Intelligence officials ‘gave no indication of any heightened concern’

White House officials and congressional Republicans have been in full-court-press mode for weeks now: the expiration of the poorly-named “Protect America Act” has put all of us in grave danger. From the president on down, the message has been as subtle as a sledgehammer: Dems have made it harder to monitor terrorists, and easier for us to get attacked. As Bush said at a press conference this week, the expiration of the PAA “is dangerous for the security of the country, just dangerous.”

And yet, it’s increasingly difficult to take the fear mongering seriously when those in the know seem unfazed by the PAA’s lapse.

The warnings from President Bush and his senior aides have grown more urgent over the last few weeks, now that Congress has let a temporary wiretapping law expire. But there is little sign of anxiety among many intelligence and phone industry officials.

At the Pentagon and the military’s Central Command, senior officials gave no indication of any heightened concern about the lapsing of the law. In Congress, staff members with access to updated briefings said they had not been given any specific information about lost intelligence that might endanger national security. And in the telecommunications industry, executives said it was largely business as usual. […]

Even with the expiration, most operations have continued uninterrupted. The surveillance orders authorizing the government to spy on terrorism targets are good for a year. If the impasse in Congress goes on for months — which few expect to happen — the problem might begin to have a real impact on security operations, officials said.

But so far, “it’s hard to believe anyone’s feeling it yet,” said a lawyer for the telecommunications industry who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. “No one’s wringing their hands about what’s going to happen this week or next week.”

Why, it’s almost as if Republicans were exaggerating the significance of this for political effect. Perish the thought.

As for events on the Hill, Republicans seem largely disinterested in keeping the PAA provisions in place while the debate continues.

Challenging Bush and the GOP to hold true to their rhetoric, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a bill [yesterday] to extend the PAA for 30 days while negotiations between the House and Senate proceed:

“As we move forward, there is no reason not to extend the Protect America Act to ensure that there are no gaps in our intelligence gathering capabilities. Even Admiral McConnell, the Director of national Intelligence, has testified that such an extension would be valuable. But the President threatens to veto an extension, and our Republican colleagues continue, inexplicably, to oppose it.”

Predictably, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) objected to Reid’s unanimous consent motion, effectively rejecting the extension.

I certainly understand the politics. Republicans want to pressure House Dems, and desperately want something to complain about. A 30-day extension of what the Bush administration wants takes away the GOP’s cudgel. I get it.

But it’s hard to argue, simultaneously, that we’re all facing an imminent threat if Republicans aren’t at all interested in a 30-day extension of what they say they want. If it were really a matter of life and death, they’d jump at the chance, wouldn’t they? The extension, by their logic, could save untold lives.

The answer, obviously, is that the danger must not be nearly as great as they want people to believe. That, or the political benefits far outweigh the terrorist threat.

This is the grammar police, pull over!
“Republicans seem largely disinterested…”
Disinterested: Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage

Disinterested are the last thing the Republicans are. Uninterested in passing PAA is what they are.

This note brought to you by those nuns who beat it into me in 7th grade. Continue on your way and write safely.

  • Wow. A very well-written article from the New York Times that actually reports the news.

    The article states the following:

    And in the telecommunications industry, executives said it was largely business as usual.

    Which draws this conclusion later on:

    But so far, “it’s hard to believe anyone’s feeling it yet,” said a lawyer for the telecommunications industry who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. “No one’s wringing their hands about what’s going to happen this week or next week.”

    Except for one pertinent item:

    Last week, one major carrier expressed reluctance about whether the government still had the legal authority to expand a targeting order in a terrorism case. The government, after several days of discussions, won out, and intelligence officials said any vulnerabilities had been plugged.

    The vulnerabilities were plugged, but there’s no indication that said data wasn’t lost. Which then makes this statement from Democrats false:

    While Democrats say the episode caused no actual harm,…

    How do they know this? Don’t hold your breath waiting for answers since they won’t give any.

    And this is a legitimate warning:

    If the impasse in Congress goes on for months — which few expect to happen — the problem might begin to have a real impact on security operations, officials said.

    By the way, this is also not entirely true:

    “Is the provider going to be willing to go up on those new targets without being compelled to do so?” asked the official, who requested anonymity to discuss secret matters. “They are facing lawsuits with hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and do not want to be put back in a position where they could be sued for complying with an order.”

    The liability that these companies may face is actually about $7 trillion, 1/2 the present GDP of the entire U.S., if all the rulings from those lawsuits end up going against the telecom companies. But even if they win, millions will have been spent unnecessarily, with the ambulance-chasing shysters still getting their cut for doing their “work”.

    Which makes this statement patently ridiculous, “The answer, obviously, is that the danger must not be nearly as great as they want people to believe. That, or the political benefits far outweigh the terrorist threat.” Yeah, who needs phones? Or computers? Or news?

  • stevel, the way for the telecoms to avoid paying for legal services is to have followed the law in the first place instead of submitting to extortion.

    alternatively, as several senators proposed, liability could be shifted to the government, a proposal in which the bush administration had zero interest.

    so take your ambulance-chasing shysters and shove it.

  • “They are facing lawsuits with hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and do not want to be put back in a position where they could be sued for complying with an order.”

    Just out of curiosity, SteveIL, what “order” are you referring to? The fascist excuse of “I was following orders” is equally as worthless today as it was for those who used it as a crutch to enable an earlier application of blending the criminalities of corporate and governmental-executive corruption.

  • Damn ACLU, Electronic Frontiers Foundation… Money grubbing bastards trying to punish his maje…er the President, when he’s just trying to protect his budd…uh Us from the Turrirists…

    My favorite part: “Is the provider going to be willing to go up on those new targets without being compelled to do so?” asked the official …I certainly hope not. They need a WARRANT!!!! Worked well for 30+ Years (with FISA) and 200+ years (with the Constitution) no need to throw it out now because the Republicans are too cowardly to defend the Constitution.

  • What’s abundantly clear is that the GOP wants to run on this issue in November. They obviously hope that they can stoke the fears of the electorate and ride that fear into another four years of power. It’s also obvious that, at the least, they don’t care if a loss of intelligence really does allow an attack, because otherwise they’d be working like mad to get something, even a stopgap measure, in place — and they are instead stonewalling on the bill.

    This is a clear and unequivocal reminder that the real issue for the Republicans is now, and has been from before 9/11/2001, the maintenance of their power through fear. It has nothing to do with actual security.

    I do hope there is no terrorist attack — but if there is, I hope the analysis of any intelligence failures that takes place will reflect this truth. I also hope that the majority of the public understands that security from terrorism purchased at the cost of personal freedom from being watched by the government is an insanely stupid bargain.

  • There is always a silver lining, right?

    We already know that when the government stops paying their bills, the telecoms stop the wiretapping…just like they’ll turn off your service for not paying the bill. The government is running out of money faster than the Fed can print it. The conservative, “free market” solution to this problem may just save the day.

    SteveIL consistently misses the point. If/when the telecoms are sued, they are simply going to point their finger at the government. While those corporations deserve to be dragged through the mud for acting like good little fascists order takers, the real blame is on our government. Bush, et al. know that the buck for this bullshit stops with them; telecom immunity is a feint. Administration members could/should wind up in jail, because they broke the law. Telecoms won’t. In fact, they’ll probably end up suing the government too…like Eichman, they were just following orders.

  • Let’s face it, none of the intelligence gathering matters not one whit with the Decider in charge who lacks the intelligence to properly use the intelligence.

    Hey didn’t pay attention to it when he told the CIA they “covered their ass” about reports of al Qaeda prior to 9/11. And if someone comes running into the Oval Office with intel that Osama bin Laden has been spotted in Pakistan, he’ll use that as an excuse to bomb Iran. We’re no safer with any amount of intel as long as the Bushies are in charge.

  • Again SteveIL joins the trembling cowards who fight not from fortifications, but with justifications. These warriors certainly know how to stack up a piles of the whiniest reasons one could imagine to explain the scam.

    In order to protect us, a deal was struck in secret to use our tax money as payola to the telecoms, huge secret contracts, to allow the cowards to peek into the communications of American citizens. We have only words and very few assurances as to what intent and extent this illegal spying went on, but we know it went unchecked for years, even through a presidential election.

    Look to SteveIL for the longwinded coward’s justifications.

  • The real danger to Bush is that if the “Protect Bush Treason Act” isn’t passed, then his traitorous illegal unconstitutional spying on all Americans that started in January 2001 will be revealed to the world…

  • Ok, I’m convinced. Bush and the Rethuglicans are doing nothing more than using fear mongering to justify their spying and storing of every piece of communication every American has done. For 6 years. Everything. Phone calls from land lines, web messaging, emails, cell phones, Blackberries, all of it. All that communication is stored on some big bad government device, to be used to put me and all the “liberal” patriots in prison forever because we had doubts about the Bush administration. Which means my patriotism has been questioned by Bush, even though that isn’t the case, so the “liberals” say. Now I can’t do anything or go anywhere or communicate with anybody because the only thing left for me is to wait until Bush and his minions come and arrest. Yep, I’m convinced.

    And how was I convinced? Oh, yeah; “liberal” fear mongering.

    /sarcasm off

  • SteveIL,

    For a while, it seemed you were willing to try to make a case for your views. It appears you have given up that approach with your last post.

    Congress has repeatedly offered to work with the administration to revise FISA in a way that addresses the administrations concerns. The administration appears to wants no oversight at all of their activities and has refused to sit down and hash out some agreement that might include any.

    I think it is entirely appropriate to ask why they would do this if doing so was placing the country at such grave risk.

  • BushCo’s entire schtick is fear, fear, fear and more fear. They must be in a flop sweat right now because the usual tricks aren’t working. Too bad Bush and the BushLeaguers were busy fucking up the economy when they weren’t wiping their arses on the Constitution. People might have the luxury of worrying about terrorists instead of focusing how they’re going to pay the bills.

    OK, who’s going to take the Troll home? Ooo, looks like howard won the booby prize.

  • The Bush administration has no interest in spying on loyal followers like SteveIL. They are concerned with those who either know something (such as about illegal spying) and can leak it, or with people around whom a germ of opposition might form, endangering their continued rule.

    No, as long as fearful dimwits can be cowed, or turned into goats like SteveIL, they couldn’t care less about them. He can sleep soundly, secure in the knowledge that, as long as it’s marginally more profitable to let him live and continue to pay taxes and buy the inferior crap the corporate elite friends of the administration manufacture for him in China, and buy the oil their friends in Saudi Arabia supply, he’s safe.

    But the dangerous few, those will be the targets of the warrantless wiretaps, with the information fed to the political operatives. SteveIL? No, he’s a model citizen for the kind of regime Cheney would like to install.

    Outlandish? Paranoid? Yup. And that’s exactly what the Nixon administration was doing– which led to the passage of FISA and related laws in the first place.

  • For a while, it seemed you were willing to try to make a case for your views. It appears you have given up that approach with your last post. I’ve made my case. What I mostly get in return are personal insults and Dem talking points (I do try very, very hard not to put in personal insults to anyone here; because I know how I can get). Ad infinitum. I can take the insults, because they are simply being used as a rhetorical device to avoid actual debate, and therefore I don’t take it personally.

    Congress has repeatedly offered to work with the administration to revise FISA in a way that addresses the administrations concerns. Except that isn’t what is going on. The Senate voted on a bill (which passed by a greater than 2-1 margin), and it is up to the House to vote on that bill. There is no other way to put this; Pelosi refuses to bring that bill up for a vote. Period. Why? It will pass. Plain and simple. There are enough Dem votes to pass it. But she refuses to bring up the vote on that bill. How difficult is this to understand? When this is brought up to the “liberals”, an attempt to falsely steer the direction of the discussion ensues, and all that comes back from the “liberals” are Dem talking points.

    And everything else being spewed by “liberals” is fear mongering; rampant, paranoid fear mongering, all based on the talking points from their Dem masters. “Liberals” don’t like it when they get called on it; but, there isn’t any other way to put it. If “liberals” have a problem with it, don’t blame me; I’m just a messenger. “Liberals” are the ones with the problem.

  • If my pet goat hadn’t, fraudulently, cried wolf so many times, it would have been easier to believe what he’s saying now. He has no one and nothing but his lies to blame for the current lack of trust.

  • stevel, i don’t know you from adam, but if your 5:43 is an example, you are even dumber than i imagined.

    for example, you do not seem to understand that the house passed its own bill already, months ago. it has no obligation, constitutional, formal, traditional, or otherwise, to vote on the separate senate bill. this is why “conferences” exist, you know.

    now, the house can, indeed, choose to vote on the senate bill, or on some other bill, or to simply hold fast, but every single one of these is perfectly legitimate within american constitutional governance.

    now, that’s a phrase you might give some attention to, since you appear to have no appreciation for what it means: constitutional governance, for example, means that even if the president tells you its ok to break the law, it isn’t ok to break the law.

    the president told the telecoms to break the law. they complied. it’s their tough break if they are held liable. what constitutional theory tells you otherwise? please enlighten us, in your “case,” just what the hell you’re talking about, because the only “case” i’ve seen you make is that law-breaking should be abetted.

    as for fear-mongering, what do you call telling companies to break the law of the terrorists will get you? one can hardly wait to find out.

  • If my pet goat hadn’t, fraudulently, cried wolf so many times, it would have been easier to believe what he’s saying now. He has no one and nothing but his lies to blame for the current lack of trust.

    You could also say he’s like a dog returning to its vomit as his chickens come home to roost because he tried to pull the wool over our eyes but now we know its a horse of a different colour. 😉

  • Prior to 9/11, with obviously much less obligation to collecting intelligence, the Bush administration couldn’t, or wouldn’t, investigate the information it had. Now with several times the data we’re to believe that Bushco can gather and comprehend information in a manner to keep us safe? Bullshit. They’re far more interested in what their political enemies are saying than America’s enemies.

  • Thank you howard for perfectly proving my point in #16:

    stevel, i don’t know you from adam, but if your 5:43 is an example, you are even dumber than i imagined. I’m dumb.

    for example, you do not seem to understand that the house passed its own bill already, months ago. it has no obligation, constitutional, formal, traditional, or otherwise, to vote on the separate senate bill. this is why “conferences” exist, you know. A Dem talking point. There hasn’t been a conference on this yet. Although there are rumors that a compromise may soon be reached. But it’s only a rumor.

    now, the house can, indeed, choose to vote on the senate bill, or on some other bill, or to simply hold fast, but every single one of these is perfectly legitimate within american constitutional governance. I never said it wasn’t. I never said what Pelosi is doing is illegal or unconstitutional. I call it dirty, underhanded politics, because this is a political matter, not a legal one. Except one could make a reasonable legal argument that she is providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

    now, that’s a phrase you might give some attention to, since you appear to have no appreciation for what it means: constitutional governance,… Back to that, eh? Except that I do, and just proved it.

    the president told the telecoms to break the law. they complied. We actually have two cases that say otherwise, one being ACLU v. NSA, which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Saying the President broke the law without evidence isn’t the same as a President who has broken the law because of evidence found.

    what constitutional theory tells you otherwise? please enlighten us, in your “case,” just what the hell you’re talking about, because the only “case” i’ve seen you make is that law-breaking should be abetted. Uh, Article II, Section 2, the one that says the President is commander in chief of the military. Especially in a time of war. Which Congress authorized in Sept., 2001. By the way, you’ll find Article II, Section 2 in the…you know…U.S. Constitution. Read it sometime.

    as for fear-mongering, what do you call telling companies to break the law of the terrorists will get you? one can hardly wait to find out. And what do you call “liberals”, Democrats, and the Democrat media telling the American people that the Bush administration has noted every single syllable of everyone in the U.S. in order to round up all enemies of the U.S.? I know what those of us who live in reality call it: fear mongering. At least with regards to terrorists, we have proof that they did try to kill thousands of us: 9/11. This wasn’t any “Gulf of Tonkin” as Keith Olbermann would have you believe. It really happened. We all saw it on TV. It was even shown by the employer’s of the Olberdork, MesSNBC.

  • Recently, a 501c4 (like a 527, except they don’t have to disclose their donors because they claim to be “non-partisan”), has begun running a deceitful, fear-mongering attack ad against at least 17 vulnerable freshmen Democrats who had the courage to stand up to the President’s warrant-less wiretaps.

    The ad looks like a 24 sequence, and would have you believe that America cannot spy on al Qaeda because these Rep’s “decided to take a vacation.” Its absurd.

    To watch the ad, donate to the targets of this fear campaign, and learn how to contact the organization, go to:

    http://www.actblue.com/page/fightfisa

  • stevel, it is to laugh: you insisted that pelosi had to hold a vote (the exact phrase: “it is up to the house to vote on the bill”). now you claim that you understand it’s perfectly constitutional for pelosi to do no such thing.

    you insist that there is a legal argument that pelosi is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a point so lamebrained that one can hardly imagine why you summon it up in defense of the notion that you aren’t a lamebrain. what gives aid and comfort to the enemy is the notion that the united states is just like a tinpot dictatorship where the president gets to override the law.

    if the telecoms didn’t break the law, then why do they need amnesty? if you’re uncertain whether they broke the law (although they have conceded the point, but why let that trouble you), then let the case proceed to trial. if you’re worried about liability judgement against the telecoms being unfair because they allowed themselves to be extorted into lawbreaking, urge upon the bush white house support for the ammendment to make the government and not the telecoms liable.

    your john yoo-derived theories of constitutional power have somehow escaped the notice of every constitutional scholar in the entire history of the country. the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief does not, in any sense (and never has) allowed the president to break the law or order the law to be broken. where do you get such a foolish notion? and, of course, “war” was not declared, and the AUMF is not the equivalent of a war declaration in constitutional terms.

    as for what i would call a liberal saying that bush had recorded every single convesation over the past 7 years? i would call that person an exaggerator, so bring that person forward and show him or her to me. in the real world, noting that the bush white house has extorted the cooperation of telecoms to listen in on conversations involving americans without following the appropriate FISA procedures, and further noting that now the bush white house wants to declare an amnesty on that lawbreaking, is citing basic facts. responding to those facts by accusing those of us who note them as providing “aid and comfort” to the “enemy” is an indication that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    which we already knew from your original comment about shyster attorneys.

    now, do you have an actual case that doesn’t rely upon stupid fear mongering of the “aid and comfort” type or constitutional theories that are plainly insane from any perspective you want: originalism, conservatism, liberal activism, etc.

    indeed, perhaps, as you try to learn something about the real constitution, you might wonder why it is that the founders, even though they were a new nation, in peril, with what they regarded as an internal terrorist enemy (natives) and an external enemy (england), insisted upon a bill of rights being added to the constitution? to provide a basis for scaredy-cats like you whose brain froze up on 9/11/01 and confused a terrorist attack with a war of civilization to spew your authoritarian tendencies?

  • This is the one and only Bush MO. Hype and fear-monger an issue that is so far removed from the underlying principle that it severely cripples his credibility when it gets revealed to be yet another fraud. SS insolvency to talk up SS privatization….which does nothing to address SS insolvency. Raising 9/11 as a talking point to hype the invasion of Iraq….despite his knowledge that Iraq was not to blame for 9/11. Using uranium enrichment as a claim that the process is ‘only’ for a nuclear bomb program, despite the fundamental and technical reality that this is not the case.

    The list of deliberate dissembling is too voluminous.

  • SteveIL,

    It’s right along the lines of almost all your other comments: incoherent, and broken. The linke doesn’t work.

    But don’t worry, I got the gist: you have no clue, you couldn’t recognize a clue if it bit you, and you just wanted the last word.

  • stevel, just to confirm charles, the link is broken.

    and i do long to read it: after all, it would be fascinating to find out why ashcroft thinks fisa, revised on a regular basis including, at the request of the bush administration, after 9/11, is a 30-year-old statute, but i’m sure there’s a pony in there somewhere.

  • Well, that was a waste of time. SteveIL is apparently impressed by authoritative-sounding verbiage that underpins what he thinks is already true. Had he applied an ounce of critical thinking (yeah, I know) he would have spotted the following in the screed he links to: “the law states that these individuals, not in the U.S., should be given a reasonable expectation of privacy requiring a warrant for monitoring.”

    Problem: this is in fact, utterly false, unless the intelligence that is being gathered could garner significant information private to US citizens or legal residents of the US. Obviously, this can only be a problem if the information is being gathered inside the US, in which case the law requires a warrant.

    I haven’t the time or the desire to read more of the random scribblings of a person who calls himself “scipio the metalcon”, who obviously has no more knowledge of the law than I do (and demonstrably less), and whose blogroll is led off with “Ace of Spades” and goes downhill from there (Atlas Shrugs).

    I’ll give the guy this much: he can string words together coherently, which is more than SteveIL can do (yeah, I know, damning with faint praise). His problem appears to be a rectal-cranial inversion in comprehension.

    Sorry, Howard, no pony in there, except maybe the hind end of one.

  • See, Charles, you actually had to read the whole thing and didn’t. The provision you address, the one that says “Problem: this is in fact, utterly false, unless the intelligence that is being gathered could garner significant information private to US citizens or legal residents of the US.” This is addressed in ACLU v. NSA, which dealt with just that, and which makes what you say irrelevant. This isn’t addressed by FISA or anything being done by the NSA. I would recommend you look at sections 505 and 506 of the Patriot Act and sections 115 to 119 of the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act. These are relevant to what you think is going on, and which I haven’t addressed yet. But none of those named as plaintiffs in ACLU v. NSA were “victims” of the Patriot Act or its reauthorization. Had they, then the plaintiffs in that case would probably have had standing. Again, it isn’t relevant to FISA or the NSA. As I mention here, in order for what you say to be true, a whole lot of other things have to be disregarded:

    * Article II, Section 2 authorizes the President to be the Commander in Chief of the military when they are called into actual service of the United States
    * Section 5.6 of Department of Defense Directive 5100.20 requires the Director of the NSA to be a commissioned officer in the military with at least three star ranking, and ultimately under the command, as a commissioned officer in the military, of the President
    * The Authorization for Use of Military Force enacted on Sept. 18, 2001 authorizes the President to call the military (which would include the Director of the NSA) in actual service of the United States against those who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks to prevent further terrorist attacks against the United States

    That is unless you think the government is terribly interested in your life and activities. That, sir, is paranoia.

  • SteveIL,

    Speaking of ponies, I’ve seldom seen a more compacted collection of horse droppings than the crap you just delivered.

    1. ACLU vs NSA has no connection to the fact that an FISC judge told the Bush administration that they couldn’t sift through communications on a piece of equipment inside the USA without a warrant.

    2. The PAA is dead. It is not the law of the land, it was not the law of the land when said surveillance occurred, and — I hope — it will never again be in effect. It therefore has nothing to say about item 1.

    3. Your reliance on “article 2” is baseless. The only time article 2 arguments have been tested in court, they have been soundly rejected (see Hamdan, I believe.) Here’s a news flash for you: Article 2 does NOT make this country a dictatorship, no matter how much pathetic authoritarian twits like you would like it to.

    I have no idea why you think it is pertinent to this case that someone has to be an officer in the military. The only theory that seems to explain what I see is that you just cut-and-paste, with no understanding, arguments from places like you’ve linked to.

    What part of the constitutional guarantee that people should be free in their persons and their property from unwarranted search and seizure do you have a problem with?

    Your lack of ability to think means that any further argument on my side is tantamount to beating a dead pony (or, in your case, the hind end of one).

  • 1. ACLU vs NSA has no connection to the fact that an FISC judge told the Bush administration that they couldn’t sift through communications on a piece of equipment inside the USA without a warrant. What part of that didn’t you understand? I believe I made it quite clear. First, the FISA court in two cases said that intelligence gathered by the NSA of two people who are not U.S. persons and are not in the U.S. was illegal and required a warrant, and this was due to a 30-year old provision. And because of this, the FISA court extended 4th Amendment rights to those who could be our enemies. In order for that to be true, a whole host of other constitutional and statutory provisions, some listed above, have to be disregarded. But, I never tried to tie the FISA rulings with ACLU v. NSA, you did. Where there is some tie between the FISA rulings and ACLU v. NSA is that this case had to do with the same subsection, but a different paragraph.

    2. The PAA is dead. It is not the law of the land, it was not the law of the land when said surveillance occurred, and — I hope — it will never again be in effect. It therefore has nothing to say about item 1. If you read the PAA, it addressed the FISA court rulings. Now that it is dead, things go back to requiring a warrant for monitoring those people overseas communicating with each other except the communication passes through the U.S. Both the new House and Senate bills address this in a more comprehensive was as the PAA. It will be back.

    3. Your reliance on “article 2″ is baseless. The only time article 2 arguments have been tested in court, they have been soundly rejected (see Hamdan, I believe.) Here’s a news flash for you: Article 2 does NOT make this country a dictatorship, no matter how much pathetic authoritarian twits like you would like it to. Hamdan is just one case, and it was decided because the President’s Article II, Section 2 powers do not extend to those powers Congress has in Article I, Section 8 regarding captures and the courts, even military tribunals. That was fixed by the 2006 MCA. But there’s nothing in Article I, Section 8 regarding the strategies and tactics used by the President, since that is the job of the C-in-C, and the terrorist surveillance program is just that; a tactic for the military to use to kill or capture the enemy.

    I have no idea why you think it is pertinent to this case that someone has to be an officer in the military. The only theory that seems to explain what I see is that you just cut-and-paste, with no understanding, arguments from places like you’ve linked to. I can see that. You don’t seem to have an idea of a lot of pertinent things.

    What part of the constitutional guarantee that people should be free in their persons and their property from unwarranted search and seizure do you have a problem with? And what part of the 4th Amendment are you forgetting? Oh, that’s right. When cherry-picking only the parts you like, you forget pertinent, and operative, words. Here’s the 4th Amendment for you, since you don’t seem to read that either [emphasis mine]:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    You really need to stop relying on “liberal” rhetoric regarding the law since the poster boy for the rule of law as defined by “liberals” is Mike Nifong. And I keep wondering, why is it “liberals” seem to think it’s a good idea to extend the constitutional guarantees “liberals” claim to love to people who have never been considered U.S. persons, never been on any territory that could be considered the U.S., and who want to do nothing more than kill Americans? There’s a word for those who want to kill Americans; they’re called “the enemy”. I realize that gets clouded by “liberals” since the only people they consider “the enemy” are other Americans, and nobody else.

    I think fine. Any arguments you’ve made were debunked long ago; continuing to use those arguments on your part is just stupid.

  • Comments are closed.