Mickey

Or there was a reason to proceed as they did that hasn't yet been brought to light. Maybe something having to do with the technology involved or maybe they were tapping people for reasons other than security. We just don't know but that is why I would like to see an independent investigation.

I've speculated along those lines myself. The argument is that FISA compliance was easy and always (99.5%) resulted in a warrant plus there were at least two provisions which permitted tapping without getting a warrant from FISA (72 hour emergency provision and the tapping of non-US persons for a whole year with extensions available). There just seemed to be no need to sidestep the FISA rubber stamp. The argument then proceeds to conclude that since FISA compliance was not too cumbersome to comply with, that FISA compliance was not an obstacle to tapping to get the info needed for security, they must have had a different motivation for going around the law. One motivation for doing so would be to hide tapping of people no one in their right mind would consider to be a legitimate target. That is what this writer is getting at. The only way to know that one way or the other is to find out who was tapped. Until then, it is just speculation.

I think that was a bad decision on their part and I bet that they might start losing columnists who aren't happy having lost the oppotunity for their work to be viewed by 55 million hits per month Who wrote the column you were referencing and can you give us the highlights?

I have to admit that I did see the clip a few times of Specter and Kennedy going at it...and found it entertaining. A guilty pleasure, kind of like watching rollerball.

Do you agree that: 1. Islamic fundamentalists played a crucial role in defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? If so, OBL would agree with you: "We have been tolerant for 10 years in fighting the Soviet Union with our few weapons and we managed to drain their economy. They became history, with God's help." 2. We can't afford to withdraw from Iraq because it would be handing the enemy a victory that would cost us for years to come? If so, OBL would agree with you: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." 3. That by fighting in Iraq, we have created a focal point which draws the enemy out so that we can fight them there instead of here? If so, OBL would agree with you: "...Iraq has become a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources. " 4. Do you agree that AQ attacked England and Spain by setting off bombs in Madrid and London? If so, OBL agrees with you: "The evidence of this is the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition. " 5. Do you believe in the power of the Almighty? If so, OBL would agree with you: "There is no power but in God." 6. Do you agree that the worst thing that could happen to this wretch is for him to be turned in by his own people or captured by us and forced to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and execution? If so, OBL would agree: "I fear to be humiliated or betrayed." Does agreement on one, some or all of these points between you and OBL make you an OBL admirer or budding terrorist? If something is true, it is true regardless of what twisted use is made of that truth by criminals like OBL. If I like a cool glass of ice water now and then and OBL likes ice water too, does that make me a terrorist sympathizer? Am I precluded from disagreeing with the President because OBL disagrees with him? If you are willing to cede indirect control of your political positions to a terrorist, good for you. As for me, I'll make my judgements on my own, regardless of what that freak might say or do.

Doesn't it cost 50 bucks now to read the on-line op-eds?

For those interested, here is the section of FISA permitting warrantless surveillance in an emergency for 72 hours. Maybe I missed it but I think the ability to do this applies even to "US Persons" which is a trigger which usually requires more court involvement elsewhere in the statute. I do no know if this was part of FISA as originally drafted or if it was added in subsequent amendments as FISA has undergone periodic changes over the years. Edit: This section was amended in 2001 to increase the period during which a warrantless emergency tap could be executed before being required to get a FISA court order from 24 hours to 72 hours. (f) 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. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. 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, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

There is no actual statute that really permits those evasions, it is just a strategy used by both sides during confirmation hearings. If the Senate wanted, I think they could find the witness in contempt of the Senate by refusing to answer those questions but since the reasoning makes sense, they aren't going to do that. That really is a different issue though worthy of a separate discussion. I'm sure he wouldn't answer a question as to how he would rule on Congress v. Bush as to illegal wiretaps. Other than that though, there are plenty of relevant discussions that can be had. Citing and discussing the precedents involved would not reveal how he might rule on a possible future case on this NSA warrantless tapping issue. Just going over what the court decided in Smith v. Smith or Jones v. Jones doesn't tell you how he would rule. In any event, since the Senate would never force him to answer a question he has dodged based on the notion that it would be improper due to pending cases he might hear, etc., it really would be up to Alito himself to draw the line on what he would and would not answer. However, if he is never even asked the question, how are we to know? Again, I didn't watch all the hearings so I don't know to what extent, if any, he was asked any questions as to the separation of powers, seeming conflicts between one constitutional provision and another, that sort of thing.

That is part of what they are arguing. It appears to me that their first line of defense on this is that Congress implicitly allowed this in their resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. I haven't had time to research this as much as I normally would. I'm thinking that they need that idea to stick so that the President's war time powers kick in despite the lack of a declaration of war. If what they are apparently arguing as far as the constitution is concerned is correct, then FISA itself is unconstitutional. Clearly, it has never been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS but I can't tell you that they ever had a case challenging its constitutionality and if that is the case, then its plausible that it could be found to be unconstitutional. Without getting into it in detail, I find the notion that FISA is unconstitutional to be pretty iffy. Clearly, the constitution protects against warrantless searches. At least that part is a no brainer. At the same time the President does have certain powers under the Constitution. This would have been a fascinating discussion to have during Alito's confirmation hearings. Did any democrats take time out from grandstanding to ask these kinds of questions? Did the republicans on the committee take time out from slapping him on the back long enough to raise these issues? Did anyone ask and Alito dodge these kinds of questions? I didn't watch them so I dunno.

I was relying on the information contained in your post which I thought said she testified to a committee after Oklahoma City about the need for emergency taps: "She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases". I thought that the provision of FISA which permitted warrantless emergency taps for three days was a Patriot Act Amendment but I could be wrong, there have been a number of amendments. I'll check and get back to you as to when that emergency procedure under FISA became available. Not to muddy the waters but there is also that provision that lets them tap without a warrant for up to a year with extensions for the low, low price of simply notifying the secret court and a few committee heads.

I think trying to understand what anything he says might mean is a pretty iffy propositon. I hope the experts can figure it out, I know I can't. Is this stuff meant for us or is the primary purpose to influence fellow Arabs, the pool from which AQ must recruit all its resources from men to money? I have no idea. I am sure it is important to try glean whatever helpful information there is from these things and I wish those whos job it is to do just that the best of luck.

FISA was amended by the Patriot Act to provide emergency wiretap authority, that procedure wasn't available when Gorelick testified about Okalahoma City. She was right about the need and the issue was thought to have been addressed by the Patriot Act amendments to FISA. Thus, Bush has had authority under FISA to conduct the warrantless taps the Clintion administration wanted. Bush however appears to have proceeded outside the very, very broad confines of FISA. For whatever reason, they did not just simply use the FISA procedure which allows them to conduct emergency warrantless taps and instead proceeded in such a way that may have been illegal. Nobody is arguing that the President should not be able to conduct emergency warrantless taps. That is why FISA allows just that. I am all for that, so are the majority of democrats. That, however, is not what they did that has caused such a ruckus.

As I said: "Very similar to your post claiming that I was excusing democrats from all criticism in response to a post of mine where I was directly critical of democrats. I am still waiting for you to explain that one to me." Still waiting....

Nothing lame about that response at all. Murtha's opinions on the war or whatever are fair game. Frankly, I haven't read up on what he has said on the issue other than to know that he is a conservative democrat who usually supports the President on these kinds of issues who has now been very critical of the war. I couldn't tell you exactly what his ideas are on the war or even if I agree or disagree with him. The personal villification of him, even questioning his marine corps service and commendations is uncalled for no matter what his views. As for Alito, I think if you search my posts (spare yourself the agony and trust me on this) you will find that I have said pretty much nothing about the hearings. I haven't watched them. I did listen to Specter questioning him on the radio on the way home one night and I think I heard a little of Schumer as well. In what I heard, there was nothing personal leveled at him. I'll take your word for it on Kennedy. Whatever he said in the way of personal attacks would be out of bounds in my view and a waste of time, even if the goal is to stop his confirmation. I reached the opinion myself pretty early on that he is going to be confirmed unless he confessed to being a satanist or something at the hearings. That being the case, the hearings held no interest for me. I suspected that the Senators all knew he was going to be confirmed as well so they were just going to use the air time and attention for their own reasons. I saw a skit on the Daily Show mocking out how long they were talking without actually asking a question. I think that is what happens when confirmation is a foregone conclusion, no need for them to ask any questions in that case so they just turn it into a long photo op for themselves. What were the worst questions or charges levelled at them that you recall? Give me the high/low lights.

You always did prefer to make up positions for me that I haven't taken and then criticize me for them. At least you're now doing it openly, inventing my responses for me before I have made them. Very similar to your post claiming that I was excusing democrats from all criticism in response to a post of mine where I was directly critical of democrats. I am still waiting for you to explain that one to me. Can I invent, er...., I mean "pre-empt" your response for you?

See? I give and I give and I give.

I think my neck just snapped trying to stick with the subject change. I am no fan of Biden, when he speaks, I usually bury my head in my hands and take to muttering something about how in the @$@#$ a guy could get to be a Senator and not be able to formulate a coherent thought and translate it in to words, sentences, something decipherable. Its not so much his position on this or that issue, its just that he just doesn't make sense, even when he is making a simple point he butchers it to pieces. All that being said, I honestly thought that the whole bin laden cell phone thing was a well known urban myth by now. I've heard it in many forms now but this was a new one, blaming it on Biden. Never heard that variation before. I don't mean to be attacking you or anything, it was repeated by even the 9/11 commission but they were unaware that the info had appeared in numerous sources long before the Washington Times article. The Washington Times is, I believe, owned by the Rev. Moon and is as conservative as it gets. I would like nothing better than to tag that conservative screech sheet with a national security screw up, the bigger the better. I just don't think the facts warrant that.

If I don't at least try to prove or disprove something, anything, once each hour, I get jittery.

Half my family is crazy about birds, inside and out. I don't get it. The racket they make, bird seed everywhere, on and on. Same with fish tanks. I don't get it. All that bother to watch an extremely bored fish swim back and forth from one end of the tank to the other. If that fish could manage it, he'd hang himself.

Isn't the cell phone thing an urban myth? Myth Is that what you mean or is this a different story? The use of satellite phones by Bin Laden first surfaced in 1996 and came from the Taliban no less. The same information appeared in various sources on a number of occasions. On August 20, 1998, Clinton launched the cruise missile attack that almost got the bastard. He stopped using the phone after that. The articles about the cell phone most often cited (Washington Times) as publishing the "leak" came out the day after the attacks. Hardly a leak though since the info had been around since 1996. The Washington Times report didn't even say anyone was listening in, that particular info didn't surface until September of 1998 in a Los Angeles Times article and that was long after he stopped using his cell phone.

I have a six year old in a catholic school and boy, they still harp on the penmanship. Some things never change.

Aha! I knew you were the type to keep little birdies. Like it or not, justified or not, there is no question that it is a widely read, influential paper and quite a lot of people do take it seriously.

He is from South Dakota and you don't get elected there if you are a liberal extremist and he won a few elections there, not his last one of course. I have a hard time thinking that a guy who lost his Senate seat as the majority leader could be a good presidential candidate.

Very clear. Your opinion is that a paper that has won 90 Pulitizer Prizes, that has a widely viewed web site (555 Million page views in the month of March of 2005 alone) and that has 1.1 million daily subscribers and 1.6 million sunday subscribers is not being taken seriously by anyone. I guess people just really like the crossword puzzles.

Also, "New York Times" is spelled differently than "Cybercast News Service". I would have thought that the differences between the two would be obvious enough but I guess we better not leave it to chance.