Myth vs. fact vs. comedy

February 16, 2008

I mentioned the other day that I’ve looked, in vain, for a reasonable and compelling defense of the Bush administration’s position on the FISA revisions. So far, I haven’t come up with much. In fact, I haven’t come up with anything but bogus talking points predicated on misleading assertions.

John Cole asked the other day, “Why are they lying about it? I just do not get it. Do they really see some sort of political gain? Or are we finally at the end of the rope, they cannot win any arguments, so the minority party and this failed President have only lies and bullying tactics to show that they are somehow relevant?” I’m afraid the answer is yes. (And this is the latest installment of simple answers to simple questions….)

But we’re in luck. The White House released an official “Myth vs. Fact” sheet yesterday, detailing the merits of the administration’s argument. Finally, I thought, a single resource summarizing the details that will bolster the Bush gang’s odd position. If anyone can articulate the president’s position effectively, it’s bound to be the White House staffers themselves, right?

So, what did the vaunted Bush communications team come up with? Try this gem:

MYTH: If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA court can approve a request within minutes. In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and FISA approval can be obtained later.

FACT: Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security. FISA’s outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.

Um, guys? In this case, the “fact” does not disprove the “myth.” In fact, it’s a non sequitur. The White House presented a “myth,” apparently in the hopes of disproving it, and then didn’t point to any evidence that actually undermined the veracity of the original claim, which, inconveniently, happens to be accurate.

As Brian Beutler explained, “If the claim in the myth is, in fact, inaccurate, then the fact should read: ‘The FISA court can not approve a request within minutes, and emergency surveillance cannot begin immediately.’ Or something. But, of course, the ‘myth’ is true, and, as you can see, the ‘fact’ is a rather large heap of irrelevant bullshit.”

I always thought the point of a “Myth vs. Fact” sheet was to disprove claims that aren’t true. Then again, what do I know — I also always thought the point of an executive branch was to faithfully enforce the law, too.

Lest anyone think I’m cherry-picking one dumb mistake from the White House’s list, there are, of course, additional whoppers.

MYTH: The future security of our country does not depend on whether Congress provides liability protection for companies being sued for billions of dollars only because they are believed to have assisted the Government in defending America after the 9/11 attacks.

FACT: Without the retroactive liability protection provided in the bipartisan Senate bill, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with current and future intelligence efforts critical to our national security.

That may sound nice, but this “fact” is plainly false. This administration, or any future administration, can secure the private sector’s cooperation with a court order.

MYTH: Even if the critical tools provided by the Protect America Act expire, the authorizations already in place to monitor terrorist communications will leave the Intelligence Community with all the tools it needs to continue current surveillance and begin new surveillance on any terrorist threat.

FACT: If Congress lets the Protect America Act expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill, the Intelligence Community’s ability to obtain vital foreign intelligence information, including the location, intentions, and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad, will be weakened.

Every objective analysis suggests this “fact” is wrong.

MYTH: Accepting another temporary extension of the Protect America Act would not endanger our Nation’s security.

FACT: Further temporary extensions of the Protect America Act would create uncertainty and unacceptable risks to our national security.

Does this make any sense? A continuation of the status quo is unacceptable, because some people might think that status quo may change someday. If you say so.

Remember, these aren’t just off-the-cuff comments from an uninformed press secretary, winging it during a briefing. This is an official statement from the White House.

February 16, 2008 at 10:54 am

“This administration, or any future administration, can secure the private sector’s cooperation with a court order.”

How long will obtaining that Court order take?

Months of months of course – since Federal courts are located in outer Mongolia.
Snark.

The argument was good enough for the Senate Democratic majority.

Great post, CB. What did the White House press corps do with this “fact” sheet? I hope someone pushed back and went though it point by point while asking the tough questions.

this is the third time i’ve proposed an alternate theory: they are simply too stupid to understand what they are saying. they think these are “facts;” they make their own, after all.

i still think it provides a better explanation, although it’s hard to dispute john cole’s point too.

and they released this highly relevant and vitally important document on a friday because……

Under FISA, surveillance can begin immediately. The government has 72 hours to obtain the order from the FISA court.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001805—-000-.html

Pesky facts.

Great post, Steve — but there is still one false argument left unaddressed. And in fact every right-winger who comments on this issue makes this false argument — that Fourth Amendment protections don’t cover the terrorists in foreign countries that would be the targets of the wiretaps. In and of itself that may be true (I’m assuming it is; I’m not an attorney), but what the righties are leaving out is that the PAA does NOT affect just “overseas terrorists.” My understanding all along about the PAA is that U.S. citizens can legally have their emails and phone calls monitored, as long as one end of the conversation is overseas. The right-wingers also argue that Americans who are not physically in the U.S. are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, and aside from the fact that Americans inside the U.S. could be wiretapped, I am also not sure if that is true (that as a U.S. citizen you lose your constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure if you are physically not in the U.S.). It certainly doesn’t sound correct to me.

FISA complies with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The surveillance program the telecoms now seek retroactive amnesty for plainly does not.

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.

Pesky 4th Amendment!

It doesn’t make sense that the administration would fight this hard (and risk the safety of the American people, according to them!) just to cover the behinds of the telecoms. The telecoms may be Republican-friendly, but they aren’t THAT friendly.

There is something else here that the administration doesn’t want disclosed, and they are willing to spend what little political capital they have left to keep it secret. Everyone (including “the terrorists”) already knows that AT&T has given the NSA has access to all (ALL!) of our phone calls, emails, and web browsings. They are even reading this exact subversive comment, and they know who is writing it. So what else is there to hide?

Let’s let the telecom lawsuits go forward. Inquiring minds want to know.

Hey, NSA, here’s a razzberry for you!

PPPPPPFFFFFFTTT

My informant reported, several years ago, that ALL fiber optic communications are sent outside US jurisdiction, where protections of US law and the Constitution do not apply. This way, the spying is not illegal, since US law does not apply.

Is that the BIG secret behind this controvery? All communications cached and searchable, just like the WWW and Google?

“How long will obtaining that Court order take?”

A few hours to a few days. The FISA Court has turned down less than 10 requests for a court order in all these years. Using the LAW to bring criminals to JUSTICE is what America is supposed to stand for.

The myth as stated by the President is correct. So is the fact. Here’s the truth so “nobly” ignored by pathetic leftists. A judge can now turn down a request for emergency surveillance after it has started, because said judge does not believe there was probable cause, and the emergency surveillance has to be shut down. Now the outdated FISA provisions have opened up the intelligence gaps outlined in the President’s fact. National security is now at risk.

Lies of omission by “liberals” are still lies.

Using false terrorist attacks and lying to the public about their exposure to further terrorist attacks.

If you don’t see this, you are mentally masturbating over nuances in the LIAR’s story.

I know criminals, I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. You had better wake up and smell the dictatorship this group is building for you frightened sheep.

Good Luck! Remember, Jesus said that their professional mechanisms exist and that we should let them weave their deception.

Remember also John the Baptist who stood up to protest against governmental sins non violently and was called the greatest of Prophets by Christ.

Satan was able to offer nations to Christ because God has given him reign over them. So, do you still think that you are not being fooled?

Be John the Baptist, do not be afraid to condemn injustice aloud.

Thank you for this platform for expressing opinions,
Mike

Wow. The old Soviet Union fell — and landed on us! These “mythbusters” are straight out of the Politburo. There’s no such thing as the truth, so there’s no such thing as a lie.

In Orwell’s book “1984”, Big Brother and the government used fear of attack and reported constant threats of attack to the “Homeland” buy whoever they were at war with at the time. In this way they gained the cooperation of the citizens to accept constant servalence.

The Nazi government did the same in the thirties to encourage the citizens of Germany to waive their constitutional rights and turn the supervision of their lives over to the government.

The government of the USA is using the same scare tactics to make us feel it is OK to let them ignore the fourth amendment in order regulate our lives. Under the Patriot Act we are doing many invasive intrusions into the lives of our citizens, all in the name of providing us security from harm by terrorists. We are now becoming like East Germany and building fences around our borders. Yes the fences will help the flood of immigrants from the south who live under the control of aristocratic governments, but at some time in the future they may also be used to keep us from escaping. Fences stop pervent travel two directions, the most common being to keep things in, not out.

Here’s the truth so “nobly” ignored by pathetic leftists. A judge can now turn down a request for emergency surveillance after it has started, because said judge does not believe there was probable cause, and the emergency surveillance has to be shut down.

Steve, I don’t think that anyone has “ignored” that. First off, you have commenter Lee, who pointed out that in the 30 years of FISA’s existence, fewer than 10 warrant requests have been turned down. For an emergency surveillance warrant to be turned down for lack of probable cause would be extraordinarily unlikely if the government had, in actual fact, legitimate reason to believe the target of the surveillance was planning a terrorist attack. On the other hand, if the government was on a fishing expedition, with no legitimate reason to suspect the target of anything terrorist-related, then there actually would be no probable cause, right? And in a case like that, I’m sure you would not want the surveillance conducted. Because the requirement for a warrant to be issued upon establishment of probable cause is one of the most basic legal rights we have in this country. Right? Do you really want the government to be allowed to run around eavesdropping on anyone they want, justified or not?

Fear Mongering. Protect your constitutional rights.

The argument that Without the retroactive liability protection provided in the bipartisan Senate bill, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with current and future intelligence efforts critical to our national security is crap. Of course you can count on their cooperation, You’re the f**king government. Get a warrant and they can’t refuse any more that we can refuse a subpeona. You won’t be able to count on their support without a subpeona, which is whole goddamned point of this exercise. The Fourth amendment was written to ensure that a person could be safe from govenment intrusion into their personal effects (and in this case, communications) unless the government official could provide reasonable, probable cause to an objective third party that the law was likely being broken. The FISA court has not exactly been an iron curtain for these requests, as Lee points out. They rarely turn down any request. Everyone seems to be forgetting when this all started. In 2001, post 9/11, the president’s approval ratings were upper 80s, the Congress was republican controlled, and were on the knees (as always) to make the Chimp grin. He could have wire tapped the Pope and no-one would have said boo to him. The congress would have easily passed this legislation. The reason he didn’t seek the FISA court’s approval and didn’t ask Congress to change the law, is that they felt they didn’t have to ask anyone for permission. “I am Bush/Cheney and I am the great protector of American and I don’t need or trust Congress or the courts to do the job”. This mind set is exactly what the Founding Fathers sought to neutralize by creating the system of checks and balances that our government relies on. They probably never imagined that we would end up with a Congress so fawning and subservient that they would surrender their power up to the Executive like a dog bringing his master his slippers.

And SteveL :A judge can now turn down a request for emergency surveillance after it has started, because said judge does not believe there was probable cause, and the emergency surveillance has to be shut down Yes. That is exactly how its supposed to work. No probable cause, no warrant. Someone’s not a “terrorist” just because the administration says they are.

Pat

thank you, stevel, for reminding us that at heart, the modern right-wing is authoritarian. i, for example, believe that you are an agent of the terrorists; if i were in the oval office, i would be having you wiretapped immediately, and by your standards, not a damn thing could be done about it.

frankly, for all you know, i am in the oval office and i am having you wiretapped, and trust me, your wife isn’t going to like what i’ve discovered.

Steve, I don’t think that anyone has “ignored” that Yes, Kathy, they did. It doesn’t matter how many times over 30 years the FISA court has turned down requests. Your argument, and the one you cite by Lee, comes down to the fact that you seem to believe the FISA court is nothing more than a rubber-stamp bureaucracy when it is supposed to be a court of law, reviewing requests for surveillance. The fact that they can turn down requests is what puts national security at risk.

And as far as probable cause, I’ll give you all a good one. The Authorization for Use of Military Force signed on Sept. 18, 2001, passed by all but three members of the House of Representatives and unanimously by the Senate (which was controlled by the Democrats, by the way). We are at war. Congress says so, and it hasn’t been rescinded. That’s all the probable cause that’s needed.

KevinMc #9 “Pesky 4th Amendment!”

Constitutional originalism is so important to this gang that they only recognize the pre-1791 version, before the Bill of Rights.

Come to think of it, why would they prefer FACT to MYTH anyway? Myths are eternal & unchanging, whereas facts have a well-known liberal bias. Their talking points should be in the format:

“FACT”
vs
GOD-GIVEN TRUTH

stevel, i’m telling you, the wiretapping of you continues, even though your evident stupidity makes my threat assessment of you quite low.

i’m actually quite shocked that someone as dumb as to think that the AUMF constitutes “probable cause” in this context can type, so fess up (i’ll find out through the wiretaps anyhow): who does your postings for you?

by the way, my little moron, national security is a little more than wiretapping anyone you feel like: for example, observing the constitution is a wonderful basis of national security, because it’s what differentiates us from dictators, fascists, and terrorists: the belief in the rule of law.

Ah, yes. Another load of bilge from the post:

MYTH: The future security of our country does not depend on whether Congress provides liability protection for companies being sued for billions of dollars only because they are believed to have assisted the Government in defending America after the 9/11 attacks.

FACT: Without the retroactive liability protection provided in the bipartisan Senate bill, we may not be able to secure the private sector’s cooperation with current and future intelligence efforts critical to our national security.

That may sound nice, but this “fact” is plainly false. This administration, or any future administration, can secure the private sector’s cooperation with a court order.

The fact as stated by the President is absolutely correct, and the “analysis” is what is patently false. The “analysis” says that all that’s needed is a court order, stating that the courts are a rubber-stamp for administration requests. Except they can still be sued and be forced to waste millions in unnecessary court costs in a defense against class-action cases brought on by “McCarthyite” ambulance-chasing shysters. While one judge may issue a court order to a corporation on merit (probable cause), another may ignore that and allow a suit to proceed, when clearly that is not the intent.

And I have to come back to the probable cause that already exists, and doesn’t require the intervention of any judge, the 2001 AUMF that I linked to earlier.

Hey howard, the only way the Constitution gets protected is by the gun, not that “utopian” crack-addled world you live in. Grow up.

Bottom line is all this spying was in place prior to 9/11 but 9/11 still happen.

When the top two honchos in the CIA go to Condi RIce and do everthing BUT stick a gun to her head AND SHE STILL DOES NOTHING to prevent 9/11.

When trying to get the PResident to act gets this:

[A]n unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush’s Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president’s attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”

You bet you ass we’re still at risk, but it has very little to do with all the spying and a whole lot to do with a Whitehouse full of buffoons.

And they didn’t start spying on us to prevent a terrorist attack and that’s what they keep trying to cover up.

stevel, i don’t need lessons on growing up from an evident idiot all of whose arguments are rooted in propagnda u stupidity.

for example, a judge either approves a wiretap or doesn’t (remember, i didn’t have to get a judge to approve the wiretap on you); how the telecoms feel about it is neither here nor there.

for that matter, if you’re really worried about lawsuits (i knew we’d get to the amazingly inane ambulance-chasing shysters argument fact-free righties like to whip out under duress), then the solution, as proposed in the specter-whitehouse ammendment, was to move the liability to the federal government. the bush administration, of course, opposed this.

there are lots of countries that think the point of a gun is the answer to all problems; there are lots of countries that wiretap without probable cause and without judicial review; there are lots of countries that exalt the every whim of the Dear Leader. we used to regard those as the societies to bring around to our way of thinking….

SteveL,

The AUMF ‘argument’ has been debunked many, many times. How does authorizing force allow the government to spy on its own citizens without a warrant?

I assume that you’ve never read any Glenn Greenwald. I would go to the trouble of finding the links but I suspect that you wouldn’t bother to read them since you’ve already ignored the posts that state that we WANT judges to turn down wiretapping requests where there is no probable cause because that’s the whole point of FISA and the 4th Amendment!

And even assuming that you were correct that AUMF gives some kind of probable cause to wiretap, how does it logically follow that the feds can wiretap anyone and everyone, including Americans that aren’t making foreign calls? Have you ever heard of the Church Committee? Do you know any history about why FISA was created in the first place?

Wait, you say. Americans aren’t being wiretapped! How do you know that without any kind of oversight by the other branches?

Your entire argument seems to be that national security is imperiled because a FISA secret court judge somewhere could potentially decide to shut down an ‘essential’ wiretap and we’d all die. If the government and the judges are doing their jobs properly, then that would never happen. But just the mere possibility of that is enough for you to throw all the safeguards out the window and allow greater abuses?

SteveIL is back with his strawman arguments. Nobody here said that any court is a rubber stamp, not that a court which has only turned down 10 requests in 30 years could be considered anything else.

Humoring him or ignoring him is the best way to get him to leave again.

Sure, Steve, the minuscule probability that a request for a warrant might be turned down is a serious detriment to the ultra-sensitive FBI agents. And the AUMF effectively made this country a dictatorship, overturning the constitution, fine. Happy?

The howard theory of WWII. The Allies waved a piece of paper that said “rule of law” and Hitler in all his wickedness melted away into nothingness…hey, wasn’t something like that in a movie? Yes howard, you do need to grow up.

And forget the Specter-Whitehouse amendment. It didn’t pass. This is the bill the Senate did pass, the one with the immunity provision in place. The one Squeaker Pelosi irresponsibly refused to vote on.

stevel, anyone stupid enough to be unable to distinguish between the problem of jihadist terrorism and world war ii doesn’t deserve any more of my time, although i will say that yes, even during world war ii, we didn’t feel like we had to behave like the fascists in order to defeat them.

as for how congress works, don’t you know anything? apparently not. the house already passed a bill. the senate passed a different bill. now they can conference. that’s called democracy – i realize it’s an alien concept to you.

i don’t know how the rightwing keeps producing jerks like you, but i do know that fortunately, jerks like you now only constitute about 30% of the american public. there’s some solace in that.

No, you didn’t say the court was a rubber stamp. It was implied. Here’s is what was said, “This administration, or any future administration, can secure the private sector’s cooperation with a court order.” Court orders in the real world can be turned down, meaning a company doesn’t have to comply with a request by the government.

And I’m sorry you think the AUMF turned this country into a dictatorship. Maybe you should blame the people who caused the AUMF to come to fruition. You know…the terrorists. Or maybe you shouldn’t keep re-electing the same Democraps that voted for it.

Steve,

Give an example of a court order that “was turned down” by a corporation.

Can’t? I didn’t think so.

as for how congress works, don’t you know anything? apparently not. the house already passed a bill. the senate passed a different bill. now they can conference. And in the meantime, national security takes a vacation. In a time of war. Great.

Give an example of a court order that “was turned down” by a corporation. Charles, don’t even think of trying to pass that off as a legitimate question.

Steve,

Come on, Steve, enlighten us. You were the one who claimed corporations can “turn down” a court order. Give us an example. You brought it up, so you need to prove your point.

I’m betting you can’t.

My bad. I meant judges can turn down government requests for a court order. In that respect then, a company doesn’t have to comply with a government request.

Steve,

Yes, you were completely wrong. And you are still wiggling on the hook. The issue isn’t whether a company has to comply with a “government request” — we were discussing warrants, which are NOT requests.

Conflating requests with warrants is at best ignorant, and at worst dishonest. Frankly, in your case, I can’t tell which.

StevelL, why would the “corporations” bother fighting a court order when they don’t fight when the government comes to them with a request for “cooperation” (i.e. no court order). The telecomms would have a perfectly legitimate reason to not cooperate with the government because of that. Your argument just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think so. But you’re free to think it if you want.

I should have added to my last comment (sorry, I’m multiplexing on another task, and it makes me overly terse) that the danger that a FISA judge will turn down a request for a warrant is about 10 in a very large number, based on 30 years of records.

The much more probable case is that the request is shot down internally in the FBI before it ever gets to the judge. That is a problem with incompetence of the requesting agent or a problem with bureaucratic inefficiency, not with the law. Curing incompetence and inefficiency by removing restraints is just begging for abuse.

Here’s my problem: what is the point of going through a FISA court while we are at war? Why throw up an extra level of bureaucracy when going after the people the U.S. is already authorized by Congress to kill?

Someone needs an enema.

What’s bad is that this is the exact technique conservatives use for EVERYTHING. They’re entirely oblivious to the fact that assertions aren’t proof. It’s not enough to make a claim. If you don’t provide proof of that claim, you’ve done nothing. This is just something they don’t understand. For them, facts are nothing more than anecdotes that can be cherrypicked if you have them; but they’re not necessary, as the overall truth of something is known independent of facts.

And the reason is simple: They don’t understand the basic concept of empiricism or proof. They don’t comprehend the importance of it when we provide evidence, nor do they understand why we keep asking for it from them. They’re authoritarians, and as such, the truth of a claim is based on the source of the claim. For them, the factualness of a claim is based on who made the claim, and that’s it. That’s why they think it means something to repeat a claim from Bush or Rush and think we’re haters when we ask for facts to back-up those claims. That’s also why they think ad hominem arguments work. For them, proving that Gore or Darwin are flawed people is enough to disprove their arguments.

It’s sad, but that’s exactly what they do every time and what they assume we’re doing too. They just don’t understand the concept of facts.

What?!? Congress has authorized the government to kill American citizens?? When the hell did this happen? After all, the only issue here is whether they can wiretap people in the US. But we’re already allowed to listen in on communications between people who aren’t in our country.

And do you even understand the point of warrants? A corporation can’t refuse a warrant, and therefore couldn’t be sued if they obeyed it. Or if they were sued, it would be a friviolous suit and the corporation could get their legal fees back. Can you please provide some evidence that, over the many decades we’ve used warrants to obey info (including at the local police level) a business has been sued for obeying the warrant they’re obliged to obey? I’ve never heard of that before.

I always thought conservatives were against the idea of inventing laws and regulations to prevent things that never happen. Why should we be protecting businesses against something that has never happened, and probably won’t ever happen?

Steve,

The point is to uphold the rule of law. Even granting the highly questionable premise that “we’re at war” (as opposed to the state during the Cold War, the War on Drugs, on Poverty, on Cancer, on organized crime, on gangs, on …. — ours is a society which exalts the rule of law, and we should not give that up, as once we abandon the rule of law, it will not easily be reinstated.

Shorter St. Thomas Aquinas:

The existence of God is proven by the existence of God.

Useless wingnut tautologies, anyone?

From Glenn Greenwald “…The bill that the White House demanded and that Jay Rockefeller sponsored allows for warrantless eavsdropping not only on foreign-to-foreign calls, but also on international calls which American citizens make and receive while on U.S. soil. Put simply, it allows the President to spy on all of our international calls and emails with no oversight and no warrants of any kind. That is what the “debate” is about….”

Keep in mind that this allows unchecked power to the president to ALSO spy on anyone having contact with anybody who had made or received calls while on US soil. So if your son spoke to an army buddy in Iraq by e-mail from then on anyone who then emails your son can also be spied on.

Feingold stated on the senate floor:

“…The abuses that took place [prior to FISA] are well documented and quite shocking. With the willing cooperation of the telephone companies, the FBI conducted surveillance of peaceful anti-war protesters, journalists, steel company executives, and even Martin Luther King Jr., an American hero whose life we recently celebrated.
Congress decided to take action. Based on the history of, and potential for, government abuses, Congress decided that it was not appropriate for telephone companies to simply assume that any government request for assistance to conduct electronic surveillance was legal. Let me repeat that: a primary purpose of FISA was to make clear, once and for all, that the telephone companies should not blindly cooperate with government requests for assistance.
As Feingold explained, FISA was written with the cooperation of AT&T to ensure they had the clarity they needed — if they received written certification of legality from the AG, then they were required to cooperate with surveillance requests, but if they did not receive such certification, then the requests were by definition illegal and they were prohibited from doing so. The law already provides all the protections telecoms need and wanted for legal surveillance on Americans. This was the law they deliberately broke when they allowed the Bush administration to spy on Americans without warrants…”

Bush broke the law not just the telecoms…he wants amnesty for himself for this impeachable offense. That’s why the republicans are pushing so hard for this bill…to legalize Bush’s lawbreaking, just like he’s trying to do for torture and all his other illegal behavior. Our ‘safety and security’ means nothing in comparison to protecting Bush from
accountability. The WH stoops to such embarrassing lying out of pure desperation to protect Bush. A fitting end to his presidency, threatening the country with fear tactics in desperation to get immunity, amnesty and soon begging for clemency. Just pathetic. All his life people have been bailing him out of the jams he’s gotten himself into…but this is the country he’s jammed and he needs to held accountable. I’m not willing to let bygones be bygones…too many have died and too much of our democracy has been destroyed. They never should have let Reagan get by with it. Look what they ended up doing to Clinton after he had reached out to these neocons trying to buddy up and be nice and let it go. Obama trashes those brave people who risked so much to stand up to the Bush regime if he just lets it all go with no accountability. The same people he wants to play nice with with set about figuring a way to destroy him and take the house and senate back while still shaking his hand and smiling. Pelosi still hasn’t learned that so much could have been avoided and put right by now if she just would have held hearings on impeachment when the dems took office. This administration and its supporters need to be held accountable. We are watching them lie pathetically to avoid accountability which should demonstrate that they’ve been lying all along about everything. “Yes we can”, needs to be paired with “No you can’t” when it comes to what this administration has done to the nation. No you can’t break the law and bribe the senate to get away with it. No you can’t lie us into a war, and profiteer with crony contracts to cheat our country out of its tax dollars without being held accountable for it and indicted. “NO YOU CAN’T”

And, here’s my problem SteveL. Taken from your own website, A just war leads to a just peace and freedom. An unjust peace leads to death. Let’s finish this. What, I wonder, does an unjust war lead to?

Let’s not forget. The FISA court is a secret court. Heaven forfend, some of us might even have a problem with probable cause being established in a secret court that has declined about 10 requests over a 30 year period. FISA wasn’t created in the absence of law. As established by the Church Committee, the FBI and the CIA had been breaking the law for years. And, there is good evidence to suggest the NSA, with the help of the telecoms, is breaking the law now.

Only a White House that “creates its own reality” could produce a “Fact v. Myth” paper wherein all the “myths” are the actual true facts and all the “facts” are truly myths. Brilliant.

Steve…you are either deliberately lying or you are completely ignorant on how the law works…National security does not suffer by one bit with the expiration of the Protect America Act. Go back and read what Bush himself said about the act (crooks and liars video) go to salon.com and read Glenn Greenwald at salon .com to get up to speed on the law and all its parts and implications because you don’t know how wrong your comments are because they are based on mis information on how the law works and how FISA has been updated so many times to make sure we are protected. The PAA is only good for protecting Bush’s illegal wiretapping in the past and the telecoms who were paid to go along with it.

Then listen to Keith Olbermann’s special comment for Feb where he quotes the whistleblower who “connected big brother” to the special room at AT&T to collect ALL information emails and calls and financial transactions without regard to “overseas or foreign or suspected terrorists”…but everyone’s communications. The government and the telecoms got caught illegally spying on innocent Americans and the law suits brought most of this out. The suits have already been decided in the favor of the plaintiffs but telecoms have it in appeals stalling till they can get immunity and amnesty so they can get them thrown out of court. It has very little to do with keeping America safe from terrorists…that’s just smoke.

Stop believing the lies Steve…see what is really happening here. The telecoms and Bush are just trying to make their illegal activities legal. This is a big step in a fascist shift in our democracy and our personal freedoms are at stake here. These people are not above the law. They are trying everything they can think of to get by with this…including lying their asses off. Stand up for America…don’t let these people destroy our democracy. Make them accountable.

Hey, SteveL; I like the way you think: let’s put the government’s actions above the law. After all, ketchin’ terrists is so important that we just have to trust the government when they say everything’s aboveboard.

Don’t forget, when a Democratic government takes power, they’re not going to want to give up that status – to operate outside the law with impunity, and the dumb sufferance of the public. Only then, they’ll be zeroing in on the communications of Republicans and their sympathizers; looking for dirt, looking for something they can use as leverage to make you shut your mouth, or withdraw your complaint, or dance on one foot or whatever.

Welcome to the gulag you helped build.

Go on, play games. Civilization as we know it is in danger. We are the good guys. Give our government every tool to expediously thwart the bad guys.

Why would the Administration work so hard to prevent any investigations into wiretapping?

One idea is that the Cheney cabal wants to increase executive power. I’m sure that’s true, but I think it’s more likely that the Administration is covering their asses so they don’t go to jail.

If I were the Administration (and had the same goals and morals as they do), I would snoop on every Congressman to collect dirt on them. I’d know the bribes they took, their extramarital affairs (heterosexual and especially homosexual), the porn sites they visit, etc. Nearly all of them have something they need to cover up. Once you’ve got that and you let them know (without revealing your source), they’re in your pocket. Blackmailing Democratic Congressmen would probably be more dangerous than blackmailing Republican Congressmen, because the Dems would be more likely to spill the beans so I’d focus on the GOP Congressmen. Judges would also be an important target of course as would potential campaign donors, journalists, corporate honchos, etc.

Nixon had to go to the trouble of breaking and entering to learn about the Democrats’ strategy and Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s notes, but the White House can do it with a few button presses. It’s so easy that I can’t imagine that they don’t do it all the time.

#53,

1. What games? Poker? Chess? Don’t be coy.

2. Civilization is in danger from what?

3. I don’t accept that you represent the good guys.

4. What if our government is taken over by the bad guys (remember Nixon)?

The idea that “being at war” authorises anything that the current administration wants to do is scary. “The War on Terror” will never be over, therefore we will always be at war. Next thing you know, if you demonstrate against the current administrations policies you are under a microscope. It has happened before. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Kathy #8 and Steve #42, and everyone else here:

Please unwad the panties and see Executive Order 12333 (1981), governing U.S intelligence activities, found here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm

It was amended in 2004. See E.O 13335 here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13355.htm

I’ve worked for NSA as a collector of foreign signals intelligence, and as an analyst for the FBI bringing together evidence for a FISA court to authorize phone and email collection on a U.S. person suspected of being a terrorist/providing material support to U.S. – based terrorists. Here’s what someone in the know has to say on the subject.

Kathy – “And in fact every right-winger who comments on this issue makes this false argument — that Fourth Amendment protections don’t cover the terrorists in foreign countries that would be the targets of the wiretaps.”

Sorry, the right-wingers are correct on this one. The Fourth Amendment is for U.S. citizens and U.S. Persons. This includes U.S. persons and corporations located in a foreign country. NSA, an entity of the Department of Defense, can collect all it likes on non-U.S. persons in foreign countries. The rights of U.S persons aren’t being infringed upon. The issue arises when one of two things happens: either the communications links used by foreigners go through a U.S. telecom hub, or it turns out after analysis that one or more parties is a U.S. person. In both instances, NSA has either 30 or 90 days (don’t recall which ATT, sorry) to go to the Attorney General and request a waiver to continue collection based upon the evidence suggesting that this U.S. person is collaborating to commit crimes. The AG grants or denies. The FBI is notified. If denied, NSA has to destroy the collection involving the U.S. person. End of story, everyone goes home.

As for FISA…it’s HARD to get a FISA court to grant collection authorization. The logic is so circular – you have to prove intent to commit a terrorist act, or provide material support to terrorism to get collection authorization. Unfortunately, you can’t really do that without having word from the suspect’s own mouth that they intend to commit a crime or terrorist act. Catch-22, anyone? And by the time all the multi-layered, clumsy government bureaucracy comes together, said suspect is off doing whatever he or she intends to do.

Having been marinated in Intelligence Oversight and signals intelligence directives for twelve years, I take serious issue with the idea of vacuuming in collection on U.S. persons. Rule of law states your ass better have a damn good reason and a warrant. It’s been my experience that FBI agents don’t submit fishing expeditions for FISA – they have too much other shit to do. FBI culture is still law enforcement culture, very specific item, immediate results-oriented. Mass fishing expeditions just aren’t worth their time. Defense intelligence…that’s another story. They love casting wide nets just to see what the hell comes up. But again, not on U.S. persons. So this whole thing STINKS. I don’t understand the Administration’s flail concerning telecom immunity. I agree with Okie – something else is going on here, something BIG, that the Rethuglicans don’t want the rest of the country to know about. It will be a relief to get back to a rule of law under a Dem, vice corporate dictates endorsed by religious whackos.

Okie wrote: It doesn’t make sense that the administration would fight this hard (and risk the safety of the American people, according to them!) just to cover the behinds of the telecoms. The telecoms may be Republican-friendly, but they aren’t THAT friendly.

I wonder if their unrelenting vehemence is due to the fact that the Dems, House Dems at least, seem to be standing up to BushCo for once. I mean, if more of the Dems figured out that the emperor has no clothes, then their sole tactic of petulant intimidation might no longer work in the future….

Keori,

You say, “you have to prove intent to commit a terrorist act, or provide material support to terrorism to get collection authorization”.

The statute says that “probable cause” is what is required for a warrant on someone inside the USA, and only a certification from the AG for everybody else. Seems your statement is in conflict with what FISA says…

Also, shouldn’t it be difficult to get authorization to spy on someone inside the USA?

In 192-, the Supreme court declared than ‘person’ in our constitution meant anyone, even those not citizens.

That’s why we don’t jail immigrants at Ellis Island, right?

Hallo?

OMG PEOPLE DON”T YOU REALIZE WE’RE AT WAR!!!!!

With a tactic similar to the war on poverty/cancer/drugs/crime/whatever. I can’t get over how these people think that this is anything resembling a real war..

As I understand it, the surveillance started BEFORE 9/11. The Bush clan keeps saying that they want immunity because the helped us after 9/11 to find the ‘bad guys’

I say… give them immunity from 9/12/01 forward, provided they come clean and testify in public what has been going on since then.

Of course lawsuits for what happened before 9/11 can still go forward.

Let’s see what what the Bush cabal and their Republican senators have to say about that…

would be interesting to hear their story.

Do You ever get the impression that the neocons all read 1984 and their response was “Cool! We should do that”?

I’m always amazed at the number of the wingnuts who will constantly tell us we need to believe and trust the president and the ofice of the president. Weren’t these the same group that told us we should distrust “The Government” during the last administration?

They all seem to have trouble understanding that “The Government” is us. By us I mean all the Citizens of the USA. These guys got control of the Congress, White House and the judiciary in 2001 and they’ve been trying to destroy “The Government” since then. They are too stupid to realize that if they destroy “The Government” all the protections of their rights will be gone just like they’s like to do to us. Without the Constitution, I’d be just as free to harm them as they think they’d be to harm me. They couldn’t go to their Mega church and ask Dobson and his ilk to protect them. Dobson will grab everything of value he can and take up residence in Europe where they have laws.

(Sorry Canada, but I think the wingnuts will try to pull you down too)

(Sorry Canada, but I think the wingnuts will try to pull you down too)

Wait, Canada has their own government? How cute.

Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

Poor, poor Stevie…
Unless he KNOWS he’s being oppressed, he’ll be afraid of someone oppressing him!

Charles #59

Yun? Is that you?

“The statute says that “probable cause” is what is required for a warrant on someone inside the USA, and only a certification from the AG for everybody else. Seems your statement is in conflict with what FISA says…

Also, shouldn’t it be difficult to get authorization to spy on someone inside the USA?”

Having never physically sat in on a FISA court, I couldn’t tell you how difficult it is. From listening to the agents grumble and tell me they needed more intel to satisfy the court, I would surmise it’s hard. As for probable cause vs the AG, I’m not sure what you mean.

Intelligence Oversight guidelines define a “U.S. person” as a U.S citizen or legal resident, or a U.S corporation based within or outside U.S. territory. Collection resources are owned by NSA. NSA, being a DOD entity, can collect on whatever non-U.S. person entities it so chooses. No 4th Amendment infringement there, no issue. If the FBI wants to collect on a U.S. person outside the United States, thereby needing NSA resources, they have to submit the case to a FISA court and get a warrant, hence probable cause. Probable cause, for practical purposes, is proof of intent, hearkening back to that Catch-22 I referenced. If the evidence suggest that U.S. persons or material interests are in immediate danger and collection is needed NOW, there are measures in place to protect the FBI and NSA via retroactive court approval, as stated earlier. FISA covers NSA’s ass for collecting on a U.S. person on behalf of the FBI when the U.S. person is a criminal suspect. AG approval is needed when NSA inadvertently collects on a U.S. person, discovers wrongdoing, and needs approval to continue collection for national security purposes. Bear in mind that this was the procedure for lawful collection on U.S. Persons BEFORE the Patriot Act and PAA. How that got fucked six ways from Sunday in the neighbor’s bed is beyond me at this point. The mechanism for collection has always been there, and U.S. telecom companies complying with a lawful court order for collection wouldn’t need immunity.

Did that make more sense? Sorry if I was not terribly clear earlier.

Keori,

No, I’m not Yun. At least, I don’t think so.

I’m still bothered by the statement that “Probable cause = proof of intent”. There is no way that those two levels of proof are, or can be made, synonymous. They are fundamentally different. If the FISA court is requiring proof of intent, then they aren’t following probable cause, it’s just that simple.

As for where I got my information, not that I consider it authoritative, but I find it a bit odd that wikipedia has more information about how FISA works than you have shared.

If agents are not bitching about how the FISA court makes them justify their warrant requests, then the FISA court is not doing their job. It may even be that the agents think that “probable cause” means “proof of intent” — but I doubt that someone sitting on the other side of the table would necessarily agree.

Frankly, I’ve rubbed up against some of the authorities, and they are all too often simply authoritarians. The rest have my sympathies, but authoritarians should never have it easy and unrestrained in positions of authority.

Thanks for the clarification. It dovetails (except where I’ve noted) with what I’ve heard elsewhere.

SteveIL
The proposed Senate version also precludes recourse through the courts, but sets up a government appointed committee to review complains of citizens wrongfully accused of whatever crime. You, a conservative, for more big govt? And you would trust a govt committee appointed by the people who are doing the surveilling? The 18 USCode 2511 makes surveillance without a warrant a felony. Bush is a felon. Impeach him. That’s what he is afraid of, that or prosecution in the courts when he is out of office.

Charles,

Personally I don’t trust wikipedia as an authoritative source. It’s good for the basics and links to authority. My explanation of FISA and IO stem from personal experience, having been subject to the laws and directives governing collection against U.S. persons. I’m just trying to put the practical application into a nutshell for those who have no experience in the field. Anyone who wants to read the E.O. and amended statutes is more than welcome to look them up and attempt to make sense of them. It’s always nice to have a civil discussion about these things, especially in light of the gross violations of the 4th Amendment perpetrated in recent years. I’m thankful that I’ve never personally been in a situation where warrantless surveillance was being conducted. [shameless plug ahead] The FBI and other law enforcement agents I’ve worked with (TSA, INS, DEA, etc) are good people, smart, dedicated, with no interest in persecuting innocent Americans. They’re always wanting to learn more about folks they don’t understand so they can do their job better. We here can all agree that there is nothing worse than a corrupt official; so I believe that there are few things better than a good, honest one.

I agree with you that if the agents weren’t grumbling, then FISA court isn’t doing their job. Stringent requirements keeps them honest. As for probable cause practically equaling proof of intent, my bet is that it all comes down to money. Bureaucracy doesn’t want to spend resources on a fruitless goose chase, so FISA court won’t authorize money spent on collection with less-than-fantastic odds of snagging something usable for prosecution. At the end of the day, law enforcement is interested in prosecuting and convicting criminals of all stripes. A fishing expedition isn’t likely to help them do that.

Keori,

Wikipedia is often a good starting point, but should never be the final word. I wasn’t offering it as such. It does lay out the law concisely, though.

If the issue is cost, then the FISC isn’t too blame for all shortcomings of the existing system.

And if a fishing expedition isn’t worthwhile, it’s hard to understand the desire on the part of some to sift through even more communications (cf TIA).

This discussion is tending to the conclusion, made above by others, that it’s the immunity, not the new powers (which makes sense, because the Bush administration has never felt itself bound by the law anyway.)

Bush Administration:
“If you aren’t doing anything wrong then you don’t need to be concerned about being spied on (in violation of the constitution).”
“Those companies that violated your constitutional rights need to be protected against lawsuits for doing so.”

Um, anyone see a disconnect here?

Charles,

We are all in agreement that something is rotten in the state of Americ – ah, I mean Denmark when it comes to the telecom immunity. As to why someone would endorse something like TIA, don’t forget, the suits that order it aren’t the schmucks who would have to slog through it; they leave THAT joy for folks like me. Doing both Defense Intelligence and law enforcement intelligence during the Shrub Reign has been more than a little demoralizing. On the one hand, nothing you say is ever taken seriously by the consumers (the Administration) because they’ll twist whatever they want to hear to suit their own purposes. On the other hand, the rest of America hates you for collaborating with an Administration that never felt bound by the rule of law.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080213_the_powerful_and_obn.htm

My main concern is not whether the information can be accessed at a demonstrated need. The inadequate oversight and accountability of the people with access to the information is what is scary to people who value individual rights and limited government. I recently did a short piece on U.S. and Foreign Surveillance, What’s at Steak? (misspelling intended), at my blog, http://citizenfranklin.blogspot.com/ Let me know what you think.

Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, on the Senate floor last week: “What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.”

Comments are closed.