Right On The Right

"Seventy-two hours? That provision was written when FISA was intended to cover only domestic communications."

That has to rank up there with some of the most idiotic things the zeroid has ever said -- and he has shat out some doozies.

"FISA was intended to cover only domestic communications"? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What does FISA stand for, submoron?

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was never "intended to cover only domestic communications". Jeeebus, what ignorance.

"There are thousands of requests for warrants, previously unnecessary, for surveillance abroad where our privacy laws don't apply."

Prove it, jackhole. You clearly belong to the arguing-by-making-sh*t-up school of wingnut "debate".

"By the time an affidavit is written showing probable cause, submitted to the court, considered, and a warrant issued, 72 hours has already passed."

And a wiretap can begin immediately, before any of that has happened. Jeebus, there's that Invincible Ignorance™ of yours again.

"A FISA warrant is not incentive enough when stacked against the probable consequence of ruination by civil suit, and there are already a few dozen of these asking for multi-billion dollar awards filed on behalf of several Islamic organizations and propelled by Democrats’ largest financial pool--the Trial Lawyers."

Cite those "multi-billion dollar" suits, jackhole. Quit making sh*t up and produce facts.

"The new Senate bill would provide retroactive immunity from these lawsuits. Without such protection, needed intelligence gathering will no longer happen."

BULLSH*T ALERT! Get a warrant, and the telecommunications companies HAVE TO COMPLY. They are being sued because they helped conduct wiretaps WITHOUT BEING PRESENTED WITH A WARRANT, which was in violation of the law. You do believe in obeying the law, don't you?

Guess not.

Seventy-two hours? That provision was written when FISA was intended to cover only domestic communications. There are thousands of requests for warrants, previously unnecessary, for surveillance abroad where our privacy laws don't apply. By the time an affidavit is written showing probable cause, submitted to the court, considered, and a warrant issued, 72 hours has already passed. The bugger about those affadavits is that if we have enough info to support probable cause, we already know somebody’s a problem. The strength afforded by the pre-August FISA and subsequent PAA was to allow unfettered surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications–-casting a big net to catch terrorist cells we don’t yet know about. Why hamper our intelligence gathering by eliminating this net?

The meat.hugger can nit-pick and spin all he wants, but he ignores the major factor in the equation. The US Govt cannot conduct the surveillance it needs without cooperation from the people who own the infrastructure: the Telecommunications Companies. Thus, the immunity provision. A FISA warrant is not incentive enough when stacked against the probable consequence of ruination by civil suit, and there are already a few dozen of these asking for multi-billion dollar awards filed on behalf of several Islamic organizations and propelled by Democrats’ largest financial pool--the Trial Lawyers. The new Senate bill would provide retroactive immunity from these lawsuits. Without such protection, needed intelligence gathering will no longer happen. Why would any corporation risk its survival by betting their patriotic cooperation against any number of liberal judges? Their chances are better to refuse cooperation, avoid the lawsuits, stay in business, and face the same judges for non-compliance with a FISA warrant.

"By the time a warrant is applied for, reviewed, and granted, crucial communication between enemy combatants has often ended."

Horse puckey. FISA allows for the establishment of emergency wiretaps without a warrant. The warrant can be applied for up to 72 hours after the wiretap begins. There is thus no possibility of missing "crucial communication between enemy combatants" because of a delay in acquiring a warrant.

Zeroid is lying. Tell us why, liar.

"It matters not that battlefield communications usually don’t pass through American based facilities; the ruling applied to all foreign communications under surveillance–something never intended under the 1978 FISA act."

Given your record of fabrication up till now, there's no reason to believe you, cipherboy. Provide verifiable documentation of this claim. NOTE: This doesn't mean showing us someone else who makes the same claim. This means actual proof of the contents of the ruling.

"That makes immediate battlefield intelligence gathering impossible..."

We already know that that is a lie. Immediate intelligence gathering is specifically provided for in FISA.

"As explained to you before, I can’t cite that chapter and verse of the ruling because it’s still classified and unavailable to the public."

How convenient. That leaves you free to make crap up out of thin air -- which is exactly what you've been doing.

"Ultimately, Speaker Pelosi kept the FISA rewrite from coming to a vote, deeming her vacation more important. "

More horseshit. What Speaker Pelosi deemed important was the rule of law. What Bush and his cronies deemed important was protecting the telecoms from legal action. We have Mike McConnell on record saying so:

Officials made clearer Friday that the real dispute is over the protection of phone companies for past actions. Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, told National Public Radio on Friday: "It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector. We can't do this mission without their help."

Yet if a telecom company were to be presented with a warrant, they would have to comply. There would be no question of cooperation. Bush refused to accept an extension of the existing law. The obvious conclusion is that he places more importance on protecting the telecoms from liability for past actions than he does on protecting Americans from terrorist attacks.

"Our security has been severely jeopardized."

False. The US government can still do all the surveillance it needs to do. You're lying, zeriod. Tell us why, liar.

meat.hugger posts:
Lessthanzero does exactly what I expected him to do when he was asked embarrassing questions he'd rather not answer: he whines and runs away. I'll ask him the questions again, and we'll all enjoy the spectacle of his cowardice again.

Run, little nothing. Run.

I’m glad to disprove your characterization of me while you’ve so predictably confirmed mine of you. I’ll overlook your slightly abated trollish manner in the last post for the greater purpose to inform, but I refuse to join you in the gutter for a pissing match. My only embarrassment lies in countenancing someone whose feeble method of expression consists of name-calling and revilement. I see I’m not the only one who has noticed.

Now, to the issues, on which I’m happy to enlighten you.

Why are warrantless wiretaps necessary to "protecting the security interests of the American people"?

Because we have enemies who want to kill us; they have done so in the past and have sworn to do so in the future. They communicate electronically with their operatives, but such messages are often ephemeral. By the time a warrant is applied for, reviewed, and granted, crucial communication between enemy combatants has often ended. The public may never fully know how many or how crucial these intercepts have been, since many that enabled terrorist apprehension or have pre-empted attacks have been kept secret to keep their sources viable.

What part of the PAA "limits the expansion of FISA”?

The PAA didn’t limit the future expansion of FISA so much as it curtailed its past. See next response.

What ruling "prohibited us from intercepting even battlefield radio chatter"?

In August, a secret ruling by a nameless judge expanded the FISA authority to cover communications totally outside the US. Apparently the judge reasoned that technological advances, which now cause even overseas communications (most fiber-optic signals, for example) to travel through US networks, triggered a requirement for court authorization. It matters not that battlefield communications usually don’t pass through American based facilities; the ruling applied to all foreign communications under surveillance–something never intended under the 1978 FISA act. Foreigners outside the US are supposed to be outside the protection of the FISA statute, just as they are outside the protection of the Constitution.

Under the letter of that ruling, however, the FISA court’s jurisdiction now extends to talk between our enemies anywhere in the world–including foreign battlefields. The PAA was passed to countermand that ruling. Surveillance of foreign enemies, especially in wartime, should be the purview of an accountable chief executive rather than an unaccountable judge.

Are you seriously claiming that "enemy communications on the battlefield" routinely pass through routing stations in the United States?

No, but that’s irrelevant. You’ve misunderstood the issue. Reread the previous response. Now that the PAA has expired, the FISA court reverts to the August ruling where it purports to have authority over all foreign surveillance.

What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

This is getting redundant. New warrantless wiretaps on foreign communications completely outside American territory are once again prohibited now that the PAA has expired and FISA has reverted to the previously cited judicial ruling from last August. That makes immediate battlefield intelligence gathering impossible, as well as any intel from new sources unless probable cause is shown and a warrant issued. As explained to you before, I can’t cite that chapter and verse of the ruling because it’s still classified and unavailable to the public.

Did Bush threaten to veto an extension of the PAA?

Yes, but not for the reasons that support your argument. Instead of passing the reworked FISA Act (passed by a majority of Senate Dems) which would make Bush look strong on national security and them look weak, House Democrats offered an extension of the PAA which would delay the issue past the November elections and deny Bush a victory on the measure. Ultimately, Speaker Pelosi kept the FISA rewrite from coming to a vote, deeming her vacation more important. In other words, Democrats are gambling with your national security for political gain (what’s new?). Additionally, the Senate-passed FISA rewrite would have included retroactive immunity for the telecoms who cooperated with the NSA to allow monitoring suspected communications, even as it expanded some provisions of the FISA court. The temporary extension of PAA would not. Since the ACLU and several Islamic organizations, encouraged by Democrats, have already filed lawsuits against these telecoms, their future cooperation on warrantless wiretaps under a PAA extension would be doubtful anyway. Our security has been severely jeopardized.

Lessthanzero does exactly what I expected him to do when he was asked embarrassing questions he'd rather not answer: he whines and runs away. I'll ask him the questions again, and we'll all enjoy the spectacle of his cowardice again.

Why are warrantless wiretaps necessary to "protecting the security interests of the American people"?

What part of the PAA "limits the expansion of FISA"?

What ruling "prohibited us from intercepting even battlefield radio chatter"?

Are you seriously claiming that "enemy communications on the battlefield" routinely pass through routing stations in the United States?

What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

Did Bush threaten to veto an extension of the PAA?

Run, little nothing. Run.

You’ve grown tiresome, meat.hugger. I am apparently late to join others here in realizing there is no intelligent discourse forthcoming from you, only the spectacle of a schoolyard bully verbally soiling himself in every post. You are (indeed as most here already seem to regard you) indiscriminately offensive without provocation, and unresponsive in kind to genuine rhetorical exchange. Only delusional fools think arguments are won with epithets, and those are your stock in trade. I seek intelligent debate, not childish bickering. Far from conceding, I apologize for encouraging you even as you will, predictably, post yet another juvenile reply.

.

"Enemy communications on the battlefield are just one area of surveillance that now require court warrants..."

Naturally, voidboy is deliberately leaving out an important fact:

The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States, according to two other government sources familiar with the decision.

Now, zeroid: Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that "enemy communications on the battlefield" routinely pass through routing stations in the United States?

Shyeah. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Answer the question you were asked, coward: What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

"A long-term reworking of FISA is necessary..."

Why? What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

"It was Mme. Pelosi who prevented the long term fix from coming to the House floor for a vote, arming people like you and Greenwald with the false talking point that Bush caused the PAA's demise."

Did Bush threaten to veto an extension of the PAA? Yes or no, idiot?

"The reason for the walkout and Justin’s initial post is that the FISA statute has not expired but needs a re-write."
Why? What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

I’ll repeat myself since you didn't read my last post carefully: Because of one judge’s secret ruling (here’s the link again; you must actually click on it to read it), the FISA court has expanded its own authority to cover communications between foreigners in foreign countries. This was a secret ruling that the public is not allowed to see. Never before has this been a purview of the court; when FISA was instituted in 1978 it expressly avoided requiring warrants for conducting foreign surveillance. Enemy communications on the battlefield are just one area of surveillance that now require court warrants, with the exception of those involving parties previously identified, but the waiver for those warrants expires one year from the inception of such surveillance.

"What Congress shamefully allowed to expire was the Protect America Act..."
You're lying, zeroid. What killed PAA was Bush's unwillingness to allow it to be extended.

Greenwald’s "account" demonstrates the rift between two schools of thought: those who just hate Bush and believe there is no threat from Islamo-fascism, and those who believe our unrelenting efforts have been fruitful in protecting us since 9/11. A long-term reworking of FISA is necessary, such was passed in the Senate with bipartisan support, and it was logical for Bush to favor that instead of another temporary fix the Democrats proposed with strings attached. It was Mme. Pelosi who prevented the long term fix from coming to the House floor for a vote, arming people like you and Greenwald with the false talking point that Bush caused the PAA's demise.

How delightful it is to observe your level of invective rise as an indicator of your inability to express yourself or persuade others in this otherwise genteel forum.

"In fact, only the serious debate participants are making that claim. When have we ever granted Bill of Rights protections to foreigners?"

Let me clarify my poor earlier phrasing. No serious participant in the debate is making the claim that foreigners on foreign soil are protected by our Bill of Rights. Zeroid's mention of foreign communications was a red herring, nothing more.

"The reason for the walkout and Justin’s initial post is that the FISA statute has not expired but needs a re-write."

Why? What specific intelligence activities cannot be conducted until FISA is rewritten? Be prepared to cite the specific sections of FISA as it stands today to support your claims.

"What Congress shamefully allowed to expire was the Protect America Act..."

You're lying, zeroid. What killed PAA was Bush's unwillingness to allow it to be extended:

There is one reason, and one reason only, that the Protect America Act expired. Its name is "George W. Bush." That is who refused to agree to the Democrats' offer to extend the law by 21 days (or longer), then repeatedly threatened to veto any such extension ("US President George W. Bush on Wednesday vowed to veto another temporary extension of a domestic spying law"), then directed the always-obedient House Republicans to vote unanimously against the extension, which they (needless to say) did. This vital-to-our-safety piece of legislation expired only because George W. Bush repeatedly blocked its extension. It's just that simple.

Get the facts before you open your mouth, moron.

"...a stopgap measure that limits the expansion of FISA (facilitated by a secret ruling from a single judge) beyond its jurisdiction to completely foreign communications. This prohibited us from intercepting even battlefield radio chatter until we get a court warrant were it not for the PAA."

Cite some documentation, please? What part of the PAA "limits the expansion of FISA"? What ruling "prohibited us from intercepting even battlefield radio chatter"?

Stop tapdancing on the generalities and start providing specifics, nothingboy.

"But one judge–in a secret ruling where the judge’s name is not even revealed–has circumvented that authority."

Cite the ruling. Cite some evidence that it exists.

Until you do, we might as well be discussing the existence of the Easter Bunny. Grow up, zeroid.

Straw man. Stop wasting everyone's time, zeroid.

It appears you have plenty of time to waste. Your exclamations of “straw man!” are a projection of your technique onto others, and much as you wish it so, your reliance on name calling is neither a substitute for presenting an informed argument nor an enhancement for an ignorant one.

"The larger point being overlooked here is that foreigners on foreign soil are not protected by our Bill of Rights."
No serious participant in the debate makes that claim.

In fact, only the serious debate participants are making that claim. When have we ever granted Bill of Rights protections to foreigners? Americans abroad likewise remove themselves from Constitutional protection. Please tell us which foreign governments allow us to enforce our laws of privacy, freedom of speech, press, and assembly on their soil.

You and Justin are being very careful to ignore the fact that FISA was designed to protect the rights of Americans who might be a party to overseas communications. Gotta wonder why you want to ignore that fact.

Not ignoring it at all. The reason for the walkout and Justin’s initial post is that the FISA statute has not expired but needs a re-write. What Congress shamefully allowed to expire was the Protect America Act, a stopgap measure that limits the expansion of FISA (facilitated by a secret ruling from a single judge) beyond its jurisdiction to completely foreign communications. This prohibited us from intercepting even battlefield radio chatter until we get a court warrant were it not for the PAA. Can you think of a better way to hamstring our forces? In a monitored conversation between a hostile foreign national and an embedded US counterpart–-even a suspected one--what do you do, censor one-half of it? Why would any thinking investigator want to?

"No system of checks and balances is being abandoned."
You're lying, zeroid. If the executive is allowed to wiretap without oversight by the judiciary, then there are no checks and balances.

No lie. The president is Constitutionally charged with the duty to safeguard the nation from external enemies; the judiciary has no such authority or obligation. The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review--the highest, most specialized court created by Congress strictly to rule on surveillance matters--has concluded that the president has inherent constitutional authority to order surveillance on foreign threats to national security. But one judge–in a secret ruling where the judge’s name is not even revealed–has circumvented that authority.

The Left has concocted its own checks and balances in the form of class-action lawsuit threats against the telecoms who cooperate with intelligence requests for legal wiretaps. The reason for this is purely political, while our national security is at stake.

"The larger point being overlooked here is that foreigners on foreign soil are not protected by our Bill of Rights."

Straw man. No serious participant in the debate makes that claim. Stop wasting everyone's time, zeroid.

"Justin correctly pointed out that these wiretapped conversations must prerequisitely involve at least one party with documented links to terrorist activities, and additionally are not point-to-point within our borders, but always involve at least one foreign national or have one correspondent outside the geographic confines of our Constitutional jurisdiction."

You and Justin are being very careful to ignore the fact that FISA was designed to protect the rights of Americans who might be a party to overseas communications. Gotta wonder why you want to ignore that fact.

"No system of checks and balances is being abandoned."

You're lying, zeroid. If the executive is allowed to wiretap without oversight by the judiciary, then there are no checks and balances.

"The notion that this surveillance program equates to warrantless "domestic spying" is not only erroneous, it is ludicrous."

You're lying, zeroid. Bushco wants to wiretap the communications of which US citizens, and they want to do so without warrants.

"...we need to act as quickly as possible, and not get bogged down in a court and end up paying for it."

FISA has for years permitted wiretaps to go ahead before the warrant is issued, and the government was permitted to get the warrant afterwards. The implication that the law as currently constituted would "bog down" wiretaps is sheerest nonsense, Justin.

"We do by the way get approval for the wiretaps through FISA afterwards."

"We"? Have you been eavesdroipping on someone, Justin?

That claim is also false. The Bush administration has been conducting wiretaps without getting warrants at any stage, and wants to continue doing so. Really, Justin, your ignorance on this matter is shocking.

"I answered the second question. "

False.

"It has to do with the fact that this is not a simple law enforcement matter..."

Straw man. I mever claimed that it was. News flash, bubba: The concept of checks and balances applies to everything the government of this country does, no matter what name you apply

"We're not abandoning our system..."

False. That is exactly what Bushco wants: no checks, no balances, no requirement to explain their actions to the judiciary.

"...this is just a case that falls outside of the normal jurisdiction of law enforcement and falls instead under the jurisdiction of our intelligence community prosecuting a war."

You're cranking out some first-rate hogwash there, Justin. FISA has for years required the executive to get the approval of the judiciary to carry out wiretaps. That's the "checks and balances" I was referring to. The intelligence community was able to do its job under those conditions -- until Bushco came along.

Why should the system of checks and balances that has served us well for over two centuries be abandoned now, just because Bushco shrieks "AHHHHH! TERRORISTS! AHHHHHH!"?

The larger point being overlooked here is that foreigners on foreign soil are not protected by our Bill of Rights. Justin correctly pointed out that these wiretapped conversations must prerequisitely involve at least one party with documented links to terrorist activities, and additionally are not point-to-point within our borders, but always involve at least one foreign national or have one correspondent outside the geographic confines of our Constitutional jurisdiction. We have always recognized that distinction--that non-citizens don't enjoy Constitutional liberties--as a mechanism to protect ourselves in wartime, whether apprehending colonial pirates without getting them lawyers or opening trans-atlantic mail during WWII.

No system of checks and balances is being abandoned. The notion that this surveillance program equates to warrantless "domestic spying" is not only erroneous, it is ludicrous.

I'll admit, I didn't answer the first. They are necessary because intelligence sometimes necesitates a very timely reaction. An intelligence source tells us that he believes a terrorist is in contact with someone in the United States and we need to act as quickly as possible, and not get bogged down in a court and end up paying for it. We do by the way get approval for the wiretaps through FISA afterwards.

I answered the second question. It has to do with the fact that this is not a simple law enforcement matter, it's part of the execution of a war, therefore is not comparable to the way wiretaps have worked in the past. We're not abandoning our system, this is just a case that falls outside of the normal jurisdiction of law enforcement and falls instead under the jurisdiction of our intelligence community prosecuting a war.

You answered neither of my questions, Justin. Try again.

1) Why are warrantless wiretaps necessary to "protecting the security interests of the American people"?

2) Why should the system of checks and balances we have enjoyed for more than two centuries be abandoned?

These wiretaps are part of the execution of the global war on terror. In every case, one party is outside of the United States, and in some cases, both parties are outside of the United States, but their calls have been routed through American switchboards and nodes. Also, in every case, one person has ties to terrorist groups. This is an execution of the executive in winning this war, not an execution of simple American law enforcement.

The "FISA compromise" that Justin so blithely refers to is actually an attempt to make permanent the warrantless wiretaps that have already been carried out in violation of the law. The little temper tantrum that the Republicans had today had nothing whatsoever to do with "America's security".

Explain something, Justin: Why are warrantless wiretaps necessary to "protecting the security interests of the American people"? Why should the system of checks and balances we have enjoyed for more than two centuries be abandoned?