Wire Taps Revisited

[ndebord]

A whistle blower says that AT&T allowed the NSA to monitor phone and internet traffic directly.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html?tw=wn_index_13


"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."

[Judy G. Russell]

Sigh... you know, what really irks me about all this is that it's been essentially ineffective. If it had worked, can you imagine how many prosecutions we would have?

Sigh...

[ndebord]

Sigh... you know, what really irks me about all this is that it's been essentially ineffective. If it had worked, can you imagine how many prosecutions we would have?

Sigh...

Judy,

Ineffectual is the term I would use. I'd be very happy if I were to learn a decade down the pipe that some black ops took out some terrorists, but I suspect instead that some innocent citizens or foreigners on visa or green card will have been unconstitutionally and wrongly targeted.

[Judy G. Russell]

I suspect instead that some innocent citizens or foreigners on visa or green card will have been unconstitutionally and wrongly targeted.I do a lot more than suspect that...

[ndebord]

I do a lot more than suspect that...

Judy,

I certainly hope you are wrong. As an aside, I was watching Prof. Milller (Fooled Again author) on CSpan the other day and wondered anew about electronic voting machines. He is a bit of a nut (my first impression without knowing anything really about the man), but his assertions, if true, mean voting machines as we know them now are useless for accurately counting votes.

[Judy G. Russell]

Those electronic voting machines scare the #$%$# outta me. The fact that there's no paper trail -- none -- is baaaaaad news.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Those electronic voting machines scare the #$%$# outta me. The fact that there's no paper trail -- none -- is baaaaaad news.
The one I used last week showed me my vote on a "cash register" style paper tape under a plexiglas window, and if I didn't like what I saw I was supposed to call over a poll worker to void my vote and start over. The paper tape stays inside the machine.

[Judy G. Russell]

The one I used last week showed me my vote on a "cash register" style paper tape under a plexiglas window, and if I didn't like what I saw I was supposed to call over a poll worker to void my vote and start over. The paper tape stays inside the machine.Now that I could go for. The ones here in NJ simply show you green Xs and when you have them where you want them, you push the VOTE button. No record at all that I can see.

[Lindsey]

Now that I could go for.
Yeah, that's the goal: to have machines like that in ALL jurisdictions. But too many officials buy into the idea that it's just too expensive. Billions of dollars we'll spend to try to force democracy on Iraq, but heaven forbid we should have to spend anything to support the democratic process at home. :mad:

The ones here in NJ simply show you green Xs and when you have them where you want them, you push the VOTE button. No record at all that I can see.
Same in Henrico County. Virginia doesn't have a statewide standard, I don't believe.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

too many officials buy into the idea that it's just too expensive. Billions of dollars we'll spend to try to force democracy on Iraq, but heaven forbid we should have to spend anything to support the democratic process at home.Oh... you mean as in "returning citizens to Louisiana so they can VOTE" type democracy? We don't do that kind of democracy.

[Mike]

I'm registered as a permanent absentee voter. That means I receive a paper ballot in the mail about three weeks before election day, and I mark and return it before that day.

Being a permanent absentee is offered to anyone in this county (perhaps the state?)... no hardship required.

[ndebord]

The one I used last week showed me my vote on a "cash register" style paper tape under a plexiglas window, and if I didn't like what I saw I was supposed to call over a poll worker to void my vote and start over. The paper tape stays inside the machine.

Dan,

That sounds good, I'm afraid I don't know enough to say if it is an accurate record or yet another electronic method that can be "fixed." Do you know who manufactures it?

[ndebord]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/14319042.htm

Attorneys for AT&T have asked a federal judge to order a San Francisco civil liberties group to return ``highly confidential'' documents that allegedly show that the telecommunications giant provided detailed records of millions of its customers to a government intelligence agency.

All I could think of when I read this was an old nursey rhyme.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

Do you know who manufactures it?

I'm afraid I didn't notice. It features a color video monitor and "tocuh screen" that you touch to vote, and that line changes color as visual feedback. Lots of "Are you sures" and "Press here to submits".

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't know if it's a matter of federal law now, but here in NJ as well, anybody can vote by absentee ballot regardless of reason.

[Judy G. Russell]

I hafta confess, I'm not all that terribly concerned about the data mining. That's pretty much an automated process where all they're looking for, via whatever software they're using, is patterns. I understand that they then link those patterns to specific individuals, but I can understand the reasons for it. But the access to specific conversations / communications without a warrant? No. That's wrong.

[Lindsey]

Oh... you mean as in "returning citizens to Louisiana so they can VOTE" type democracy? We don't do that kind of democracy.
They don't even want to set up satellite polling stations outside Louisiana so that the exiles can use those to vote. We'll set 'em up all over the world for Iraqis, but not even in a neighboring state for our own citizens. Let 'em use the mail, they say. But I heard a feature on the news just the other day about a Crescent City exile who has had to change addresses four times since he left NOLA, but his mail only followed him through the first two changes. Now he's getting mail intended for the owner (original? current? I'm not sure) of the house in California where I guess he was living at one time, and the guy in California is getting his.

But the authorities insist that mail-in absentee ballots are sufficient. Right.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I'm registered as a permanent absentee voter. That means I receive a paper ballot in the mail about three weeks before election day, and I mark and return it before that day.

Being a permanent absentee is offered to anyone in this county (perhaps the state?)... no hardship required.
No such option in Virginia. Absentee ballots only allowed in cases of hardship, and to be on permanent absentee status, you have to be permanently disabled. I think even then you have to renew the status every so many years.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I hafta confess, I'm not all that terribly concerned about the data mining.
Oh, I am. Camel's nose in the tent. So long as I behave within the law, I should be able to live my life without worrying about a machine singling me out for special scrutiny because I somehow don't fit the normal pattern.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I should be able to live my life without worrying about a machine singling me out for special scrutiny because I somehow don't fit the normal pattern.This is more a matter of singling someone out for special scrutiny because they do fit a specific abnormal pattern.

[Judy G. Russell]

But the authorities insist that mail-in absentee ballots are sufficient. Right.It is so frustrating. A couple of my cousins have been caught up in this and are just about ready to throw in the towel. FEMA has been a joke, and this is about the last straw.

[Lindsey]

This is more a matter of singling someone out for special scrutiny because they do fit a specific abnormal pattern.
That's what I mean; so long as I am not engaging in illegal activity, I shouldn't have to worry that a book that I buy, or a trip that I take, or an e-mail that I send is going to be viewed as "abnormal" and trigger the FBI into doing warrantless snooping. This is what I was talking about some time back, when I quoted Jeffrey Rosen -- well, heck, I'll quote him again:

Where did I get the title for this book, The Unwanted Gaze? It comes from a lovely doctrine in Jewish law which deals with the law of what happens when your neighbor puts a window over your common courtyard and starts to observe you. And it's this doctrine called hezzek re'iyyah, which means "the injury caused by seeing," or "the injury caused by being seen." This is a beautiful doctrine, because American law doesn't have a good notion of the indignity that occurs from being seen, because we think in terms of property all the time; you can't break into my house to get my diaries. [This was obviously pre-"PATRIOT" Act. :( ] Jewish law says that when your neighbor puts up the window over the common courtyard, you can not only enjoin him from gazing at you, but you can order that the window be taken down, because it's the uncertainty about whether or not we're being observed that inhibits us and prevents us from acting freely in private places and causes us to lead more constricted lives. It's the uncertainty about whether or not we are being observed that changes the character of our existence.
It amounts to a loss of the sense of freedom, which is one of the most precious aspects of actually being a free person.

BTW, Rosen's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to the FBI's Carnivore program is here (http://www.iwar.org.uk/sigint/resources/senate/06-08-00-carnivore/962000_jr.htm).

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

It is so frustrating. A couple of my cousins have been caught up in this and are just about ready to throw in the towel. FEMA has been a joke, and this is about the last straw.
Talk about a joke and the last straw: Believe it or not, St. Bernard Parish is considering hiring Michael Brown as a consultant to help them negotiate the federal bureaucracy and expedite recovery.

No, this did not come from The Onion: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3777313.html

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

This is more a matter of singling someone out for special scrutiny because they do fit a specific abnormal pattern.
Oh! I just remembered. A recent issue of the New Yorker had a very interesting article by Malcolm Gladwell on the problems involved in profiling: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

I do a lot more than suspect that...

Judy,

If this ain't enough to turn your stomach, this from Gonzales.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/04/07/MNGNGI4S9J1.DTL

Gonzales says more, not less warrantless wiretaps are in order.

[rlohmann]

A strange and rather ill thought-out article, bulging with straw men (and dogs).

Profiling, except by occasional Keystone Kops, doesn't work the way Gladwell thinks it does. He gets it right when he points out that most terrorists are young men of Middle-Eastern or South-Asian origins. Then, however he trots out his straw men, essentially accusing those engaged in profiling of proceeding on the assumption that "all are [insert disparaging adjective]." Using that as a point of departure, he cites examples of individual instances in which that assumption was clearly invalid. He then smugly declares victory over the forces of stupidity.

His arguments are unconvincing. The real substance of profiling proceeds from the awareness that law-enforcement resources are finite. On that basis, it makes sense to devote those limited resources toward the individuals and groups more likely to be engaged in evildoing.

This recognizes the real-world possibility that the 80-year-old white woman boarding the aircraft is a suicide bomber, but with those limited law-enforcement resources, you can only play the odds. Doing that compels diverting those resources away from that woman and toward the 30-year-old man with the Pakistani passport. If the profilers are wrong, the woman blows up the aircraft. However, [I]it is more likely than not that the man is the bad guy.

The entire focus of profiling is a "more-likely-than not" approach; the application of resources based on statistical probabilities. It may be that individual pit bulls are good with children and mailmen. However, I would rather not be the child or the mailman charged with the task of verifying that characteristic.

Gladwell's approach is to demonstrate that generalities can be wrong. Indeed, they can be. However, his use of lists of individual exceptions to statistical likelihoods reflect either a failure to understand the process or some undisclosed private agenda.

[ndebord]

A strange and rather ill thought-out article, bulging with straw men (and dogs).

Profiling, except by occasional Keystone Kops, doesn't work the way Gladwell thinks it does.

...Gladwell's approach is to demonstrate that generalities can be wrong. Indeed, they can be. However, his use of lists of individual exceptions to statistical likelihoods reflect either a failure to understand the process or some undisclosed private agenda.

Ralph,

Couldn't agree more. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Profile the sucker.

[Judy G. Russell]

Talk about going from the frying pan into the fire...

[Judy G. Russell]

Gonzales has long been known to have no regard for any limits on executive power.

[Judy G. Russell]

I understand. It just doesn't bother me the same way the warrantless interception of conversations and communications does.

[Lindsey]

I understand. It just doesn't bother me the same way the warrantless interception of conversations and communications does.
Well, sure, warrantless interception of electronic communications is a more blatant violation of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to overlook less blatant, but still harmful, violations.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The real substance of profiling proceeds from the awareness that law-enforcement resources are finite. On that basis, it makes sense to devote those limited resources toward the individuals and groups more likely to be engaged in evildoing.
You obviously missed the point of the article, which was that current profiling techniques usually don't do that very effectively and therefore waste finite resources.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

I guess the civilized states now allow it.

<gdr from Lindsey>

[Judy G. Russell]

<gdr from Lindsey>She knows where you live...

[Judy G. Russell]

that doesn't mean that I am willing to overlook less blatant, but still harmful, violations.I hear you. I just don't see the two as equivalent.

[Lindsey]

I guess the civilized states now allow it.
Actually, in this case, I would agree with you!

Absentee ballots are something that need to be handled carefully, because they have a higher potential for fraud than ballots cast at the polling place, but I strongly suspect that in this case, the real reasons behind restricting absentee ballots are (1) to suppress turnout of the "wrong" people (the ones who work double shifts and can't afford to take time off) relative to the "right" people (who get paid vacations and can make their own hours); and (2) we've always done it that way.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I hear you. I just don't see the two as equivalent.
No, I wasn't saying they were equivalent. Although -- a threat to liberty that is not so conspicuous may be all the greater for its lack of visibility, because it lulls people into acceptance, and you only later realize that you have gone much farther down the road of ubiquitous scrutiny than you ever intended.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

And yet, I've never seen her here.

Besides, I've moved. Yeah, it's only one block, but who wants to figure out which building? <g>

[Judy G. Russell]

I've moved. Yeah, it's only one block, but who wants to figure out which building?All she has to do is wait til you come out to that truck you're describing!

[Judy G. Russell]

The problem of lulling people into acceptance I agree with 100%, and I'm afraid the wireless wiretapping is the result. You con them into thinking you need vast powers (ala the "Patriot" Act) and then anything after that is measured against that.

[ndebord]

The problem of lulling people into acceptance I agree with 100%, and I'm afraid the wireless wiretapping is the result. You con them into thinking you need vast powers (ala the "Patriot" Act) and then anything after that is measured against that.


Judy,

Of course, the other shoe is dropping as there are unproven allegations now that AT&T had other "stealth" wiretapping rooms at other internet centers in different parts of the country. And the question remains unanswered. IF AT&T is doing this, what about other communication companies?

[Judy G. Russell]

IF AT&T is doing this, what about other communication companies?My guess is, they all are.

[Mike]

D'oh!

[ndebord]

My guess is, they all are.

Judy,

D.C. Appeals Court Judge calls the Government's wiretapping policy "Gobbledygook!"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060506/tc_cmp/187200892

[Judy G. Russell]

The stupid thing about this is that this Congress would amend the wiretapping statute in a heartbeat to ensure that it covers Internet phone service. But this business of simply having the executive announce that the law should cover something is getting very old...

[ndebord]

The stupid thing about this is that this Congress would amend the wiretapping statute in a heartbeat to ensure that it covers Internet phone service. But this business of simply having the executive announce that the law should cover something is getting very old...-)

Judy,

This "executive" you're talking about. That would be "The Decider" otherwise known as the "unitary" power all of D.C., no? Although it is getting old, through his cadre of neocons (or neo-Leninist, if you prefer) this President has been promulgating a major war to make our Government unitary: from an unprecedented number of executive orders, to outright usurption of laws he either refuses to enforce or disregards, this is a President like no other.

;-)

[Judy G. Russell]

this is a President like no other.That, as my sister-in-law would say, is a True Fact.

[ndebord]

The stupid thing about this is that this Congress would amend the wiretapping statute in a heartbeat to ensure that it covers Internet phone service. But this business of simply having the executive announce that the law should cover something is getting very old...

Judy,

Today's story in USA Today and other revelations make it clear to me that we are being monitored on all forms of electronic communication.

AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the NSA program shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

"Everything that NSA does is lawful and very carefully done," Hayden said while making rounds at the Capitol to advocate for his confirmation. "The appropriate members of the Congress - the House and Senate - are briefed on all NSA activities."

"It's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont (the top ranking Democract on the Senate Judiciary Committee).

Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, said, "The NSA stands for Now Spying on Americans."

One big telecommunications company, Qwest Communications International Inc., has refused to turn over records to the program, USA Today said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

If the National Security Agency is indeed amassing a colossal database of Americans' phone records, one way to use all that information is in ``social network analysis,'' a data-mining method that aims to expose previously invisible connections among people, according to a story in the Mercury News.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/14556430.htm

P.S. URL through Yahoo for USA Today

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/nsahasmassivedatabaseofamericansphonecalls;_ylt=Ag U5Tfeq5hIbILyqLmp0PY.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBH NlYwN0bQ--

[Lindsey]

"Everything that NSA does is lawful and very carefully done," Hayden said while making rounds at the Capitol to advocate for his confirmation. "The appropriate members of the Congress - the House and Senate - are briefed on all NSA activities."
They may say that everything is lawful, but they refuse to let anyone else evaluate the case to come to a judgement on that question. I guess you noticed that the Justice Department decided to drop the investigation they were trying to conduct on warrantless wiretapping because the NSA refused to grant investigators the necessary clearance.

And I've got news for General Hayden: briefing selected members of Congress doesn't cut it. It's the WHOLE Congress that is supposed to oversee that sort of activity.

It gives me cold chills to think that we're stuck with these people for almost another 3 years. I'm not sure we'll have a republic left when they're done with it. And I"m not kidding about that.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

They may say that everything is lawful, but they refuse to let anyone else evaluate the case to come to a judgement on that question. I guess you noticed that the Justice Department decided to drop the investigation they were trying to conduct on warrantless wiretapping because the NSA refused to grant investigators the necessary clearance.

And I've got news for General Hayden: briefing selected members of Congress doesn't cut it. It's the WHOLE Congress that is supposed to oversee that sort of activity.

It gives me cold chills to think that we're stuck with these people for almost another 3 years. I'm not sure we'll have a republic left when they're done with it. And I"m not kidding about that.

--Lindsey


Lindsey,

Not that I expected anything from the Justice Department. It's like sending the Fox to protect the henhouse. <sigh>

If they don't "DIebold" the November election, the polls look promising for the Democrats. Would be nice to have a check and balance government once again.

[Lindsey]

Not that I expected anything from the Justice Department. It's like sending the Fox to protect the henhouse. <sigh>
Not everyone in the Justice Department is a political hack. Patrick Fitzgerald, after all, is part of the US Justice Department. There are career employees in Justice who care about following the law, but unless Congress supports them, there's not much they can do if others in the administration decide to erect a stone wall.

If they don't "DIebold" the November election, the polls look promising for the Democrats. Would be nice to have a check and balance government once again.
I'm not counting on anything. The deck is stacked against the Democrats, and it will take an overwhelming sweep at the polls to eek out a turnover in Congress.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Not everyone in the Justice Department is a political hack. Patrick Fitzgerald, after all, is part of the US Justice Department. There are career employees in Justice who care about following the law, but unless Congress supports them, there's not much they can do if others in the administration decide to erect a stone wall.


I'm not counting on anything. The deck is stacked against the Democrats, and it will take an overwhelming sweep at the polls to eek out a turnover in Congress.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

When I say the Justice Department, I mean the leadership, not the rank and file which, as you note, have done yeoman work over the years.

And I agree the deck is stacked, but I sure hope the Dems can win back at least one house of Congress.

[Judy G. Russell]

The fact is that it is lawful under federal law to collect telephone records. It is creepy and just plain flat out dead wrong to do it on this scale aimed against ordinary Americans, but it is lawful.

[ndebord]

The fact is that it is lawful under federal law to collect telephone records. It is creepy and just plain flat out dead wrong to do it on this scale aimed against ordinary Americans, but it is lawful.

Judy,

I don't pretend to understand the technology on this, but from what I hear, they use the data to see "patterns" of connections. The idea that it is just phone numbers is a bit of a canard, as they have not said whether or not when they identify patterns (or even when they haven't) what they do with the numbers. Since the NSA talks to all the other military intelligence agencies, the FBI and the CIA, it is real easy for them to plug in a phone number and come up with your life history, even in my legacy latop, much less the firmware and software they have available to do their snooping with.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm not trying to address the question of what they do with that data. But the federal caselaw has long held that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed or even the length of the conversations. For that reason, a warrant or wiretap order has never been required for a pen register (which records numbers called and length of conversations). See e.g. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001) ("it is not a search for the police to use a pen register at the phone company to determine what numbers were dialed in a private home"); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (use of a pen register to record phone numbers dialed infringed no reasonable expectation of privacy).

[Lindsey]

When I say the Justice Department, I mean the leadership, not the rank and file which, as you note, have done yeoman work over the years.
Agreed that there are/were people in the top echelons (Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, not to mention John Ashcroft) who seem to have no concept of what the Constitution is all about. (Ashcroft, to his credit, did ultimately recuse himself from the investigation of the outing of Valerie Plame and named Patrick Fitzgerald to take it over.)

And I agree the deck is stacked, but I sure hope the Dems can win back at least one house of Congress.
I hope so, too -- I think the long-term well-being of the country depends on it. But I've been disappointed too many times in the recent past to allow myself to count on it.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The fact is that it is lawful under federal law to collect telephone records. It is creepy and just plain flat out dead wrong to do it on this scale aimed against ordinary Americans, but it is lawful.
And yet, as I understand the way the law reads, the customers of the telephone companies may have grounds for a civil penalty (minimum $1000 per incident) against the phone companies who turned over the data without a valid subpoena or court order.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Update: from what I understood on the News Hour on PBS this evening (and I admit that my attention was divided), those court decisions you spoke of predate the legislation that make it illegal for telephone companies to turn over their records without a valid order from a court. That legislation was passed because Congress was not pleased with the Court's interpretation that people should have no expectation of privacy in the duration or destination of their telephone calls, and they wanted to put some barriers up in the way of the government obtaining that information.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

There may indeed be civil penalties, but it is not unconstitutional, not an unlawful search or seizure. A fine line, I know, but not as fine as some this Administration has drawn.

[ndebord]

There may indeed be civil penalties, but it is not unconstitutional, not an unlawful search or seizure. A fine line, I know, but not as fine as some this Administration has drawn.

Judy,

Well, this from Qwest via the NYTimes.

"The telecommunications company Qwest turned down requests by the National Security Agency for private telephone records because it concluded that doing so would violate federal privacy laws, a lawyer for the telephone company's former chief executive said today."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12cnd-phone.html?ex=1305086400&en=16b1c1d512d1d04b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Judy G. Russell]

A pair of NJ civil liberties lawyers have filed suit against Verizon on this. I hope they win. The penalties are $1000 per person, and I could use an extra $1000...

[ndebord]

A pair of NJ civil liberties lawyers have filed suit against Verizon on this. I hope they win. The penalties are $1000 per person, and I could use an extra $1000...

Judy,

Class Action??? Where do I sign up!

[Lindsey]

There may indeed be civil penalties, but it is not unconstitutional, not an unlawful search or seizure. A fine line, I know, but not as fine as some this Administration has drawn.
Not a constitutional violation, no. But there does appear to be liability attached.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

A pair of NJ civil liberties lawyers have filed suit against Verizon on this. I hope they win. The penalties are $1000 per person, and I could use an extra $1000...
Same here!!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I somehow suspect the courts will find a way not to attach that liability. Probably by allowing the Bush Administration to assert the state secrets privilege (as it has done more than all previous administrations combined).

[Lindsey]

I somehow suspect the courts will find a way not to attach that liability. Probably by allowing the Bush Administration to assert the state secrets privilege (as it has done more than all previous administrations combined).
Is there a state secrets privilege written into the current legislation? I don't see one in the Constitution, and I think the so-called "original intent" advocates would have to turn their interpretive theory on its head to find one.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Is there a state secrets privilege written into the current legislation? I don't see one in the Constitution, and I think the so-called "original intent" advocates would have to turn their interpretive theory on its head to find one.It's a common law privilege (meaning recognized by judges in case law). Not statutory or constitutional.

[Jeff]

A pair of NJ civil liberties lawyers have filed suit against Verizon on this. I hope they win. The penalties are $1000 per person, and I could use an extra $1000...

So could I but I have Quest. This is something like a mother-in-law, a new car, and a cliff.

- Jeff

[Judy G. Russell]

So could I but I have Quest. This is something like a mother-in-law, a new car, and a cliff.ROFL!!! Yeah, frankly, between you and me, I'd rather have Quest and privacy than Verizon and a company that will willy-nilly hand over my personal records without even a subpoena.

[Lindsey]

It's a common law privilege (meaning recognized by judges in case law). Not statutory or constitutional.
Oh, I see. So the statute would be more solid in that respect if it, like FISA, specifically stated that it defined the only means by which that information could be legally obtained. Not that even FISA's specific provisions kept the Bushies from deciding they were entitled to do an end-run around it. :mad:

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

ROFL!!! Yeah, frankly, between you and me, I'd rather have Quest and privacy than Verizon and a company that will willy-nilly hand over my personal records without even a subpoena.

Judy,

It gets better. Using statutes enacted in the Privacy Act, the Administration has directed the FBI to tap ABC news reporters' phones.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ross_tells_Schultz_ABC_knew_of_0515.html

[Lindsey]

It gets better. Using statutes enacted in the Privacy Act, the Administration has directed the FBI to tap ABC news reporters' phones.
I think you mean the so-called PATRIOT Act, not the Privacy Act.

Don't I remember that Dubya said should trust him never to misuse those powers? (Hmmmm, or did he maybe say "misabuse" in a brilliant stroke of dyslexical plausible deniability....?)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

That particular article is "down" but I don't think they're actually tapping reporters' phones, but rather gathering information about who the reporters called and who called them. There's a constitutional difference.

What astounds me about this whole business is that this Administration insists that what it's doing everywhere is perfectly legal and then fights tooth and nail to ensure that nobody ever gets enough information to challenge what it's doing in a court of law. It spends untold resources to find out who might be leaking information about its actions, and will move its conduct outside of American borders to shield it from judicial review (Guantanemo, secret prisons etc.), and will even do whatever it can to destroy its critics (can we say "Joe Wilson", boys and girls?)...

Frightening.

[ndebord]

That particular article is "down" but I don't think they're actually tapping reporters' phones, but rather gathering information about who the reporters called and who called them. There's a constitutional difference.

What astounds me about this whole business is that this Administration insists that what it's doing everywhere is perfectly legal and then fights tooth and nail to ensure that nobody ever gets enough information to challenge what it's doing in a court of law. It spends untold resources to find out who might be leaking information about its actions, and will move its conduct outside of American borders to shield it from judicial review (Guantanemo, secret prisons etc.), and will even do whatever it can to destroy its critics (can we say "Joe Wilson", boys and girls?)...

Frightening.

Judy,

The FBI has always had the reputation of illegal wiretapping. I somehow think that if they believe an ABC reporter is talking to someone in the Pentagon or the CIA or NSA or wherever, that they're actually listening in on the conversation. Do I have proof? Only if history is a guide. And a strong sense of smell.

[ndebord]

I think you mean the so-called PATRIOT Act, not the Privacy Act.

Don't I remember that Dubya said should trust him never to misuse those powers? (Hmmmm, or did he maybe say "misabuse" in a brilliant stroke of dyslexical plausible deniability....?)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Yup. I did mean Patriot. My fingers typed what I really wanted out of our good government. As Dubya, a silver spoon fratboy with delusions of grandeur and a longing to wield power like his namesake (George III).

[Judy G. Russell]

Don't believe everything you read about wiretapping being common. It's very labor-intensive and there are lots of fairly serious penalties if you get caught. And when you can get 90% of what you need by data-mining, you leave the wiretapping for the last (legal) step before you nail soembody.

[ndebord]

Don't believe everything you read about wiretapping being common. It's very labor-intensive and there are lots of fairly serious penalties if you get caught. And when you can get 90% of what you need by data-mining, you leave the wiretapping for the last (legal) step before you nail soembody.

Judy,

Well, yes and no. Things happen in war and I remember how the 2 "Outfits" fought each other during the 50s and 60s (I speak of course of the CIA and the Chicago Mob).

[Judy G. Russell]

Things happen in war and I remember how the 2 "Outfits" fought each other during the 50s and 60s (I speak of course of the CIA and the Chicago Mob).That was a truly different era. These days the issue of going to jail personally for violating the law might deter even the biggest cowboy.

[ndebord]

That was a truly different era. These days the issue of going to jail personally for violating the law might deter even the biggest cowboy.

Judy,

Perhaps. I'd be surprised if the leopards can change their spots though.

[ndebord]

What astounds me about this whole business is that this Administration insists that what it's doing everywhere is perfectly legal and then fights tooth and nail to ensure that nobody ever gets enough information to challenge what it's doing in a court of law. It spends untold resources to find out who might be leaking information about its actions, and will move its conduct outside of American borders to shield it from judicial review (Guantanemo, secret prisons etc.), and will even do whatever it can to destroy its critics (can we say "Joe Wilson", boys and girls?)...

Frightening.


Judy,

One of the tools the NSA uses to monitor traffic on the Net.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70914-0.html?tw=wn_index_3


"Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record, we can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls," said Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California, company.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'd be surprised if the leopards can change their spots though.Oh the leopards haven't changed their spots. It's just that there are (somewhat at least) better cages...

[Judy G. Russell]

Technologically, there's very little (if anything) standing between us and Big Brother.

[Lindsey]

Technologically, there's very little (if anything) standing between us and Big Brother.
Which is why we need vigorous enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. And why it is disturbing that the right wing is determined to stack the courts with judges who have no problem with tearing it down.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Which is why we need vigorous enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. And why it is disturbing that the right wing is determined to stack the courts with judges who have no problem with tearing it down.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

An interesting aside on the NSA and illegal spying.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-nsa517,0,5970724.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

"The National Security Agency developed a pilot program in the late 1990s that would have enabled it to gather and analyze massive amounts of communications data without running afoul of privacy laws."

[Judy G. Russell]

Which is why we need vigorous enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. And why it is disturbing that the right wing is determined to stack the courts with judges who have no problem with tearing it down.I find it absolutely amazing that the so-called right wing -- so-called conservatives -- the people who claim that their fundamental political philosophy is that government governs best when it governs least -- aren't up in arms and screaming about what this administration has done.

[Lindsey]

"The National Security Agency developed a pilot program in the late 1990s that would have enabled it to gather and analyze massive amounts of communications data without running afoul of privacy laws."
Yeah, I read about that in both Salon.com and Josh Marshall's blog this morning. I was neutral on Hayden pryor to seeing that revelation. Now I see he's no different from most of the rest of Bush's appointees.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I find it absolutely amazing that the so-called right wing -- so-called conservatives -- the people who claim that their fundamental political philosophy is that government governs best when it governs least -- aren't up in arms and screaming about what this administration has done.
Some of them are. More of them should be. But I suppose you could say that Bush is in the process of separating the true conservatives from the power-grabbing opportunists (of which he is one).

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yeah, I read about that in both Salon.com and Josh Marshall's blog this morning. I was neutral on Hayden pryor to seeing that revelation. Now I see he's no different from most of the rest of Bush's appointees.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

When I said that Hayden was a spit and polish General, I was not being complimentary.

[ndebord]

Technologically, there's very little (if anything) standing between us and Big Brother.


Judy,

I would add that ethically, little stands between us and Big Brother. This from today's Senate Hearings with the good general.

Hayden equated the 1978 congressional legislation that set up special courts to provide warrants in national-security wiretapping cases with George W. Bush's 2001 secret executive order that stated that such legal niceties were irrelevant in the war on terror. As Hayden put it, "The way I describe it, Senator, is I had two lawful programs in front of me." [I believe I get this clip from Salon, but can't remember right now.]

[Judy G. Russell]

That really capsulizes the problem of having the military in charge. The military role, as our brothers Ralph and Earle, keep reminding us, is merely to follow orders, not to debate policy. So when he gets an order (secret, unreviewable, no matter) to do something no law clearly authorizes, well, heck, he was just following orders...

[Judy G. Russell]

I suppose you could say that Bush is in the process of separating the true conservatives from the power-grabbing opportunists (of which he is one).We shall see... (Not whether he is one or not, of course he is; but whether the true conservatives see him for what he is and pull away.)

[ndebord]

That really capsulizes the problem of having the military in charge. The military role, as our brothers Ralph and Earle, keep reminding us, is merely to follow orders, not to debate policy. So when he gets an order (secret, unreviewable, no matter) to do something no law clearly authorizes, well, heck, he was just following orders...

Judy,

Where have we heard that one before...

(you have to understand the way I am, Mein Herr, a tiger is a tiger not a lamb, Mein Heir...)

[Lindsey]

When I said that Hayden was a spit and polish General, I was not being complimentary.
I misapprehended what it was he was polishing. ;)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Hayden equated the 1978 congressional legislation that set up special courts to provide warrants in national-security wiretapping cases with George W. Bush's 2001 secret executive order that stated that such legal niceties were irrelevant in the war on terror.
Hayden keeps reminding people that he is not a lawyer, but it's still rather alarming that he sees no difference between a program set up by legislation passed in the Constitutionally mandated manner and a program set up by an executive order that specifically countermanded the requirements of the legislatively approved program and was kept secret even from all but a handful of members of the Congress. It doesn't take legal training to perceive a world of difference between those two things.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

We shall see... (Not whether he is one or not, of course he is; but whether the true conservatives see him for what he is and pull away.)
We can but hope...

Actually, I think the signs are that the true conservatives DO see him for what he is, but the real question is whether enough of them will have the courage of their convictions.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

the real question is whether enough of them will have the courage of their convictions.If they did, they wouldn't have voted for him in 2004...

[Lindsey]

If they did, they wouldn't have voted for him in 2004...
I'm hoping they were just temporarily blinded...

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Hayden keeps reminding people that he is not a lawyer, but it's still rather alarming that he sees no difference between a program set up by legislation passed in the Constitutionally mandated manner and a program set up by an executive order that specifically countermanded the requirements of the legislatively approved program and was kept secret even from all but a handful of members of the Congress. It doesn't take legal training to perceive a world of difference between those two things.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Not quite an aside. This from C|NET

"U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller on Friday urged telecommunications officials to record their customers' Internet activities, CNET News.com has learned."

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6077654.html

[Lindsey]

"U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller on Friday urged telecommunications officials to record their customers' Internet activities, CNET News.com has learned."
These guys are truly scary. I was hoping the reports of their threats to resign if they were forced to return the material from William Jefferson's office were true, and that Bush would take them up on it. Not that I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that would happen...

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

These guys are truly scary. I was hoping the reports of their threats to resign if they were forced to return the material from William Jefferson's office were true, and that Bush would take them up on it. Not that I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that would happen...

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Nah. None of these guys who aspire to be judicial sages (Gonzales, Addinton, Yoo) are going anywhere. They own the sandbox and are busily overthrowing precedent and the rule of law to be replaced by their view of the unitary executive. I just keep on looking over my shoulder and I watch them with the preemptive war doctrine, domestic spying on citizens, refusal to honor habeas corpus, signing papers, torture or rendition as it is politely called, secret prisions, overthrow of the UCMJ, etc., etc. and I think of Carl Schmitt who said in 1934, "All law is derived from the people's right to existence. Every state law, every judgment of the courts, contains only so much justice, as it derives from this source. The content and the scope of his action, is determined only by the Leader himself."

[Lindsey]

They own the sandbox and are busily overthrowing precedent and the rule of law to be replaced by their view of the unitary executive.
Precisely what makes them so scary. But I think you're right they're not about to walk, whatever threats they might make along that line. (Frankly, it would really surprise me to find they had that much sense of principle, though the threat sounds more like a 5-year-old's threatening to hold his breath to get his way.)

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Precisely what makes them so scary. But I think you're right they're not about to walk, whatever threats they might make along that line. (Frankly, it would really surprise me to find they had that much sense of principle, though the threat sounds more like a 5-year-old's threatening to hold his breath to get his way.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Au Contraire. I think they have a great and focused sense of principle. Just one that contradicts or perhaps wants to outlaw the Enlightenment.

[Lindsey]

Au Contraire. I think they have a great and focused sense of principle. Just one that contradicts or perhaps wants to outlaw the Enlightenment.
No. Principled people have the humility to doubt themselves once in a while. Not these guys.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

No. Principled people have the humility to doubt themselves once in a while. Not these guys.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Dogs and Cats really. Principled people vs people with a principle, albeit one not in touch with the concept of democracy.

[Lindsey]

Principled people vs people with a principle
Hmmmm, interesting thought; I'll have to mull over that a bit. But people with a mission, certainly.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Hmmmm, interesting thought; I'll have to mull over that a bit. But people with a mission, certainly.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Perhaps I was being too cute for words there, but I'll buy people with a mission. I was reading through the Federalist Society's principles and looking at just how many of them are directly connected to GWB and Dick Cheney and how some of them have read Schmitt's writings and I begin to sweat about just how much of his "Führerprinzip" principle is echoed in their espousal of absolute executive power.

[Lindsey]

I have said for some time that I was concerned about the number of Federalist Society adherents that were being inducted into the various posts of this administration.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

I have said for some time that I was concerned about the number of Federalist Society adherents that were being inducted into the various posts of this administration.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

And so you have. I was asleep at the switch and so I just looked at the Federalist Papers and realized that this so-called "Federalist Society" is in many ways the antithesis of the original.

<sigh>

[Lindsey]

. . .and realized that this so-called "Federalist Society" is in many ways the antithesis of the original.
That's certainly my take on it! Was it you who said, or did I read it somewhere else, that they originally were going to call it the anti-Federalist Society, but decided that name wouldn't go over too well with the general public.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

That's certainly my take on it! Was it you who said, or did I read it somewhere else, that they originally were going to call it the anti-Federalist Society, but decided that name wouldn't go over too well with the general public.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Wasn't me, although now that you mention it, I vaguely recall such a post too. Anyhow, what a group.

[ndebord]

A whistle blower says that AT&T allowed the NSA to monitor phone and internet traffic directly.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html?tw=wn_index_13


"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."


Everyone,

This from Crooks & Liars:

Jack Cafferty: "Anyone involved in the current secret NSA spying program without a court order would be given blanket amnesty... Why would they need amnesty if what they are doing is legal?"

[Lindsey]

Why would they need amnesty if what they are doing is legal?"
What, you expect the arguments to be consistent? You know this crowd just throws out justifications until they find one that resonates. Truth and consistency have nothing to do with it.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Precisely what makes them so scary. But I think you're right they're not about to walk, whatever threats they might make along that line. (Frankly, it would really surprise me to find they had that much sense of principle, though the threat sounds more like a 5-year-old's threatening to hold his breath to get his way.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Exactly: five-year-old is the official definition of a Frat Boy, silver spoon baby.

[ndebord]

Technologically, there's very little (if anything) standing between us and Big Brother.

Judy,

Well there is always hope from the hackers. In the realm of unintended consequences (of wiretapping illegally)!

http://www.telecomasia.net/telecomasia/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=335262

"ITAA [Information Technology Association of America], which represents the major US technology companies, believes that wiretapping on the Internet could undermine security by opening up the possibility of hackers accessing the wiretaps."

[Judy G. Russell]

"ITAA [Information Technology Association of America], which represents the major US technology companies, believes that wiretapping on the Internet could undermine security by opening up the possibility of hackers accessing the wiretaps."Oh my... now wouldn't that be interesting...

[ndebord]

Oh my... now wouldn't that be interesting...


Judy,

Certainly would and oh so relevant, as this little article from Salon alleges. They say that Gov spying on internet usage has been an ongoing thing for some time now.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html

[Judy G. Russell]

They say that Gov spying on internet usage has been an ongoing thing for some time now.Hardly a surprise, I'm afraid.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

From this morning's St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Secret room reported at AT&T building

Is the National Security Agency using an AT&T building in Bridgeton to secretly monitor all U.S. e-mail and telephone calls?

Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/index_np.html) on Wednesday quoted two anonymous, former AT&T employees who said that since 2002 the phone company has maintained a secret, highly secure room in a building on Hollenberg Drive. The story quoted security experts who said the operation has all the hallmarks of an NSA undertaking.

Earline Jones, president of Communications Workers of America Local 6377, the union that represents some employees at the facility, said her members have no idea what goes on in the room that was installed a few years ago and has a "Do Not Enter" sign on the door.

AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp said he couldn't say anything about what the company does in the facility.

AT&T is one of several phone companies reported to have turned over millions of phone records to the NSA without a court order. The company won't say whether it has given any records to the government.

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm sorry, I will go to my grave believing that it's precisely this sort of thing that the Foreign Intelligence Court was created to review...

[Lindsey]

I'm sorry, I will go to my grave believing that it's precisely this sort of thing that the Foreign Intelligence Court was created to review...
That apparently is what Congress thought, too. At least, the ones of them that still permit themselves to think. :mad:

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

And even many of those who appear to think are willing to "correct" the issue by passing a law allowing the Administration to do whatever it pleases.

[ndebord]

Judy,

Concern as AT&T Alters Privacy Policy

http://www.betanews.com/article/Concern_as_ATT_Alters_Privacy_Policy/1150996032

AT&T says it planned to change its privacy policies in December and that this is not a response to lawsuits in court now alleging its involvment with NSA and spying on Americans domestically is a violation of our constitutional rights.

[ndebord]

And even many of those who appear to think are willing to "correct" the issue by passing a law allowing the Administration to do whatever it pleases.

Judy,

It gets even worse. Today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?hp&ex=1151121600&en=18f9ed2cf37511d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[MollyM/CA]

I'm registered as a permanent absentee voter. That means I receive a paper ballot in the mail about three weeks before election day, and I mark and return it before that day.

Being a permanent absentee is offered to anyone in this county (perhaps the state?)... no hardship required.

Except that your vote may or may not get counted. I hand mine in on election day.

We became absentee voters with the last gerrymander of our area, which (so far as I can figure) made a large proportion of the Democrats absentee voters because there now aren't enough voters in the district to justify a polling place. So if I wanted I could hand it in at --are you ready for this? --the same garage where we voted for 26 years, which is still a polling place but not for the likes of us.

m

[Lindsey]

And even many of those who appear to think are willing to "correct" the issue by passing a law allowing the Administration to do whatever it pleases.
Unfortunately, yes. I'm so tired of Congress passing laws that say, "What George said." The current Congress has been egregiously derelict in its oversight duty. They can't put themselves on cruise control just because the President happens to be of their own party. Their duty is to scrutinize a president of their own party just as closely as they would scrutinize one of the opposing party. The Congressional Republicans of the Nixon era understood this. But they've completely lost their bearings since then. I hate to say this, but their prime allegiance is not to the United States, but to the Republican Party. And for some of them, not to the party so much as to their bank accounts.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

We became absentee voters with the last gerrymander of our area, which (so far as I can figure) made a large proportion of the Democrats absentee voters because there now aren't enough voters in the district to justify a polling place.
Are you saying your precinct has no polling place? That's an outrage!

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Unfortunately, yes. I'm so tired of Congress passing laws that say, "What George said." The current Congress has been egregiously derelict in its oversight duty. They can't put themselves on cruise control just because the President happens to be of their own party. Their duty is to scrutinize a president of their own party just as closely as they would scrutinize one of the opposing party. The Congressional Republicans of the Nixon era understood this. But they've completely lost their bearings since then. I hate to say this, but their prime allegiance is not to the United States, but to the Republican Party. And for some of them, not to the party so much as to their bank accounts.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Remember when there were DixieCrats? Think Rapturecans as the operative mode for some of this gang. Where theocracy and the Republic merge, democracy can not stand.

[Jeff]

Lindsey,

Remember when there were DixieCrats? Think Rapturecans as the operative mode for some of this gang. Where theocracy and the Republic merge, democracy can not stand.

A local newspaper columnist recently wrote, "Anyone who thinks democracy can be brought to a country where religion and politics are the same is in for an attack of reality".

- Jeff

[Lindsey]

Remember when there were DixieCrats?
The Dixiecrats all left to join the Republican Party. (But I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my message.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

A local newspaper columnist recently wrote, "Anyone who thinks democracy can be brought to a country where religion and politics are the same is in for an attack of reality".
Exactly why people like Madison and Jefferson (and the vast majority of the non-Anglicans in early America) believed in disestablishment.

That doesn't have to mean that religion is entirely divorced from politics; political positions are often informed by religious belief, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. It's only when people insist that their position is the only right and true one (because it happens to agree with their religious belief), and that it therefore ought to be forced on everyone else, that we begin to run into trouble.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Unfortunately, yes. I'm so tired of Congress passing laws that say, "What George said." The current Congress has been egregiously derelict in its oversight duty.Scary, isn't it? This is precisely why I prefer to have the Congress and the Executive in the hands of different parties. At best, they learn to (gasp!) work together. At worst, they do nothing, which is often more than enough!

[ndebord]

The Dixiecrats all left to join the Republican Party. (But I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my message.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Tangential, I would say. The idea that the Republicans are just fat cats in it to plunder the public purse is not wrong, it is just that a large number of them are in there too pursuing religious agendas. I was/am trying to come up with a moniker similar to DixieCrats to identify this grouping of zealot/pols.

Hence Rapturecans.... (I know, not my best effort).

[ndebord]

Judy,

Concern as AT&T Alters Privacy Policy

http://www.betanews.com/article/Concern_as_ATT_Alters_Privacy_Policy/1150996032

(At&T reacts to the lawsuits alleging it violated the constitution by conspiring with NSA to wiretap.)

[Judy G. Russell]

Yet another reason to avoid AT&T if possible.

[Lindsey]

Scary, isn't it? This is precisely why I prefer to have the Congress and the Executive in the hands of different parties.
And yet, through most of our history, the Congress and the White House have been in the hands of the same party, but there was enough institutional jealousy to keep Congress from ceding power even to a president of the same party. This "anything you say, Mr. President" is something of fairly recent origin.

Part of the general trend away from accountability, perhaps; Congress doesn't want to have to take responsibility if they pass something that goes badly, so they wait for the president to propose something, and then they move eagerly to give him precisely what he wants. I guess they figure that way they're off the hook. :(

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

This "anything you say, Mr. President" is something of fairly recent origin.All you have to do is say the word terrorism and everybody jumps... Stupid stupid stupid.

[Lindsey]

All you have to do is say the word terrorism and everybody jumps... Stupid stupid stupid.
And it means, of course, that the terrorists have won... :(

Oh! -- regarding the 7 guys that were recently arrested in Florida: I had to laugh at Josh Marshall's take (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008831.php) on their shopping list:

From the DOJ release ...

In addition to conducting surveillance, the defendants allegedly provided the individual, whom they believed was an al Qaeda member, with a list of materials and equipment needed to wage jihad, including boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles.

Boots and uniforms? Terrorist uniforms?
I wonder if they figured having uniforms would keep them from being designated "enemy combatants" and out of Guantanamo Bay? Or maybe the leader was just tired of walking around in a cape and a bathrobe.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I wonder if they figured having uniforms would keep them from being designated "enemy combatants" and out of Guantanamo Bay? Or maybe the leader was just tired of walking around in a cape and a bathrobe.They really were incredible dingbats...

[Lindsey]

They really were incredible dingbats...
Ya really gotta wonder. Here they are, pledging themselves (allegedly) to al Qaeda, and at the same time referring to their group as "Sea of David" and wearing Star of David emblems. Maybe they were just being eclectic? :confused:

Apparently in that shopping list of things they needed to wage jiihad, there are no explosives. "So how were they planning to take down the Sears Tower?" one TV host (I think it was Keith Olbermann) asked. "Kick it down with their new combat boots?"

And of course, Jon Stewart had to weigh in. Noting that these 7 guys had pledged to wage an all-out ground war against the United States, Stewart said (and I'm paraphrasing here), "Seven guys? You know . . . I'm no military expert, I never went to combat school, but, I really think that if you're going to wage an all-out ground war against the United States, you'd need a force at least the size of . . . oh, a softball team."

I hate to be cynical, and I certainly don't want to imply that idiots can't be dangerous, because unquestionably they can be, but I cannot help but think that the administration wanted a terrorist arrest to trumpet in order to knock the data-mining-the-bank-records story out of the news cycle, and this was the best the FBI could give them on short notice.

Two or three years ago, this would have generated an orange alert, but those eventually got to the point that they generated more laughter than fear.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I hate to be cynical, and I certainly don't want to imply that idiots can't be dangerous, because unquestionably they can be, but I cannot help but think that the administration wanted a terrorist arrest to trumpet in order to knock the data-mining-the-bank-records story out of the news cycle, and this was the best the FBI could give them on short notice.You're not suggesting that Our President would pull a "wag the dog" type scenario, now would you? I'm shocked...

[ndebord]

You're not suggesting that Our President would pull a "wag the dog" type scenario, now would you? I'm shocked...

Judy,

Our President is the wag in the tail of the dog known as Cheney.

[Lindsey]

You're not suggesting that Our President would pull a "wag the dog" type scenario, now would you? I'm shocked...
LOL!! I wouldn't be the first to say "wag the dog" -- that very phrase came up yesterday on Diane Rehm.

John DiIulio revealed a couple of years ago, before he was kneecapped or something and forced to recant, that everything is politics with these guys. There are no policy discussions at all -- only politics.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

John DiIulio revealed a couple of years ago, before he was kneecapped or something and forced to recant, that everything is politics with these guys. There are no policy discussions at all -- only politics.And this is surprising how?

[Lindsey]

And this is surprising how?
Well, it was sort of surprising at the time -- the sheer reckless audacity of it, if nothing else -- but practically everything that has happened since then has served to confirm that DiIulio's original statement was spot on. :(

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, it was sort of surprising at the time -- the sheer reckless audacity of it, if nothing else -- but practically everything that has happened since then has served to confirm that DiIulio's original statement was spot on. :( Frankly nothing about this crowd surprises me in the least, except for the occasional issue on which I may not agree fully but at least don't sit back and scream: "What are they DOING???"

[ndebord]

Frankly nothing about this crowd surprises me in the least, except for the occasional issue on which I may not agree fully but at least don't sit back and scream: "What are they DOING???"-)

Judy,

Ah yes, that primal scream. I can just hear the NSA satellite changing orbit to check out that potential "terrorist" bellow from time to time.

;-)

[ndebord]

And even many of those who appear to think are willing to "correct" the issue by passing a law allowing the Administration to do whatever it pleases.

Judy,

Check out this animated cartoon from Newsday!

http://www.newsday.com/ny-wh-nsawiretapping,0,118301.flash?track=mostemailedlin k

[Judy G. Russell]

Check out this animated cartoon from Newsday!
http://www.newsday.com/ny-wh-nsawiretapping,0,118301.flash?track=mostemailedlin kROLF!!! That is DEFINITELY one of the better ones I've seen!

[ndebord]

ROLF!!! That is DEFINITELY one of the better ones I've seen!


Judy,

In Your House!

<weak grin>

[Judy G. Russell]

In Your House!I haven't checked lately under all the beds and in all the closets. I suppose Homeland Security will be here at any moment...

[ndebord]

I haven't checked lately under all the beds and in all the closets. I suppose Homeland Security will be here at any moment...

Judy,

You have a choice. a) the feebs or b) the DEA.

<sigh>

[Judy G. Russell]

You have a choice. a) the feebs or b) the DEA.DEA. In a heartbeat. Loved working with those guys. They all had senses of humor and a reasonable sense of the overall value of the organization they worked for.

[ndebord]

DEA. In a heartbeat. Loved working with those guys. They all had senses of humor and a reasonable sense of the overall value of the organization they worked for.

Judy,

Yup and they are a new organization without the baggage of J. Edgar.

[Judy G. Russell]

they are a new organization without the baggage of J. Edgar.Well, hard to say just what they are any more with all the reorganization into the DHS. But I sure enjoyed working with them back a kazillion years ago when I was a prosecutor.

[ndebord]

Well, hard to say just what they are any more with all the reorganization into the DHS. But I sure enjoyed working with them back a kazillion years ago when I was a prosecutor.

Judy,

Don't have a single prosecutor in the family tree. One JP who switched over to ministering the flock after the Civil War (the guy in the dead tent for 3 days), but not one prosecutor.

You're the only one I know up close and personal!

[Judy G. Russell]

Don't have a single prosecutor in the family tree. One JP who switched over to ministering the flock after the Civil War (the guy in the dead tent for 3 days), but not one prosecutor. You're the only one I know up close and personal!I'm the first in my family's family tree. I may even be the first lawyer in my family tree! (I'm sure they'll live down the shame eventually.)

[ndebord]

I'm the first in my family's family tree. I may even be the first lawyer in my family tree! (I'm sure they'll live down the shame eventually.)

Judy,

I'm sure they'll forgive you eventually, unless they live in moonshine country.

<g,d&r>

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm sure they'll forgive you eventually, unless they live in moonshine country.<g,d&r>They do, some of 'em, but they all know I never did any of that revenooooooer stuff.

[ndebord]

They do, some of 'em, but they all know I never did any of that revenooooooer stuff.

Judy,

And I'm not saying you did and I'm quite sure they forgave you after you encountered the local mountain sickness, known variously as the "slack lip" disease or more commonly as the "numb upper lip".

(Spent time with a buddy in '69 at Ft. Campbell where we amused ourselves with .45s at the pistol range, jumping out of planes for free! and wandering around the mountain valleys where he had relatives.)

[Judy G. Russell]

wandering around the mountain valleys where he had relativesJust stay out of mountain valleys where he DOESN'T have relatives... or where his relatives have enemies...

[ndebord]

Just stay out of mountain valleys where he DOESN'T have relatives... or where his relatives have enemies...

Judy,

Oh yes. We didn't do these little trips by night and we both carried while traveling in and out of towns!

But those were the days right after 'Nam and before I had sworn off of firearms. A year and a half later, I gave all my weapons to my brother with instructions to never loan them back to me!

<wry grin>

[Judy G. Russell]

A year and a half later, I gave all my weapons to my brother with instructions to never loan them back to me!Smart idea... and hardly surprising given what you'd just been through.

[ndebord]

Smart idea... and hardly surprising given what you'd just been through.


Judy,

I did pay a small price for my prudence. In the late 80s I went hunting with a nephew who had been told that I was quite the shot. At that time, this kid could take out a squirrel's eye at 400 yards (that should endear him to you!) and I could no longer hit the broad side of a barn!

(Hero worship ended that day...)

[Judy G. Russell]

this kid could take out a squirrel's eye at 400 yards (that should endear him to you!)...Does he rent out his services for suburban backyards? (And attics?)

[ndebord]

Does he rent out his services for suburban backyards? (And attics?)

Judy,

He thought Kawkawlin Michigan was too big a town (where I spent some years as a raw youth). He is now the chief cook and bottle washer (one of two cops) in a tiny village in upstate Michigan and still finds time to go walkabout to do his hunting and fishing.

Suburbs (much less cities) would give him hives!

[Judy G. Russell]

Suburbs (much less cities) would give him hives!Darn...

[ndebord]

Frankly nothing about this crowd surprises me in the least, except for the occasional issue on which I may not agree fully but at least don't sit back and scream: "What are they DOING???"


Judy,

It's shoot the messenger time. When you fragrantly abuse the Constitution and act like a tinpot banana republic dictator across the board, one of your common responses is to blame everything on the Press when the inevitable leaks make your administration look bad, if not illegal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060801/pl_nm/media_leak_dc_1

[Judy G. Russell]

The way this Administration seems determined to make defendants out of reporters is just appalling...

[ndebord]

The way this Administration seems determined to
make defendants out of reporters is just appalling...

Judy,

Where does the The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals fit on the ideological spectrum. (I keep having this horrifying vision of a future World Court holding Nuremberg Trials with U.S. Justices sitting in the dock, deja vue in reverse.

[Judy G. Russell]

Where does the The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals fit on the ideological spectrum. (I keep having this horrifying vision of a future World Court holding Nuremberg Trials with U.S. Justices sitting in the dock, deja vue in reverse.Towards the left of the spectrum. Not as far left as the 9th Circuit, but much more moderate than, say, the 4th.

[Lindsey]

Towards the left of the spectrum. Not as far left as the 9th Circuit, but much more moderate than, say, the 4th.
And even the 4th Circuit isn't conservative enough for Bush; he's trying to move it even farther in that direction, with a nominee (http://www.muckraker.org/pg_one_investigation-1239--0.html) that even a lot of Republicans can't stomach, largely because of "ethical problems". :mad:

[S]ince his May 2001 nomination, Boyle has issued orders in at least nine cases that involved five different corporations in which he reported stock holdings, according to financial and court documents. In most of the cases, Boyle ruled in favor of the companies in which he had financial interests . . .

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/01/boyle/index.html

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yeah, Boyle is bad bad bad bad news indeed... not that that makes one d@mned bit of difference to the idealogues.

[Lindsey]

Yeah, Boyle is bad bad bad bad news indeed... not that that makes one d@mned bit of difference to the idealogues.
The badder the better as far as they are concerned, it seems.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

The badder the better as far as they are concerned, it seems.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Not to be too cynical, but bad is good for them. IF Boyle, for instance, went against them on an ideological issue, they could always pull his file and blackmail him (not that I think it would be necessary, but still...).