OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce?

Is the world running out of virgins?

Anyone whining about wiretaps or TSA security today?

If Bush and his cronies were smart, they would pounce on this for all the good PR it would be worth to them.

But they wont.

Isn't AQ (and OBL) always on the run?

Somehow it doesn't seem to prevent him from overcoming the most sophisticated secruity network in the world though.
Hmmm....maybe we should just hire AQ? They're obviously more intelligent than our intelligence...

And, no, this doesn't make we want to hand over to the executive the power to wire tap under any and all circumstances. Might as well live under Stalinist Russia.

Oh I'm sure Bush will try to use the tape as justification for breaking the law, and there are people who will be willing to give him a pass. But unless martial law has been declared, wiretaps on U.S. citizens without warrents are still illegal regardless of what the news flash of the day is. The law hasn't changed, and he needs to be held accountable.

I think Bin Laden is realizing that in the end neither side is going to be able to completely achieve their ends, so perhaps it's time to come to a compromise.

The flaw in your argument is that the Executive doesnt wire tap under "all and any circumstances."

Call me nuts, but when the man who has done a ton of damage to us the last fifteen years says he's gunning for us again, Id listen...and maybe raise our guard a bit. Give the govt. rights to run roughshod over everything? No. But there needs to be a balance here. Revise FISA, institute emergency powers with Congress' approval..something. I dont claim to have the answer, but do ANYTHING but go on with the status quo.

And PJ......"A compromise" with OBL. Good idea, Chamberlain.

Can anyone tell me who said:
"...the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses."

And after that, can anyone tell me who said:
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

I wonder what the compromise is? Obviously withdrawal of troops from not only Iraq but all of the ME is one of the provisions. I am guessing that the elimination of Israel is also on the list.

The reasonable Bin Laden is now coming to this conclusion while the crazy GW (the root cause of all problems) has yet to gain the perspective and wisdom of OBL? Nice.

This, like other OBL tapes, attempts to bring politics into it and pile on notions reported in editorial pages. The war mongers are profiting.....they contrived this war.....blah blah blah. OBL is making a poor attempt at playing you and you are buying it.

We all must convert. Do Muslims get a big party when they come of age like a Bar Mitzvah? Even though we're over 13, do we get one when we convert?

Al Gore?





Jamie Gorelick of the 9/11 Commission and the administration that I am not allowed to bring up for fear of Libs getting their panties in a wad?

Buh....buh....buh....that was.......DIFFERENT!

Amazing what a three second Google yields.

Nah, let's just say it...a Clinton Administration official, and a Clinton administration official. Not that they're two-faced or anything.

Gorelick, btw, said that in testimony to the House Committee on Intelligence (now there's an oxymoron) concerning the Clinton's administration warrantless wiretaps. She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases".

Now you did it.




Shhhhhhhh...you are not supposed to bring that stuff up. History started January, 2001. Please be more careful in the future.

Which war are you taking about, the one against OBL or the one in Iraq, because they are different issues. The war against OBL wasn't contrived, the one in Iraq was. And this war against OBL is a political and economic one, not a military one. Unless and until we win over the hearts and minds of moderate Arabs through our policies and actions, they will continue to turn their heads and give passive support to the extremists. With the Mess-in-potamia, that will now be difficult.

Well...in the interests of balance, I should point out that I've found equally as many statements by the Republican Congressional leadership of the time decrying the Clinton Administration's position on warrantless wiretaps as unconstitutional.
so from a purely constitutional standpoint, they're all full of partisan "It's a crime when the other guy does it" horesehit.

But let's all keep pretending that our elected "leadership" actually gives two shits about our constitutional protections.

Aside from the italicized, that's a very astute set of observations. Who are you, and where's the real PastaJoe?

As for the italicized...brush up on your Clausewitz, for starters. Then contemplate what radical Islam thinks of that statement themselves...

They only care about themselves. Not much is going to change as long as people vote for the "lesser of two evils." The people can regain control over their elected officials, but they need to get past their apathy, first.

Not true. They care about their parties, too. And I'm sure a few of them care about their hair. And I heard an unsubstantiated rumor the other day that there's actually a congressman who spent five minutes thinking about his district...

Yeah, that is who helps them keep their power.




Point taken.




You lie.

I'd don't care who is in power; I'm against more power to the executive--I prefer not to live in a police state.

The problem has NOT been intelligence agencies "lack the tools" to fight AQ; the problem has been the ineptness of the bureaucratic intelligence structure.
And what did Bush do? He created the largest bureaucratic structure of all--Homeland Security.

In five separate cases before 911, FBI agents investigating AQ had their hands tied from above (DC). The Patriot Act can't prevent that.

Well, you are not going to get an argument from me regarding bureaucracy. The Dems have been increasing it for a long time now and the Republicans have now joined suit. Hell, that was my major campaign topic in 2004. The Dems kept pressuring Bush to create DHS and he relented. Bad move, IMO.

As far as Intel agencies not lacking tools, I strongly disagree. Back in the 90s, intel agencies were no longer allowed to "associate" with people of questionable nature. Well, who the hell do you think has the most usable information? The friggin' Girl Scouts? No. The bad people. I agree that the bureaucracy also plays a role, but it is not the sole reason.

Truce Request = "We're losing and we need time to regroup so we can kill more infidels"

They aren't allowed to lie or "stab you in the back" but stuff like honor killings and mass murder is AOK. Chopping off someone's head and sending the video to al Jazeera? Go for it!

Is this a Bin Laden quote or something someone said at the Golden Globes?

FISA was amended by the Patriot Act to provide emergency wiretap authority, that procedure wasn't available when Gorelick testified about Okalahoma City. She was right about the need and the issue was thought to have been addressed by the Patriot Act amendments to FISA. Thus, Bush has had authority under FISA to conduct the warrantless taps the Clintion administration wanted. Bush however appears to have proceeded outside the very, very broad confines of FISA. For whatever reason, they did not just simply use the FISA procedure which allows them to conduct emergency warrantless taps and instead proceeded in such a way that may have been illegal.

Nobody is arguing that the President should not be able to conduct emergency warrantless taps. That is why FISA allows just that. I am all for that, so are the majority of democrats. That, however, is not what they did that has caused such a ruckus.

I think trying to understand what anything he says might mean is a pretty iffy propositon. I hope the experts can figure it out, I know I can't. Is this stuff meant for us or is the primary purpose to influence fellow Arabs, the pool from which AQ must recruit all its resources from men to money? I have no idea. I am sure it is important to try glean whatever helpful information there is from these things and I wish those whos job it is to do just that the best of luck.

Actually...

1) Gorelick's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee predates Oklahoma City by a year, and
2) Show me where Gorelick's comments are related to the PATRIOT Act amendments to FISA? You're specifically talking about the "roving wiretaps", which is the only real significant difference between pre- and post-PATRIOT Act FISA.

Not a constitutional scholar, but from what I'm reading written by constitutional scholars, is that Bush was acting on executive authority conferred to him by the Constitution, which is outside the scope of FISA (which in itself is very limited for presisely the reason as not to limit Presidential authority)

From my conservative rag:

Heaven is sick of taking virgins and now wants to hire candidates with "experience."

If AQ is tired of the fight, they can cry 'uncle' any time (what grown-ups call unconditionally surrendering). Until they do, continue killing them.

my pessimistic 2 cents:

i really think that since the u.s. failed to get zawahiri, to cool down an explosive situation in pakistan they've trotted out the excuse that they've nailed some biggies. i doubt that anyone they killed is that central to the operations of a-q. to paraphrase degaulle, the graves are littered with indispensable men, and replacing a few 25 year old zealots with civil engineering degrees (if they had even that) strikes me as a pretty easy task given the large and talented pool of applicants. as for killing zawahiri's son in law, whoopie. how many of those does he have anyway?

as you can probably tell, i believe very little of what the administration says about these things anymore. i do believe they killed some members, but hardly anyone central to a-q. i'm glad that they're gone of course, but i've concluded that as long as the driving force behind a-q remains -- bin laden and to a far lesser extent zawahiri -- killing a small handful of functionaries is pretty meaningless strategically. tactically, i guess it's a plus, but a couple of months from now people will barely remember it, including the leadership of al-qaeda, who are undoubtedly sifting through new resumes if in fact these guys were higher ups within the organization.

I was relying on the information contained in your post which I thought said she testified to a committee after Oklahoma City about the need for emergency taps:

"She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases".

I thought that the provision of FISA which permitted warrantless emergency taps for three days was a Patriot Act Amendment but I could be wrong, there have been a number of amendments. I'll check and get back to you as to when that emergency procedure under FISA became available. Not to muddy the waters but there is also that provision that lets them tap without a warrant for up to a year with extensions for the low, low price of simply notifying the secret court and a few committee heads.

That is part of what they are arguing. It appears to me that their first line of defense on this is that Congress implicitly allowed this in their resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. I haven't had time to research this as much as I normally would. I'm thinking that they need that idea to stick so that the President's war time powers kick in despite the lack of a declaration of war.

If what they are apparently arguing as far as the constitution is concerned is correct, then FISA itself is unconstitutional. Clearly, it has never been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS but I can't tell you that they ever had a case challenging its constitutionality and if that is the case, then its plausible that it could be found to be unconstitutional.

Without getting into it in detail, I find the notion that FISA is unconstitutional to be pretty iffy. Clearly, the constitution protects against warrantless searches. At least that part is a no brainer. At the same time the President does have certain powers under the Constitution.

This would have been a fascinating discussion to have during Alito's confirmation hearings. Did any democrats take time out from grandstanding to ask these kinds of questions? Did the republicans on the committee take time out from slapping him on the back long enough to raise these issues? Did anyone ask and Alito dodge these kinds of questions? I didn't watch them so I dunno.

How much detail can Alito get into if it is a potential case for SCOTUS? It seems pretty clear that some sort of legal battle is going to happen over this stuff, which will probably reach SCOTUS. Therefore, he cannot go into too much detail on a case he may preside over, correct?

There is no actual statute that really permits those evasions, it is just a strategy used by both sides during confirmation hearings. If the Senate wanted, I think they could find the witness in contempt of the Senate by refusing to answer those questions but since the reasoning makes sense, they aren't going to do that.
That really is a different issue though worthy of a separate discussion.

I'm sure he wouldn't answer a question as to how he would rule on Congress v. Bush as to illegal wiretaps. Other than that though, there are plenty of relevant discussions that can be had. Citing and discussing the precedents involved would not reveal how he might rule on a possible future case on this NSA warrantless tapping issue. Just going over what the court decided in Smith v. Smith or Jones v. Jones doesn't tell you how he would rule.

In any event, since the Senate would never force him to answer a question he has dodged based on the notion that it would be improper due to pending cases he might hear, etc., it really would be up to Alito himself to draw the line on what he would and would not answer. However, if he is never even asked the question, how are we to know? Again, I didn't watch all the hearings so I don't know to what extent, if any, he was asked any questions as to the separation of powers, seeming conflicts between one constitutional provision and another, that sort of thing.

For those interested, here is the section of FISA permitting warrantless surveillance in an emergency for 72 hours. Maybe I missed it but I think the ability to do this applies even to "US Persons" which is a trigger which usually requires more court involvement elsewhere in the statute. I do no know if this was part of FISA as originally drafted or if it was added in subsequent amendments as FISA has undergone periodic changes over the years.

Edit: This section was amended in 2001 to increase the period during which a warrantless emergency tap could be executed before being required to get a FISA court order from 24 hours to 72 hours.

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

Since we're having another FISA debate, anyone read the editorial in yesterday's Times?

Doesn't it cost 50 bucks now to read the on-line op-eds?

I didn't waste my time with the hearings either, since it is more about the Senators than it is about the nominee.

Yeah, thats why I didn't post the link.

I pay 6 bucks a month for daily delivery.

<3 student rates.

I have to admit that I did see the clip a few times of Specter and Kennedy going at it...and found it entertaining. A guilty pleasure, kind of like watching rollerball.

I think that was a bad decision on their part and I bet that they might start losing columnists who aren't happy having lost the oppotunity for their work to be viewed by 55 million hits per month

Who wrote the column you were referencing and can you give us the highlights?

Yes, you are correct on this. That's why IMO, that Specter is calling for an investigation. This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers. There was a reason that Bush signed every order to snoop, because the admin's interpretation is that he is exercising his executive privilege in military surveilance.

The key issue is the declaration of war. At this point, it is very ambiguous that the executive powers ion question can only be invoked in an official declaration of war by Congress. Certainly, history dictates that many military actions equivalent to a war have taken place without a formal declaration of war. Which begets the natural question of how does one actually declare an official war on AQ?




And as per above, the existing laws have not been properly updated to deal with declaring war on non-nation states. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Congressional approval to use force to combat AQ, is as close to a declaration of war on this non legal entity, which in turn would invoke executive privilege to conduct military surveilance without a warrant.

When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up.

Ah, I finally found the article. I thought I had thrown the paper out, but I still have it. :-)

The article is by Bob Herbert, and its entitled "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution?"

The first part of the article is just outlining what the NSA did, but the meat of the column is when he starts talking about why the president did it. I'll type some of it out for you here:



I don't really think these allegations hold merit, given the source that its coming from. However, the revelation that the NSA was spying on so much stuff is rather interesting.

The conspiracy theorist and bored person in me hopes that its true, just for the entertainment value of the situation.

They blow up so quickly.....

How hard is it to get a friggen wire tap?

I heard that, over the years, the special court has only denied about 5 out of 17,000 wiretap requests.

If the Bush Administration had been smart, it would have made the requests.

As for the exigent circumstances argument, there is a specific procedure for going in after the fact.

This was pure stupidity and/or hubris on the part of the Bush Administration.

I've speculated along those lines myself. The argument is that FISA compliance was easy and always (99.5%) resulted in a warrant plus there were at least two provisions which permitted tapping without getting a warrant from FISA (72 hour emergency provision and the tapping of non-US persons for a whole year with extensions available). There just seemed to be no need to sidestep the FISA rubber stamp. The argument then proceeds to conclude that since FISA compliance was not too cumbersome to comply with, that FISA compliance was not an obstacle to tapping to get the info needed for security, they must have had a different motivation for going around the law.

One motivation for doing so would be to hide tapping of people no one in their right mind would consider to be a legitimate target. That is what this writer is getting at. The only way to know that one way or the other is to find out who was tapped. Until then, it is just speculation.

Or there was a reason to proceed as they did that hasn't yet been brought to light. Maybe something having to do with the technology involved or maybe they were tapping people for reasons other than security. We just don't know but that is why I would like to see an independent investigation.

I've since done just a bit of research, nothing huge, but some. A good thing to read on this is the report of the Congressional Research Service which you can check out here.

You have to remember that you start off with the Fourth Amendment which is very clear:

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.

Electronic surveillance is considered to be a "search" so it applies to the NSA taps. You can't get much clearer than "shall not be violtated" or "no warrants shall issue".

In 1972, the supreme court rejected the argument that domestic security requirements were an exception to the warrant requirement:

"These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch..."

Accordingly, there had to be prior judicial approval, ie, a warrant. That was the case anyway prior to FISA. It may be that the real constitutional problem with FISA is not that it is an impermissible encroachment upon one branch's power by another but that it practically amends the Constitution by altering the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. Congress can't amend the Constitution by any procedure other than that established for a Constituional Amendment.

As for the separation of powers, both the congress and the President have constitutionally allocated powers that arguably include control over surveillance. Too many people seem to assum that because the President is Commander in Chief that he must also have in his hands all of the various war powers and that the Congress has none of those powers. Congressional powers related to national security include:

The Constitution specifically gives to Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” 11 U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” id. § 8, cl. 11; “To raise and support Armies,” and “To provide and maintain a Navy,” id. § 8, cls. 12-13; “To make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id. § 8, cl. 14, “To declare War,” id. § 8, cl. 1; and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The President's power is simply to act as the C-n-C and to enforce the laws.

I could go on but clearly, if you read that report, this is a seriously important issue and if it becomes a case, it will bo one of the most important constitutional questions addressed by the court in a long time.

As usual, the talking points of the right don't seem to give you all the facts before feeding you a sound bite that appears to score one for their side.

Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said this in July of 1994. At the time, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not bar the use of warrantless physical searches, and Gorelick's statement was indeed fact. In her testimony she went on to say that the Clinton administration actually supported expanding FISA to cover physical searches (and indeed this expanded coverage occured in 1995). After expanding FISA in 1995 the Clinton administration never argued the right to condict warrantless physical searches.

By contrast, Bush is asserting a right to conduct warrantless electronic searches, something barred by FISA for the last 27 years. He is directly stating that the legislated law of the land does not apply - something Gorelick did not do despite the "smoking gun" statement being circulated by conservative talking points.

Few people have issue with the government's right to conduct searches that will keep us safe, however there must be guidelines. Bush says he needs to take action and getting warrants ahead of time severely hampers the ability to conduct valuable searches. That's not a valid argument - he has plenty of leeway to conduct searches and still remain within FISA (remember - that's the law). Understanding teh need to move swiftly, FISA provides for a "search now, get a warrant later" wherby you can actually do a wiretap now and get a valid warrant for the action up to 3 days afterwards, by a secret court dedicated to authorizing such things (you won't have to wait months for a day in court to make your case for a warrant). Failure to abide by FISA is a blatent disregard for the law of the land and shows and incredible arrogance by the current administration.

I'm sure it's not surprising to some here that if you actually take the time to research the quoted precedents, little nuggets come out that refute a lot of popular theories. Such as the of-cited Keith case of 1972, that you and the rest of the cacklers were quick to jump on. You are 100% correct that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that US govt cannot wiretap without a warrant any cases involving domestic security, where the targets were purely domestic.

What is ignored, is a more importantly relevant passage from the SCOTUS decision:



How many people would qualify AQ as "domestic" or US citizens who contact AQ as not potential "agents?"



Agreed that it is important, and it will be tested. But there's nothing that shows that there was a clear violation of law.

If I understand your point correctly, SCOTUS forbids warrantless phonetaps of people like Timothy McVeigh, since he is strictly a domestic terrorist. The gray area arises if he were to have contact with foreigners?*


*I know that he did have contact with foreigners, but I am just looking at the issue of U.S. citizens performing terrorist attacks in the U.S. seemingly independent of foreign intervention or assistance.