And in this case, he'd be right--for probably the first time.

12/19/2005 7:48:40 PM

god dammit, tv news

yes, it's sad that a plane crashed in miami. you don't know anything else about it. CAN WE PLEASE KEEP INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT?

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2005 10:03:21 PM

Quote :

"that would be cute DG, except the statute also includes definitions for foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, United States persons, etc. and as you might suspect, conspirators against the United States, agents of foreign powers and the like don't qualify as United States persons under those statutory definitions... ---"

show me. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I see no definition of "united states persons" in that code. I'm sure one exists, but I can't find it. For some reason, though, I'd assume that united states citizens count as "united states persons." I'd also bet that you'd have to be a legally proven conspirator to not count, even if being a conspirator makes you a non-united states person

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2005 10:15:58 PM

Look in Section 1801, subpart i:

[edit: tried to fix the formatting, but then realized it wasn't worth the effort ]

(i) ''United States person'' means a citizen of the United
States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as
defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated
association a substantial number of members of which are citizens
of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent
residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United
States, but does not include a corporation or an association
which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this section.

that refers to what you have at the beginning:

(a) ''Foreign power'' means -
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or
not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not
substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign
government or governments to be directed and controlled by such
foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities
in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially
composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign
government or governments.

(b) ''Agent of a foreign power'' means -
(1) any person other than a United States person, who -
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of
a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined
in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages
in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States
contrary to the interests of the United States, when the
circumstances of such person's presence in the United States
indicate that such person may engage in such activities in
the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or
abets any person in the conduct of such activities or
knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such
activities; or
(2) any person who -
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering
activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which
activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal
statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or
network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other
clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such
foreign power, which activities involve or are about to
involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United
States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international
terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor,
for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or
fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or,
while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or
fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of
activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or
knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

(c) ''International terrorism'' means activities that -
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended -
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination
or kidnapping; and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend
national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are
accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or
intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate
or seek asylum.

---

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: I'd also bet that you'd have to be a legally proven conspirator to not count, even if being a conspirator makes you a non-united states person"

I do admire the logic here though. gg. Reno-ian "terrorism as law enforcement issue" at its finest. You have to prove the conspirator is a conspirator before investigating the conspiracy. Not even a throwaway reference to probable cause or anything like that just to be even-handed with it...

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: By the way, "I haven't seen you or anyone else fairly refute.""

Meaning, of course, that simply because you haven't seen it either no such refutation exists or it just simply can't be done at all (at least not "fairly").

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER? DO YOU SPEAK IT?"

Quite well, thank you. Have you devolved to arguing over semantics again?

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: A couple questions, if you don't mind: 1) Who the fuck is this "you people" you're always referring to and including me with?"

"you people" => flaming kook fringe neo-Communist anti-Bush lefties

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: 2) When have I championed government consolidation?"

Guilt by association. See the answer to 1) above

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: that the problem is the diminishing of the system of checks and balances. The president isn't a dictator, and isn't permitted to circumvent the Constitutionally protected check of the judiciary--or Congress for that matter."

Well that's great, but you're presuming that he's actually done so simply because you don't like it (or him).

Last I checked we have 7 old people in robes to make decisions on questions like that. They don't get referred to the Gamecat Tribunal for adjudication.

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: The plot thickens"

OMF!!1

Quote :

"TGD: W is going down!!1"

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:15 PM. Reason : formatting]

12/19/2005 11:08:00 PM

I'm sorry tgd, but I still don't see your point.

Quote :

"(i) ''United States person'' means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section."

So far, that looks to me like what I said is correct.

Quote :

"(b) ''Agent of a foreign power'' means - (1) any person other than a United States person"

In other words (and again, not a lawyer tim), an "agent of a foreign power" can't be a united states citizen, and a united states citizen can't be an agent of a foreign power. This statute says that IF a person is NOT a united states person, the statute applies to him, and he can be wiretapped without court agreement, IF all of the points of the statute apply to him.

Quote :

"Reno-ian "terrorism as law enforcement issue" at its finest. You have to prove the conspirator is a conspirator before investigating the conspiracy. Not even a throwaway reference to probable cause or anything like that just to be even-handed with it... "

and this is just you being silly. You have to prove the conspirator is a conspirator before you can use the fact that he's a conspirator to make the statute apply to him. If not, and he's a u.s. citizen, aren't you quite plainly acting against the constitution?

Come on tgd, don't let me beat you

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

12/19/2005 11:20:00 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: In other words (and again, not a lawyer tim), an "agent of a foreign power" can't be a united states citizen"

yes we know you're not a lawyer, that's fairly obvious. The part you bolded doesn't say an "agent of a foreign power" can't be a United States person, it says if you are not a United States person you are automatically an "agent of a foreign power".

I'm guessing you missed subsection 2 of the definition...

[edit: oooh even better, let's play the DirtyGreek Game:

Quote :

"(b) ''Agent of a foreign power'' means - (2) any person who -"

]

---

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: Come on tgd, don't let me beat you"

Don't worry, you won't.

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:32 PM. Reason : ---]

12/19/2005 11:30:17 PM

damn, I knew I should have stopped before it got so late. Ok, you beat me on that, I seriously mis-parsed.

Nonetheless, would you not have to prove that a person

Quote :

"A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)."

In order to make it legal to apply this statute to him?

For instance, if the law says that known felons can be wiretapped, wouldn't the person have to be a proven felon? It couldn't just be a suspected felon if the law says known felon, right?

More when I'm more fresh.



[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:41 PM. Reason : m]

12/19/2005 11:37:33 PM

Quote :

"DirtyGreek: Nonetheless, would you not have to prove that a person...[snip]...In order to make it legal to apply this statute to him?"

You're almost thinking like a lawyer there, but the answer is [no]. The statute gets applied to him when the statute gets applied to him, it's no different than any criminal statute getting applied to you when police throw you in jail before you've had a trial.

Whether or not anything can be done with the obtained evidence, or used in a trial, or the details of the practice are acceptable, or the practice itself can continue at all -- that's when the executive branch has to prove all those parts. And that's what happens when the Supreme Court hears cases like this and decides if it's legal, which will likely be done here.

---

On a side note for clarification, I just want to point out this is just 1 statute. I'm sure the true constitutional scholars that get employed by all three branches of the government (and particularly the Article II experts that are usually employed across presidential terms) will cite more than just this statute for justification.

[Edited on December 19, 2005 at 11:46 PM. Reason : clarification]

12/19/2005 11:42:54 PM

oh, i know. i was just arguing what you put in front of me for now. you posted it as though it would prove these actions were legal, so I wanted to argue that. There are probably tons of statutes that could be used to justify this, and some of them might be for real, and these actions might turn out to really be legal.

Whether or not they're RIGHT is another thing, but they might be legal.

seriously. bed now.

12/19/2005 11:49:24 PM

Quote :

"TGD: Meaning, of course, that simply because you haven't seen it either no such refutation exists or it just simply can't be done at all (at least not "fairly")."

All I've seen from you on the matter is the shrill repetition of the phrase "self-aggrandizement," which does not address the substance in the book in any way and is not a rational way to argue.

Quote :

"TGD: Quite well, thank you. Have you devolved to arguing over semantics again?"

By introducing the uncertainty of the prediction in my own phrasing as contrasted with the absolute certainty expressed in yours? Not a devolution at all, at all. You see, we said completely different things. You said only two things could happen; I suggested one was probable, but left room for an infinite range of possibilities besides. Presuming you're privy to some means of forecast not available to me, and obviously superior to my own, I simply requested the use of your crystal ball.

I want to see this crystal ball that tells you in no uncertain terms (i.e. without probabilities) what would or would not happen. Was it the same one that predicted a smashing success in Iraq (with no other possible outcomes, of course)? The shower of flowers and candy on our troops (contrasted with IEDs, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades)? The reconstruction being funded entirely by oil money (instead of our whopping deficit)?

I find it amusing that you'd be uncomfortable with the suggestion of a magical device for predicting the future on the part of the neoconservatives, or even yourself. What else could explain such certainty about the future? Your entire tax-cutting philosophy is based upon it (the growth it creates will CERTAINLY be enough to cover the lost revenue wrought by the reduction in tax rates--head of the GAO's recent assessment be damned). Your Iraq policy was based upon it.

Quote :

"TGD: Well that's great, but you're presuming that he's actually done so simply because you don't like it (or him)."

Where's the presumption? The Attorney General himself describes the fucking circumvention, as did Condoleeza Rice. It's not a presumption when it's clearly outlined by the President's deputies.

Conducting warrantless searches bypasses the judiciary. Plain and simple. This shouldn't be that hard to understand. In fact, it's even a little stupid to be honest. Tim Russert phrased it best "The one question the administration [officials have] to answer is, if they could, in fact, monitor these phone conversations by going to a court or, began monitoring and then within 72 hours go to a court, why didn't they take advantage of the law that was currently on the books? Why did they seek to find legal authority someplace else?"

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 4:20 AM. Reason : ...]

12/20/2005 4:06:38 AM

I think this has been debated before, didnt Nixon try to wiretap people people without warrents? ... though i cant recall what became of his presidency.

12/20/2005 5:29:27 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: All I've seen from you on the matter is the shrill repetition of the phrase "self-aggrandizement," which does not address the substance in the book in any way and is not a rational way to argue."

Why bother repeating myself what others have already said in detail, and which you discard as not sufficiently "fair" anyway?

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: I want to see this crystal ball that tells you in no uncertain terms (i.e. without probabilities) what would or would not happen. Was it the same one that predicted a smashing success in Iraq (with no other possible outcomes, of course)? The shower of flowers and candy on our troops (contrasted with IEDs, mortars, and rocket-propelled grenades)? The reconstruction being funded entirely by oil money (instead of our whopping deficit)?"

Cute. When you're done though, please feel free to point out where I've suggested either of the latter two (we have had a smashing success in Iraq, as much as that threatens your insular worldview).

[edit: I know, I know: "guilt by association". never mind.]

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Your entire tax-cutting philosophy is based upon it (the growth it creates will CERTAINLY be enough to cover the lost revenue wrought by the reduction in tax rates--head of the GAO's recent assessment be damned). Your Iraq policy was based upon it."

Contrasted with your fringe left-wing Keynesian assumptions that X number of dollars would have come in had rates stayed where they were at? Or that Iraq was an undeniable failure before the invasion because "OMF democracy cannot be imposed!!1"? And I'm relying on a crystal ball?

Let's increment the irony counter on that one...

---

Quote :

"Gamecat: Where's the presumption? The Attorney General himself describes the fucking circumvention, as did Condoleeza Rice. It's not a presumption when it's clearly outlined by the President's deputies. Conducting warrantless searches bypasses the judiciary. Plain and simple. This shouldn't be that hard to understand. In fact, it's even a little stupid to be honest."

So, based on your top-notch high-quality legal education at the Gamecat School of Constitutional Law, you're telling me that at no point can any President take any action without pre-clearance from the judicial branch because it would be a prima facie consolidation of executive power bypassing the judiciary.

Well shit that makes perfect sense to me...

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ---]

12/20/2005 9:19:38 AM

Hey TGD:

12/20/2005 12:38:40 PM

Actually, no, under FISA the President can't undertake the specific action that he took without a warrant. Period. Stop trying to expand the debate.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/19/toobin.otsc/index.html

Quote :

"Q: In your opinion is the president on firm legal footing? TOOBIN: I think he is on questionable legal footing because he did not seek court orders, which are easy to get. The key question is why didn't the president go to the FISA court? It's a virtual rubber stamp. The president says he didn't always adhere to FISA because the terror threat is so fast moving and there's no time to wait. But you can actually get a court order from the FISA court retroactively, so it's hard to see what is slowing things down. Also there have been 19,000 court orders approving wiretaps from the FISA court since it started in 1978, and only five have been turned down."

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 1:42 PM. Reason : ...]

12/20/2005 1:35:28 PM

^ I think he can, but he's supposed to go back to the FISA court to inform them, and give reasons why the wiretapping was necessary.... getting the warrant after the fact.

That being said,

Quote :

"“Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”"

--Benjamin Franklin

It's a quote that deserves to be repeated often.

Anyone who defends what the Bush has done is un-American, and should leave this country immediately.

"Well, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is the sickest attitude/argument and supports fascist ideals.

Quote :

"They hate us for our freedoms."

...and so does Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and all of this administration's defenders.

12/21/2005 7:06:09 AM

Apparently the administration is guilty of the exact same spinning TGD accuses Joe Wilson of (NEVER!!1) with regards to Valerie Plame's public persona. Shocker, I know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10575555/from/RS.5/

Quote :

"File bin Laden phone leak under ‘urban myths’ President repeats tale blaming media for aiding terrorism President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device. The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president. But it appears to be an urban myth. The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 — and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time. The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself. Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours. Bush made his assertion at a news conference Monday, in which he defended his authorization of warrantless monitoring of communications between some U.S. citizens and suspected terrorists overseas. He fumed that "the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak." He berated the media for "revealing sources, methods and what we use the information for" and thus helping "the enemy" change its operations. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that the president was referring to an article that appeared in the Washington Times on Aug. 21, 1998, the day after the cruise missile attack, which was launched in retaliation for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa two weeks earlier. The Sept. 11 commission also cited the article as "a leak" that prompted bin Laden to stop using his satellite phone, though it noted that he had added more bodyguards and began moving his sleeping place "frequently and unpredictably" after the missile attack. Two former Clinton administration officials first fingered the Times article in a 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror." Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon wrote that after the "unabashed right-wing newspaper" published the story, bin Laden "stopped using the satellite phone instantly" and "the United States lost its best chance to find him." The article, a profile of bin Laden, buried the information about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as the president alleged. The writer, Martin Sieff, said yesterday that the information about the phone was "already in the public domain" when he wrote the story. [...]"

12/22/2005 3:38:19 PM

If by "us" you mean suspected terrorists then you're right.

12/24/2005 8:36:52 AM

*ahem*

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 - The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials. Alito Wrote on Wiretaps The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said. As part of the program approved by President Bush for domestic surveillance without warrants, the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications, the officials said. "

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html?hp&ex=1135486800&en=7e76956223502390&ei=5094&partner=homepage

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

12/24/2005 9:06:10 AM

anybody with a web browser and internet access can spy on t3h w0lf w3b

12/24/2005 3:36:56 PM

This whole controversy isnt about privacy or the fact that the government can spy on suspected terrorists.

Its about the fact that they are going around the courts.

12/24/2005 3:41:09 PM

eh, two branches, three branches... one and half branches... what's the real difference?

12/24/2005 3:47:04 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010601772.html

in case you didn't see it the first time

Quote :

"A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments."

1/17/2006 1:53:08 PM

Obviously more uninformed graduates of the infamous, daresay prestigious, Gamecat School of Constitutional Law.

1/17/2006 9:14:57 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) today called upon Congress to hold open, substantive oversight hearings examining the President's authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate domestic surveillance requirements outlined in the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law. "When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans' private information," said Barr. "However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans' private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism.""

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=59381

1/18/2006 12:32:20 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 3:54:58 PM

Wha? I'm on the same side as Grover Norquist? Come on, TGD. Tell me how he slipped through our rigorously anti-conservative admissions program at GSCL?

1/18/2006 6:10:06 PM

AT&T gave NSA access to billions of emails and stuff like that

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/us/politics/att-helped-nsa-spy-on-an-array-of-internet-traffic.html

8/16/2015 9:11:26 AM