<p>The way the poll was phrased spun the issue to encourage a particular result, as Susantm and I both pointed out. I don’t know who spun the issue, or why, just that it was spun. Frankly, I’m somewhat baffled about the 23% who voted “no” to “Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?” Maybe they felt that a different federal agency should be in charge of that particular function? Absent the “no warrant or oversight” issue the question, as phrased, is sort of a no-brainer, don’t you think?</p>
<p>I am pleased to see that the Senate has members calling for an investigation of these wiretaps. I am concerned that some are asking for the hearings to be “secret hearings.” Why doesn’t make sense for the President to use the already “secret court” for this purpose? I am not interested in who else has done it arguments. (try it with a traffic cop, well yeah I ran the red light at twice the speed limit but somebody else did it too!?) or polls, (7 out of 6 drunks in the car thought it was okay for me to drive)</p>
<p>The argument that Bush’s apologists are making is that FISA is unconstitutional to the extent that it puts any limits on the latitude the president would otherwise have in his powers as commander in chief of the armed forces to perform any act he believes furthers the interests of national security.</p>
<p>The implications of this argument are as follows: the legal prohibition on assasination of foreign heads of state is unconstitutional; a president is free to authorize any form of torture whatsoever, here or abroad, against anyone, a US citizen or otherwise, who the president believes to be assisting an organization plotting terrorism against the US; a president is likewise free to summarily execute US citizens suspected of involvement with terrorist organizations; a president may order the use of chemical weapons to kill everyone in a village that is believed to harbor members of a terrorist organization; “I was just following presidential orders” is a valid affirmative defense to prosecution for war crimes.</p>
<p>I didn’t realize that 2006 was a “leap” year. Greybeard just exhibited the biggest leap in logic and hyperbole that I’ve seen in these parts. Only in the mind of a liberal is it possible to go from listening to al Qaeda to dropping chemical weapons on a village. You should be a script writer for George Clooney’s next movie.</p>
<p>I have a feeling Bush is in league with Osama.</p>
<p>So FF, what’s the flaw in the logic? Given the assumptions we are being asked to accept, why can’t those arguments be made?</p>
<p>garland, for you to place a moral equivalence between listening in on bin Ladin’s calls and dropping chemical weapons on a village you would have to take the absurd notion of MetallicManiac that Bush is essentially evil. Believe that if you wish, but realize that you are about 6 sigma’s outside the mainstream of thought - hence the giant “leap”</p>
<p>“absurd notion of MetallicManiac that Bush is essentially evil.” LORL 
NOTHING is ever absurd :p</p>
<p>FundingFather, if all that’s being done is “listening in on bin Laden’s calls” why is there a need to claim that the President doesn’t need a warrant to tap the phones of Americans? To me, that’s the gist of the controversy. Blind obedience to the assertion of the power to act without any oversight of any kind is an invitation to abuse of that power. Your naive faith that the President would only use that power to “listen in on bin Laden” - or that that is all it’s been used for to date - is belied by the lessons of history. </p>
<p>Have you ever wondered what the handful of requests to tap phones that were denied by the FISA court were for? There used to be a saying that a good DA could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich - the FISA court doesn’t seem to have been much more discerning than the apocryphal grand jury when they approved thousands of wiretap warrant requests - yet few times they actually said “no” - at least temporarily. (Here’s a chart: <a href=“http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html[/url]”>http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html</a> ) You want to bet they weren’t being asked for permmission to “listen in on bin Laden” when they turned down those few tap requests?</p>
<p>Yup, I’m sure that the 4 requests that were turned down were the ones where the evil CIA wanted to find out which villages were to be targeted to be wiped out with Sarin gas. </p>
<p>Your data was interesting in the fact that it disproves the above-mentioned, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory of an administration run amok with no regard for the law. Look at the spike of lawful requests for taps after 9/11. If the administration is willing to ignore all laws in its pursuit for consolidating all power for its planned dictatorial coup d’etat, why bother with filing any requests at all?</p>
<p>How many of these taps has been on a congressional office? How many have been a tap on a Quaker meeting house, or a Democratic candidate? How can you be so sure of the limits when they aren’t willing to share with a third party judge? </p>
<p>Is this the America that you envision fundingfather? A place where any President can listen in to any phone call that he decides is a threat? Shades of Richard Nixon, don’t you believe in the constitution’s seperation of power? Is this the America you want, do you think the reasoning behind search and seizure laws exempted except when the goverment really really wants it. That is exactly why the bill of rights was created. The army of the King of England could go and grab what they wanted without warrant or court supervision. It was such a concern that it made it into the constitution not just the federal law.</p>
<p>I am ready for you name calling now.</p>
<p>Exactly, Fundingfather - the Bush Administration position is an insistence that it shouldn’t even have to bother with the virtual rubber stamp approval of the FISA court. Why? What are the taps that the administration didn’t want even the “sure thing” FISA court to see? Bin Laden’s phone? Don’t think so…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was GOP Congressman Henry Hyde. Of course, then the context was lying about a blowjob. [Preempting the “But Clinton lied about sex!” riff in before any of the Bushevik true believers can.]</p>
<p>The position of Bush & Cheney, supported by their shills like FundingFather, is that the Executive can decide what a law means and can operate unfettered by any judicial or legislative oversight at its discretion. There’s no other way to slice it. </p>
<p>“In the name of state security!” has been the justification of excesses of dictators both Right and Left, from Hitler to Stalin, excesses that include reporting such excesses a crime. FundingFather and his ilk are very comfortable with such comrades. The security officers can get drivers with those neat lightning bolt insignia on their collar tabs and besides, the below-the-knee leather coats favored by the Gestapo are really kind of stylish in contrast to those Russian overcoats with the fur lapels that make one look kinda bulky, eh, FundingFather?</p>
<p>When folks like FF clicks their heels three times, it’s not to return to Kansas.</p>
<p>
Yup, definitely must be a leap year for the looney left.</p>
<p>FF–you keep name calling, but haven’t answered my question: how do you decide where the line is? What is the basis for going over it? Unlike us benighted souls, you seem to know, so please enlighten.</p>
<p>
Riiiight … I love your consistency. Being called a fascist is OK, but heaven forbid you reply with the type of retort that such lunacy and vile calls for.</p>
<p>For your answer - see the op-ed piece from Clinton’s associate attorney general which I posted earlier.</p>
<p>I realize that these might be the times that try neo-cons souls, but honestly, this is ridiculious. Even John Ashcroft and his #2 resisted this program. I’d like to see what mental gymnastics are required to spin these two Republicans as part of the “looney left.”</p>
<p>Who knows, maybe cognitive dissonance might take its toll someday :)</p>
<p>BP, I’m afraid it is you who have been spun:</p>
<p>From a discussion between Chris “I’m a liberal posing as a journalist” Mathews and Pete Williams of NBC:
</p>
<p>Hence, even more proof that this was done with all seriousness and attention given to the letter of the law.</p>
<p>What a friend of dh asked a conservative friend of his: “Think of the power you are willing to give Bush. Then ask yourself if you would approve of Hillary Clinton having that same power?”</p>
<p>The letter of what law, FF? The law that says “the president can do whatever he wants, as long as he says it’s for national security”? I think I missed that one on my way through the Constitution…</p>
<p>Remember, there’s already a near-rubber stamp special court set up to approve wiretaps. They’ve approved thousands over the years, rarely even quibbling over the details. But now Bush asserts the right to wiretap anyone he wants with not even that minimal oversight, on nothing more than his say-so that it’s all for the national good. I repeat: Why?</p>