The self-immolation of the NYT

[driver]

<p>Back in the heady days leading up to Merry Fitzmas–way back before Halloween, IIRC, in a thread started by Mini–I predicted that the whole Plame fiasco would ultimately blow up in the faces of its proponents in the press and within the CIA. With the NSA “domestic spying” hearings about to commence, and the Libby defense team beginning to rattle cages, here’s a useful and informative piece to read over the weekend. It raises some of the complicated legal issues that will no doubt surface shortly, and you won’t understand what’s going on unless you bone up now.</p>

<p><a href=“http://commentarymagazine.com/production/files/schoenfeld0306advance.html[/url]”>http://commentarymagazine.com/production/files/schoenfeld0306advance.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[driver]

<p>This is going to be a real leak probe. I also think a Senator or two is going to be in real trouble. About time…I think the old Texas poker player has been quietly setting up his hand.
<a href=“EXCLUSIVE: Is CIA Leak Probe a 'Witch Hunt'? - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigation/story?id=1587307&page=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[interesteddad]

<p>After listening to seven hours of Attorney General Gonzales bobbing and weaving his way through a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I think the Bush administration is going to take a beating on the domestic wiretapping program.</p>

[driver]

<p>Well, you’ve been right so often before on these things…</p>

<p>Seven hours? What did the Swarthmore thread do without you?</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>I haven’t been right about everything. I certainly wasn’t right in supporting Bush’s invasion of Iraq.</p>

[noobie]

<p>Some interesting commentary by Glenn Greenwald, self-described as “a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges (including some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years), civil rights cases, and corporate and security fraud matters.”</p>

<p>

@Greenwald

In June, 2002, Republican Sen. Michael DeWine of Ohio introduced legislation (S. 2659) which would have eliminated the exact barrier to FISA which Gen. Hayden yesterday [1/24/06] said is what necessitated the Administration bypassing FISA. Specifically, DeWine’s legislation proposed: to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .In other words, DeWine’s bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the “probable cause” barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA…</p>

<p>The Administration said it did not support DeWine’s Amendment to eliminate “probable cause” as a requirement for getting a FISA warrant and replace it with “reasonable suspicion”, and they refused to support it for two reasons:</p>

<p>(1) The Administration said it was not aware of any problems it was having meeting the “probable cause” standard, and that fact - combined with the 72-hour window provided by the Patriot Act - meant that it saw no need for FISA to be changed because they were able to get all the eavesdropping warrants they wanted under FISA; and,</p>

<p>(2) The Administration said the DeWine Amendment was quite possibly unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment bars eavesdropping in the absence of “probable cause.”</p>

<p>Point (1) – which the Administration argued in 2002 – is the exact opposite of what Gen. Hayden said yesterday when explaining why the Administration had to eavesdrop outside of FISA (i.e., he said that they couldn’t do all the eavesdropping they wanted under FISA because they can’t always prove “probable cause” to get the warrants they want).</p>

<p>As for point (2) - if it’s unconstitutional to eavesdrop with no probable cause on non-citizens, then it’s obviously unconstitutional to eavesdrop with no probable cause on citizens. The point here is that the Administration had serious doubts about the constitutionality of DeWine’s much less draconian eavesdropping proposal (less draconian because it at least still had judicial oversight), and yet they went and did their more draconian eavesdropping anyway.</p>

<p>This also gives the lie to the Administration’s claim that Congress approved of their warrantless eavesdropping program, since Congress refused to pass the DeWine Amendment which would have watered down FISA far, far less than the Administration’s secret program did.</p>

<p>The important point is that the Administration, FOR THE FIRST TIME YESTERDAY [1/24/-6], gave an explanation as to why it couldn’t eavesdrop within the FISA structure, and yet, that explanation is squarely, directly, irreconcilably at odds with what they said in 2002.

Also a good quote, from Nixon’s appearance in 1977 with David Frost:

@Nixon

…When the President does it, that means that it it is not illegal

</p>

[browninfall]

<p>You’re not serious…Glenn Greenwald…that’s funny.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>At least we watched the “tesitmony”, which who knows what was true since Gonzales wasn’t sworn in, and why not? no debate, no discussion, just nope, he isn’t going to promise us and the american people he is going to tell the truth</p>

<p>If he would answer a few questions, that would be nice</p>

[browninfall]

<p>Winning elections is fun. You get to appoint the AG. You get to appoint SC Justices…and you get to make sure that people who screw around with the election process go to jail. East St. Louis…ding/ding Dems…going to jail. Milwaukee…slashed tires on Repubs’ vehicles…ding/ding…you’re right again, Johnny. Who would have ever thought such a thing? Dems…the party of honor and good intentions…and liberals…always trying to make sure that the good deed gets done.</p>

[kluge]

<p>…and you get to make sure that your friends who are going to lie to the American Congress don’t have to take an oath so they can’t be prosecuted for perjury…</p>