all legal once again as long as its pretty minimal safeguards were observed. That is a common misperception of FISA. It wasn't drawn up to trim back surveillance abilities. Quite the contrary. It was drawn up to expand them, to essentially nullify the SCOTUS decision that made that kind of surveillance illegal. The Clinton administration performed some searches without warrants, not taps or surveillance but actual physical searches. Physical searches were not covered by FISA hence, the Clintons were arguing that FISA didn't apply to the searches they performed. They were right, it didn't. FISA was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. That is the situation, I believe, Jamie Gorelick was talking about that you quoted in another thread where we were discussing this. The Clinton's never argued that they had the authority to disregard FISA, FISA didn't cover physical searches. Once it was expanded to cover them, that was it. Clinton never argued that FISA was something he had the inherent authority to disregard. Just because he didn't argue it doesn't mean that the point has no merit. I just don't think that the "other presidents did it" defense is correct as to any pre-1972 or even better, pre-1978 President. If that argument is to have any merit at all, I think he would have to show that a post-1978 President was tapping and searching or whatever in violation of FISA. Maybe I missed it but I don't think he has argued that. I know you are not really defending any of this, just analyzing the debate. For me, I just still don't really get it. My understanding is that if Alberto certifies it is a bad guy or that he has a decent reason for thinking its a bad guy then they can tap them inside the US, outside the US, whatever and can do so without a warrant for a whole year with extensions available. They just have to notify a few people in congress and the FISA Court. Its warrantless, its fast and its legal. They don't have to ask permission, they just have to notify. I have heard a lot of back and forth but I haven't heard any explanation why that was not good enough. I want to tap bad guys as much as anyone and it looks to me that FISA permits exactly that. Why didn't they avail themselves of that very large legal butt coverage?

Why don't you point out for us specifically what was so uneducated, so stupid, about his hoping they get bin ladin and wondering if we will use more troops to get him if he makes another attack. Share with us poor twits and idiots the powers of your awesome intellect. We'll share with you our good manners. Something you were apparently never taught.

Middle pressure also gets to the QB a lot faster, the distance is simply shorter. Edge pressure takes a little more time because the DE has to cover more distance. If your middle holds and the edge doesn't, the QB can step up and buy another second or two. If the middle caves from the git go, the QB has no place to go but into the waiting arms of a DE who is no longer being blocked because the QB has moved so that the blocker is no longer between him and the rusher. Lastly, middle pressure takes away the QB's vision. He can't see the receivers as well. That is not the case with edge pressure. A guy coming from your blind spot at least is not blocking your vision downfield. We have to revamp the middle, totally. The tackles can wait. Peters might be the real deal but even if he isn't, we can make do with him and Gandy if we can improve from guard to guard. Sign Bentley

Preston is a question mark. Maybe he will be good, maybe not. You "build around" proven talent like Bentley not a second year guy with 2 or 3 starts. We know Bentley can play. We have been on the wrong end of what ifs" and "maybes" long enough when it comes to the OL. Leave nothing to chance. Besides, Preston was not able to crack the lineup of one of the worst lines in the league last year. Granted he was a rookie but from what I did see of him, I wasn't impressed at all. I am not at all interested in taking any chances with the offensive line this year. I am sick and tired of watching good skill players getting mauled by unblocked linebackers over and over and over. We tried to do it with young unheraled guys, we tried to do it with a top draft pick, we tried to get it done with a good coach trying to make something of mediocre FA's. It hasn't worked, none of it. The one thing we haven't tried is opening up the checkbook and signing top FA lineman who are proven studs. Bentely, apart from Hutchinson, is the best guy out there.

How can you blame him for not trying something "outside the box"? We had so much to lose.

I bet he would be pretty good at running a reverse now and then.

Yeah but he is able to field kicks so his hands can't be all bad, for a CB anyway.

What "strong attempt" was that? Before we attacked Iraq, I used "Buy a Civic, Save a Marine" as my signature here and I don't know how many times I have advocated here that we need to find a way to energy independence so as to elimenate the problem presented by the world's most important resource being located in the most politically unstable and dangerous region in the world. I can't recall all the hysterical responses I recieved from you righties for that kind of thinking. "Isolationist" comes to mind. "Typical liberal, its all about the oil" was another. Bush goes on TV and talks about it and suddenly its a great idea. "Talk" mind you. He hasn't actually done or made a "strong attempt" at anything.

At least you didn't put it in latin. You'll get the hang of this humor thing yet.

I don't get it. The guy puts up a post that says, simply, hope they get Bin Laden and if they don't, wonder if we will use more troops to try and get him. ...and the response from JSP is that he is an idiot with bad grammar. What, in that post, warranted that response? What did I miss?

No more or less qualified than most of us. Yet we all seem to think that it is somehow okay for us to discuss issues which effect us even if we do not hold PHD's on the subject. Off with our heads.

What would be the reaction of the people of the middle east first, and second, the reaction of their governments to US military action against Iran? What would the blocade do to our own economy and that of our allies? No set up Tom, I would just like to know what you think.

Shhh.......We are invincible.