To clarify the "just turning down 5":
-The court rejected/deferred 6 wiretap requests in 2003/2004, the first time in the history of the court that they rejected *any*.
-In the first 22 years of the court, only 2 of 13,000 wiretap orders were modified by the court.
-Since 2001, 179 of 5,600 requests by the Bush administration were modified.
Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/na...tml?
source=mypi
Interestingly, one of those rejected was not merely rejected. The court destroyed the career of an up and coming FBI star by saying he had lied to the court. Further, they stated that they would not entertain any requests for warrants where this agent had any connection to the investigation at all. Hardly seems correct to do on a case by case basis.
This had a chilling effect on the FBI. If you recall, an FBI agent had sent a report to Washington about Mousawi, who apparently only wanted to learn how to fly (but not take off of land) a plane. His report was forwarded to Washington, where they entertained the idea of approaching the FISA court to get a warrant. However, the beauracrat in Washington, knowing how the former FBI agent had been skewered, didn't make the request, our of fear of being reamed.
Oh, and nice use of language DB. I, and I'm pretty sure the others, never said that Bush administration was "immune to all forms of error and corruption"
But hey, if you need to spin things in order to get your point across, go for it. Just don't expect us to be blindly led.
Oh, and nice use of language DB. I, and I'm pretty sure the others, never said that Bush administration was "immune to all forms of error and corruption"
I never said you said it. I think that's what you, more or less, believe (am I wrong?) but I never put the words in your mouth.
To clarify the "just turning down 5":
My source is the NY Times article (link provided in the post)
You are a mechutzaf plain and simple.
While I don't want to get into the sandbox again, I will point out one thing.
First, why is he so certain that the abolishment of civil liberties is "temporary?" Does he have a guarantee from the president that he'll go back to respecting the constitution once the war on
"terra" is over? Is it notarized? Can we see it?
If history is any guide, then they are temporary.
Civil War- Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus.
World War 1- Congress passes the Espionage Act of 1917, upheld by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States.
World War 2- FDR's interment of the Japanese upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States.
You can argue that what was done in these prior situations was wrong, but even if they were wrong, they were still temporary.
DB:
You "forget" that two of the 9-11 hijackers' belongings and phones were not searched nor tapped because a warrent was denied. Had this law been in fource years ago, 9-11 would not have happened.
that is utter non-sense. if you remember they already HAD the intellegance needed to stop it. bush didn't anyway.
Dovber: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/...h-
mccarthy.html
I'm just wondering how you reconcile your advocacy of "One community, one shul" specifically because it fosters respect for differently-minded Jews with your disrespect for Rabbi Feldman.
Yes, you disagree with him. So do I, on this issue, and others.
But someone such as yourself who was willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to Yasser Arafat (you attributed the intifada to Netanyahu's alleged intransigence, and I quote, "We'll never know" what Arafat would have done if Netanyahu had acted differently) might want to see if he can find it in his heart to assume that perhaps Rabbi Feldman has something to his credit other than hypocrisy.
modernchassidish, this gets back to the discussion a few posts back on the level of protection for any sort of criminal.
that is utter non-sense. if you remember they already HAD the intellegance needed to stop it. bush didn't anyway.
That was utter nonsense. Now you're blaming Bush for 9/11?!
DB, nobody has ever said the Bush administration doesn't have its faults. They're just not the ones you tend to focus on. I've written a number of times about the issues I have with the administration.
Second: I have no idea what Feldman said, but I am under the firm belief that what the President did was legal (and notice the quick dying down of the claims it was not).
Third: The points CWY made about suspension of liberties are spot on. So are Moishe Potemkin's on Feldman.
Fourth: You can't pretend that there is no threat facing our nation today, and the fact that a case like Korematsu could even go to the Supreme Court shows just how strong our country's liberties are. I'm really not concerned that the US will turn into the ACLU's pathetic scare-tactic ad.
I never said you said it. I think that's what you, more or less, believe (am I wrong?) but I never put the words in your mouth.
Very wrong. I have many issues with the administration. But you focus on those which I'm more or less supportive of the administration. Additionally, playing devil's advocate to your arguments is often a fun-filled exercise.
I am a gullible, mindless sheep who deservers neither liberty nor security
I am a gullible, mindless sheep who deservers neither liberty nor security
Mr. Frumteens
LOL
"that is utter non-sense. if you remember they already HAD the intellegance needed to stop it. bush didn't anyway."
WRONG:
According to pre-patriot act law wiretaps and searches for terror groups was unlawful if the evidence is mere affilation or words. This is the reason two judges denied warents for 2 hijackers. This is also the reason the governmet made swift changes they recognized that Clinton's law that he signed that helped terrorist must be reversed.
for more information talk to steve emerson author of the book "Jihad in America".
It seems to me that our Bush defenders can't keep their "facts" straight- one says that the FBI didn't seek warrants for the 9/11 hijackers because they were afraid one might be denied, and the other says warrants actually were denied.
The latter story seems to me to be almost certainly untrue. The story cited by Romach says that until Bush, the FISA court NEVER, NOT ONCE, denied a search warrant, and modified a search warrant only a few times. In the last three years, the FISA court has been slightly less passive- but even then, they modified only 179 requests out of 5600 - less than 4% of all requests.
Ezzie's claim that "what the President did was legal" is probably wrong.
http://
www.concurringopinions.co...urveillanc.html
But unlike DB, he did isolate the key issue: it is not just a nebulous matter of "civil liberties" but a matter of the rule of law. Either the President willfully broke the law, or he just exploited an ambiguity.
If the latter, Congress should clarify the law to either allow or prohibit what the President did.
But if the former, its time for another impeachment.
Woodrow:
Even according to you who claims that a warrnet was never requested, you know that then it was illegal to conduct surveillance on those who are part of a terror group on basis of rhetoric alone. The fact is law enforcement had their hands tied. Our laws did not protect Americans. Now, our privacy is a small cost when the benifit is the survival of millions of americans. It is a trade-off that one makes not because onm does not value privacy but because life is the most precious thing we have.
Woah, Woodrow. Your statement creates a false choice. (What's that term DB uses?! Oy I forget.)
There are actually 4.
1) The President acted legally.
2) The President acted illegally, but was under the impression that it was legal.
3) The President acted illegally, knowingly.
4) The President acted in a fashion that is unable to be determined in regards to its legality (as of now).
Personally, I feel it is #1, though it is certainly possible it's a combination of 4 & 2 - unable to be determined, and the President was advised by his legal team that it was legal. But I will be back soon with some links that say it was legal, including the most important one.
The US Department of Justice responded to the NSA issue with a letter backing President Bush's assertions that the wiretapping was legal and necessary. It's a fascinating read.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to look for the others now. But this is the best one anyway.
What I want to know is if they bother to teach spelling anymore. Oy, so many mistakes.
The DOJ letter was indeed fascinating- but only because it was so deranged.
The argument is: Congress authorized the President to make war. Therefore, the Congress authorized the President to wiretap Americans.
Wiretapping does not constitute the "use of force". So the DOJ's claim is ridiculous, and is evidence that the President really has no real legal arguments on this side (at least on the statutory issue; he may have a valid argument that the government didn't violate the Constitution).
If Congress intended to give the President unlimited wiretapping authority when it authorized him to drive out the Taliban, it wouldn't have bothered to pass the Patriot Act (which is primarily about wiretapping).
"I think those of you (Chaim, Ezzie, Bloghd, Naphtuli, TobyKatz, YaakovMenken, CWY, Heshy, Lkwdguy, Dude,"
Great post, DB.
It's fascinating how the great majority of OJ's so easily fall into line behind an authoritarian government, and no new breach or intrusion into their lives can ever raise their hackles.
Would those named above please explain why FBI agent after agent have testified that they were called off by ranking Bush Administration members whenever they got close to Saudis taking suspicious flight school training?
Would you explain why the Bush administration gives the Saudi government a free pass in the war on terror, despite their role as the financiers of islamic terror and madrassas worldwide?
Does it outrage you that our Executive branch outed a CIA spy just because her husband demonstrated their lies about yellowcake in Nigeria?
Hmm. It almost seems like you've been trained to respond as you do- to act against your own self interest, so long as you follow the leader. Sickening.
"If history is any guide, then they are temporary."
History is NO guide at all, since Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (aka Nixon II) have said this will go on for the "foreseeable future."
However, I will allow that there is going to be such a huge backlash against the venality of the Bush administration, that you might see a reversal of power and hopefully amidst whatever new kinds of corruption that will bring from the democratic side, at least they will roll back some of NIxon II's more dastardly practices (lying to promote the war, having gov't paid soviet-style propagandists writing "editorials", rigging the Diebold voting machines, retaliating against whistleblowers while coddling Saudis and even Hamas!
Dovy, may I say, I admire your categorization of certain Jews as "ghetto-dwellers". Yet, for all intents and purposes, you appear to be the one constantly feeling under siege, as if the "ghetto" walls are fast closing in. Whether you are afraid of the advent of Christmas or spying, something is always wrong in dovy-land, and the goyim are out to GET us. Pleeaaasse, relax, take a breath and take a stroll outside your walls.
I'm just wondering how you reconcile your advocacy of "One community, one shul" specifically because it fosters respect for differently-minded Jews with your disrespect for Rabbi Feldman.
Moishe, I don't speak about Rabbi Feldman anymore harshly than say, the Ramban spoke about the Ibn Ezra. There's no reason to be delicate when you strongly disagree. Furthermore, calling someone a "hypocrite" isnt very disrespectful. It's a word with a specific meaning that applies in our case.
It's fascinating how the great majority of OJ's so easily fall into line behind an authoritarian government, and no new breach or intrusion into their lives can ever raise their hackles.
It's not just OJs. I once attended Shabbos services at a large Conservative Shul in Baltimore during the '90's and heard a sermon by the head rabbi, one Joel Zaiman, a very big wheel in the Rabbinical Assmebly, who put out the "ticking time bomb" defense of toutre. It sort of surprised me, becuase from all previous indications, I had thought that Rabbi Zaiman was a pretty liberal guy. I also suspect that if the people doing the torturing were some latin American, Asian, or eastern European secret police rather than the Massad, Rabbi Zaiman might not have been so supportive of torture. But his remarks passed without mention, because this was the 1990's and nobody thought that American would be in such a position.
But then, why shoudl this surpise us. Until we Jews moved to democratic countries and were able to escape from under the thumb of the rabbis and parnossim, Judaism was a pretty authoritarian religion, and Orthodox Judaism retians a good bit of that facistic heritage.
I don't see why so many people are giving the President such a free ride on this. There are laws in place. He intentionally ordered people to break the law. That's illegal. You can argue all you want about suspention or changing of the law, but that doesn't change the fact that the CURRENT law was broken. No free rides for criminals, as I am sure the President and many other Republicans (who I am sure can't be happy about this either) would agree.
No free rides for criminals
After all, Mr. Bush's predecessor lied under oath about a blowjob and was impeached for it.
I don't see why so many people are giving the President such a free ride on this.
Maybe because it's very possible that no laws were actually broken. Or maybe it's because no one actually knows if any laws were broken.
By "no one actually knows" I mean people who actually are experts in this field, unlike you, me, and everyone else who comments on this blog.
After all, Mr. Bush's predecessor lied under oath about a blowjob and was impeached for it.
Exactly- there was clearly a crime committed. Here, it's not so clear.
Exactly- there was clearly a crime committed. Here, it's not so clear.
The crime, please recall, was purjury, and that was after Ken Star spent millions and millions chasing ghosts.
Also, please recall that the Senate found the president INNOCENT.
Not the GOP's best moment.
Agreed. The issue though, was there clear evidence of a crime, not if he should have been impeached for it. And there was.
Also, please recall that the Senate found the president INNOCENT.
Not the GOP's best moment.
Granted, though it's clear he was in fact guilty of perjury.
Back to this case, people who speak as if it is fact that the President broke laws, or more specifically, intentionally ordered people to break the law, need to get their facts straight. The Justice Department (as noted above) felt it was legal, as did Clinton's Associate Attorney General, as have many other law experts. I've yet to hear a non-partisan expert say it was illegal, so if someone could find me one I'd love to read it.
"The court destroyed the career of an up and coming FBI star by saying he had lied to the court. Further, they stated that they would not entertain any requests for warrants where this agent had any connection to the investigation at all."
Roamch, the court destroyed the agent's career -- or the agent destroyed his own career by lying to the court? Why should the court entertain cases in which this liar was involved?
I think you nicely reflect the Bush administration's expectation that they should be able to do anything they want and then lie to us the public and indeed to anybody they choose with impunity, sans souci. Wasn't there a time when the GOP herd plodded behind a banner with INDIVIDUAL REPSONSIBILITY on it? As much as the "up and coming FBI star[!]," our down-and-going President needs to be held responsible for choosing to break the law.
Furthermore, calling someone a "hypocrite" isnt very disrespectful. It's a word with a specific meaning that applies in our case.
I disagree with both of these statements, and I suspect that you do as well.
What term, by the way, would you apply to someone who supports politicians that advocate gun control, while railing loudly and incessantly against Senor Bush's compromising of Americans' liberty in the interests of security?
May I say, I find it fascinating listening to people quoting from editorial pages whining about the legality, or lack thereof, on the subject of wiretapping. There is really little worse then watching s/o ramble on regarding a topic of which he has no connection to. The only person actually saying s/t of worth would, I hate to say, Ezzie, b/c he's pointing out facts. Not knee-jerking.
There is really little worse then watching s/o ramble on regarding a topic of which he has no connection to.
Nice to see I am not suffering in silence.
In DB's world, the war on terror was invented so the NSA can read our e-mail. 'Cause Bush is really interested in what DB has to say to the alt.Harry_Potter newsgroup.
I disagree with both of these statements, and I suspect that you do as well.
No I don't. I stand by what I wrote.
I don't think the word "hypocrite" is disrespectful, given the cicum. and furthermore, I don't understand why we're making such a fetish of respect. Arguments are what matter. Nothing else.
In DB's world, the war on terror was invented so the NSA can read our e-mail. 'Cause Bush is really interested in what DB has to say to the alt.Harry_Potter newsgroup.
I see. So the 4th ammendment isn't important in your world. Glad to hear it.
R2J could you perhaps explain why it is you are so blase about the fourth?
'Cause Bush is really interested in what DB has to say to the alt.Harry_Potter newsgroup.
I see. So the 4th ammendment isn't important in your world. Glad to hear it.
Please explain how the 4th Amendment prohibits the NSA wiretapping scheme. I'd love to hear this, given how the Supreme Court has modified this amendment in so many different ways over the 70-80 years.
So the 4th ammendment isn't important in your world. Glad to hear it.
DB, we all think that your adoption of "liberty" rhetoric is adorable, but it is so blatantly obvious that liberals assumed this mantle only for electoral politics. Where were you when property and second amendment rights were gutted?
The government's appropriation of my property is a far more threat to my liberty than an NSA program that targeted 1,000 out of 300,000,000 people in this country. Oh, and that had congressional oversight.
When did you become so concerned about the Fourth Amendment? Sometime in November 2000? My bad, it was only after September 2001. Liberals are for liberty like Communism was for equality.
Arguments are what matter. Nothing else
So let's hear them. We've stated ours, including my link to the Justice Department.
I await someone's explanation on how the NSA's wiretapping violates the 4th Amendment.
CWY-
You're not going to pull that whole "I actually know the law" card that DB hates, are you?
Anyone who knows anything knows that the Fourth Amendment means whatever Kos and Nancy Pelosi want it to mean.
Heh. Where's Romach? We've got CWY, Nephtuli, R2JB, and myself waiting for arguments... 
I even sharpened my pencils.
Romach took a trip to the promised land.
Orrin Kerr here argues that the wiretap program is constitutional, but probably violates FISA. There is so much on this that it would take a day to read everything.
I'm having trouble following the discussion and I just finished taking a course that spent half the semester on the 4th Amendment.
DB, we all think that your adoption of "liberty" rhetoric is adorable, but it is so blatantly obvious that liberals assumed this mantle only for electoral politics. Where were you when property and second amendment rights were gutted?
Property rights were most recently gutted by the Renquist court. Remember the New Haven decision? And the second ammendment HASN'T been gutted - not in this country, anyway. Even the war on terror president permitted the ban on AK47's to lapse. (that's right: Bush will bug Americans for the cause of freedom but he won't take away their Ak47s.)
Ezzie, you haven't said anything resembling an argument. Don't flatter yourself.
Property rights were most recently gutted by the Renquist court. Remember the New Haven decision? And the second ammendment HASN'T been gutted - not in this country, anyway. Even the war on terror president permitted the ban on AK47's to lapse. (that's right: Bush will bug Americans for the cause of freedom but he won't take away their Ak47s.)
Let's see if we can pick the peanuts from the poop on this one.
First, property rights were rendered a joke through the New Deal and the Great Society. Kyllo is just the icing on the fascist cake. Again, the government constantly infringes my property rights through wealth redistribution programs, while I have yet to be eminent domained out of my residence.
Second, you should realize that the second amendment is the ultimate guarantee of freedom.
Ezzie, you haven't said anything resembling an argument. Don't flatter yourself.
Clearly, you're not reading.
"Even the war on terror president permitted the ban on AK47's to lapse."
I was wondering- how is W planning on declaring martial law to hold office at the end of this term with all the guns floating around in this country? I suppose quarrantine via bird flu should keep the polls locked up for a few extra months or years...
that scenario is only slightly paranoid considering this administration, btw...
DovB- I've had an idea bouncing around in my head recently. I think it would make a perfect post on your site:
Do a list of fallacious positions taken by the Bush admin- just juxtapose a "principle" they claim to uphold and then put the antithetical policy they provide.
Here's a start:
1. Too many frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. Solution: cap damages at $250k- that way anyone who is horribly injured will get far less than the jury would have awarded, while the frivolous case will never get anywhere near $250k
2. Doctors are being driven out of practice by jacked up malpractice insurance. Solution: Don't tell the HMO's to stop cutting fees and making docs run around like chickens with their heads cut off, commiting malpractice left and right. No, just make it more profitable to insure the docs for other insurers.
3. "We want to promote democracy in the world."
Solution: Undermine the press by paying propagandists to publish "editorials."
Solution: Make onerous voting laws requiring driver's licenses and have votes counted by Republican zealot-owned computer company (Diebold).
Solution: Patriot Act passed legistlative branch without being *read.*
Solution: Increase wire taps with no judicial checks and balances.
Soution: Squash anyone in the FBI/CIA who blows the whistle (or is married to anyone who blows the whistle) on our crooked war plans.
4. Compassionate Conservatism: Solution: Give billions in tax breaks to profiteering oil co's while cutting medicaid/college aid programs.
Solution: Spend $1billion per week on "rebuilding Iraq" (thanks Halliburton and Bechtel and Carlyle Group) while cutting programs at home and cutting programs at home.
5. You're either with us or you're with the Terrorists: Solutions: Use Condi Rice to force Israel to gice Gaza to Hamas; then force Israel to allow delections of terrorist groups Fatah and hamas to divide up the booty and receive tons more in EU and US aid.
Anyway, you get the point. You could refine this to a razor's edge and there is clearly no shortage of venality in this administration. Presented this way, you won't get bogged down in tit for tat, since it's so obvious what's going on.
Oh, here's one more:
Create a bill called "The Consumer Protection Act"- Solution provided- Saves mega corp Citibank and other loan shark predatory lenders from writing off bad debt they essentially were charging for with the 24% interest rates.
Make it nearly impossible to declare bankruptcy for the very poor, and thus get a fresh start.
Make bankruptcy attorneys *personally liable* for their clients' debts and attorneys' fees so as to jack up the rates insurance companies will charge to insure the attorneys and/or scare them away from representing consumers anymore. Now these attorneys won't be able to "practice their love on their clients."
Make people give up their homestead to pay off ultra high interest credit cards- after all Citibank only had $110,000,000 in revenues last year- they're hurtin' bad!
"Make people give up their homestead to pay off ultra high interest credit cards- after all Citibank only had $110,000,000 in revenues last year- they're hurtin' bad!"
Sorry, that's $110,000,000,000 in revenues in 2004!
absolute poker com absolute poker com absolute poker com. poker card game rule poker card game rule poker card game rule.
12 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
