The State of The Union

[Jessterw]

It's doubtful that "better" phone taps would have helped avert 9-11, just on the basis that we already had enough information spread amongst the disparate agencies to have had a good chance of doing so anyhow. Of course politics and pride got in the way.

Edit: Looks like Gurm beat me to that response...

The government, in the form of the NSA, have been taping our phones and other forms of communications for years, so it's nothing new. What's changed is the manner in which government officials and agencies are acting on information gained though this "spying". There is definitely a high potential for abuse, especially when it comes to people of an Arab background.

There has to be checks and balances in place and at this point many of them are being thrown out the window. I'm not going to say one president or party is better or worse than the next (I think we've been let down for decades now), because that's really neither here nor there. A f*cking over of the American people is happening because we are spooked and our "leader" has a mission from God. Funny that... so do the terrorists...

Gurm's quote was spot on. We're on a slippery slope (not that we haven't been on it for awhile).

[Dr Mordrid]

The NSA computers recorded the calls (and thousands if not tens of thousands of others) on 9/10, but any moron knows that nothing happens in realtime with that much data. It takes time for the NSA and CIA analysts to examine them all, and by 9:00 am the next morning it was too late.

More painful is that the pertinent information was also on a laptop captured when an AQ member was arrested in Chicago weeks before. The problem was that at that time it was illegal for the NSA, CIA and FBI to communicate the information on it to each other. As such the word was stuck behind a wall that was only removed by The Patriot Act.

Wanna go back to those days too? That "wall" rule was forced by the actions of former (and now deceased, dammit) Senator Frank Church, who IMO is largely responsible for the intelligence mess that let 9/11 happen. Frank Church was a Democrat philosophically similar to the morons running that party now.

I also find it massively disingenuous for Gurm to on one hand claim that it was the NSA's fault for not getting those falls analyzed fast enough to prevent 9/11 on one hand while at the same time argueing that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Can you say "hypocritical" ?

Dr. Mordrid

[Jessterw]

More painful is that the pertinent information was also on a laptop captured when an AQ member was arrested in Chicago weeks before. The problem was that at that time it was illegal for the NSA, CIA and FBI to communicate the information on it to each other. As such the word was stuck behind a wall that was only removed by The Patriot Act.

These agencies also have a long history of refusing to share even information they can pass along. There are protocols in place for the sharing of information, it's just not a direct agency-to-agency pass. In hindsight one can say this wouldn't have been the case given the targets, but that's hindsight and it often is not reality.

[Dr Mordrid]

This "refusal" wasn't something parochial, but actual statutes and departmental policies based on same that came out of the Church Committiees actions.

Starting in the late 70's "the wall" first went up and was further strenghened by one of Clintons minions, Commissioner Gorelick, in 1995.

Since then the FBI and other "local" agents and the "foreign" services such as the CIA/NSA could not share information they turned up in their investigations. That wall was blamed in the 9/11 report and damned by members of both parties, liberal and conservative, for the intellegence failures leading up to the attack.

Dr. Mordrid

[Jessterw]

I could argue that, but we all know it would be pointless. I am fully aware of "the wall" and all the political bullshit that accompanied it. There are always ways around a wall, to think otherwise is just plain ignorant.

And sorry, but there has always been a bit of pride, even before "the wall", at the agencies that go against wanting to share information with the others.

[Gurm]

Disingenuous, you say?

I'll be blunt:

If you need the law to be different in order to keep the country safe... CHANGE THE LAW.

LEGALLY.

IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER.

Don't just do whatever the hell you want, and then say "well we need to so it's legal".

[Dr Mordrid]

No need to "change the law" as far as NSA captures go. Un-warrented rtecording of the the transmissions of foreign agents is permitted even under FISA.

The other problem is that legislating this, even though its not necessary, opens up at least some "sources and methods" to public display. Not smart when AQ is out there looking for a crack to squeeze through.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

No need to "change the law" as far as NSA captures go. Un-warrented rtecording of the the transmissions of foreign agents is permitted even under FISA.

The other problem is that legislating this, even though its not necessary, opens up at least some "sources and methods" to public display. Not smart when AQ is out there looking for a crack to squeeze through.

Dr. Mordrid

This is the problem here. The administration contends - and you repeat - that there is no LEGAL way to do what they want to do. Therefore... they HAVE to do it illegally.

I contend that this argument is disingenuous. It paves the way for future administrations to, in a time of crisis, do all manner of inappropriate and illegal things "because there's no good way to do it legally".

Do I think that GWB wants to wiretap my phone? No. Does it matter if he does? No. Do I start every phone call nowadays with a series of spook keywords? Yes. Does this always make me giggle? You betcha.

But I think that the NEXT administration might not be so good-willed. What happens when the next administration wants to lock people up without due process... oh wait, this administration is already doing that.

[KvHagedorn]

As long as they aren't locking up the good guys and letting the bad guys run rabid in the street like the Brits do, no problemo.

[cjolley]

As long as they aren't locking up the good guys and letting the bad guys run rabid in the street like the Brits do, no problemo.

The way they are doing things, how could anybody know?

...
If this, according to Democrats, was our "greatest president," to what else should George Bush aspire?

Every president has been a crook in some aspect, but not so ironically, it seems those were considered the greatest presidents. If the president acted utterly and assiduously within his constitutional mandate, he would be a very weak leader (and the US would probably not exist today, having been crushed by some stronger power.)

1, I'm a Democrat and I've never thought of FDR as our Greatest President.
I think that is pretty obviously Lincoln.

2, You have a lot less faith in our system than I do.

[cjolley]

NSA Spying Myths

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

David ColeThu Feb 2, 1:53 PM ET



The Nation -- "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." So Richard Nixon infamously defended his approval of a plan to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans involved in the antiwar movement in the 1970s. For thirty years Nixon's defense has stood as the apogee of presidential arrogance. But of course Nixon was proved wrong. The wiretapping plan was shelved when J. Edgar Hoover, of all people, objected to it. Nixon's approval of it was listed in the articles of impeachment. Nixon learned the hard way that Presidents are not above the law.

George W. Bush appears not to have learned the lesson. His defense of the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of Americans resurrects the Nixon doctrine, with one modification. For Bush, "when the Commander in Chief does it, it is not illegal." In a memo to Congress, the Administration argued that the Commander in Chief may not be restricted in the "means and methods of engaging the enemy," and that Bush is thus free to wiretap Americans without court approval in the "war on terror" even if Congress has made it a crime. This assertion of uncheckable executive power is just one of five myths the Administration has propagated in a PR blitz designed to convince the public of a transparently unconvincing argument. As Congress readies for hearings on the subject, here's a primer on the spying debate.

Myth 1: Following existing law would require the NSA to turn off a wiretap of an Al Qaeda member calling in to the United States.

Variations on this theme appear every time the Administration defends the NSA spying program. The suggestion is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would interfere with the President's ability to monitor Al Qaeda members' calls when it's most important to do so. There's only one problem: FISA would not require the tap to be turned off. First, FISA does not apply at all to wiretaps targeted at foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions are triggered only when the surveillance is targeted at a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, or when the surveillance is obtained from a wiretap physically located within the United States. If the NSA is listening in on an Al Qaeda member's phone in Pakistan, nothing in FISA requires it to stop listening if that person calls someone in the United States. Second, even when FISA is triggered, it does not require the wiretap to be turned off but merely to be approved by a judge, based on a showing of probable cause that the target is a member of a terrorist organization. Such judicial approval may be obtained after the wiretap is put in place, so long as it is approved within seventy-two hours.

Myth 2: Congress approved the NSA spying program when it authorized military force against Al Qaeda.

This argument cannot be squared with existing law, which provides that even when Congress declares war--a much more formal and grave step than an authorization to use force--the President has only fifteen days to conduct warrantless surveillance. The Al Qaeda authorization says not one word about wiretapping Americans. In addition, when asked why the Administration did not seek to amend FISA to permit this program, the Attorney General explained that he consulted with several members of Congress but that they told him it would be "difficult, if not impossible," to obtain permission. You can't argue that you didn't ask because Congress would have said no, but that without asking, and without Congress saying so, it actually said yes.

Myth 3: Bush informed Congress of the NSA program.

"If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" Bush asked in a speech on the spying issue. His Administration claims that it informed isolated members of Congress twelve times, but there is no evidence that it told those members either that it believed its actions were authorized by the use-of-force resolution or that it was asserting executive power to violate criminal law. In addition, the briefings were classified, and members were prohibited from repeating to other members anything that was said there. So the answer to Bush's question is that he may have "informed Congress" precisely to provide cover in case his secret lawbreaking ever became public, but he did so in a manner that insured Congress could not take action against him.

Myth 4: The courts have upheld inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes.

Bush's defenders claim that every court to address the subject has said the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping for foreign intelligence-gathering purposes. What they do not say is that those courts were addressing presidential authority before Congress regulated such activity by enacting FISA in 1978. The fact that Presidents may have "inherent" authority to take action in the absence of contrary Congressional intent does not mean they have uncheckable authority to do so once Congress has prohibited the conduct. That argument would mean FISA is unconstitutional, and no court has so ruled.

Myth 5: The President as Commander in Chief cannot be regulated by Congress.

The Administration's ultimate defense is that even if Bush broke the law, his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief permits him to do so at his discretion. According to the Justice Department, Congress cannot limit his choice of how to "engage the enemy." This rationale is not limited to wiretapping. On the same theory, Justice argued in 2002 that he could order torture despite a criminal statute to the contrary. It is that theory that Bush was presumably invoking when, in signing the amendment barring "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of terrorism suspects, he said he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief."

Bush tried this theory out on the Supreme Court in the Guantanamo cases, when he argued that it would be an unconstitutional intrusion on his Commander in Chief powers to extend habeas corpus review to Guantanamo detainees. Not a single Justice on the Court accepted that radical proposition. But that hasn't stopped Bush from asserting it again. After all, when you get to say what the law is, what's a contrary Supreme Court precedent or two?