Patterico's Pontifications

4/6/2009

Hope, Change and More Secret Wiretapping

Filed under: General — Karl @ 2:36 pm



[Posted by Karl]

Meet the new boss, baby:

President Barack Obama invoked “state secrets” to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed.

The move — which holds that information surrounding the massive eavesdropping program should be kept from the public because of its sensitivity — follows an earlier decision in March to block handover of documents relating to the Bush Administration’s decision to spy on a charity. The arguments also mirror the Bush Administration’s efforts to dismiss an earlier suit against AT&T.

***

The Justice Department also holds that the lawsuit can’t proceed because of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They assert that the US government has “sovereign immunity” against statutory claims that it illegally wiretapped or accessed communications data.

Congress expanded the wiretapping program in 2008 with passage of amendments to the Act, which gave telecom companies immunity for past and future participation in the program and expanded the legal use of warrantless wiretaps from 48 hours to seven days. The revised Act also allowed the government to destroy records of previous taps.

Obama voted for the revised Act while a senator last year.

Nor is this Obama’s first foray into these waters:

In February Obama lawyers used the same “state secrets” tactic to block a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of five victims of extraordinary rendition — the CIA’s famed kidnap and torture program. “This case cannot be litigated,” Department of Justice lawyer Douglas Letter declared on February 9th, arguing that the case, Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, should be thrown out. “The judges shouldn’t play with fire in this national security situation.”

ACLU director Anthony Romero decried the move. “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government.” 

Now, warrantless spying can be added to the list.

 “In our case we have no reason to believe that the warrantless wiretapping has ended,” said [EFF legal director Cindy] Cohn, “so at some point we have to call it Obama’s warrantless wiretapping.”

Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?

Update: Glenn Greenwald is apoplectic:

[B]eyond even the outrageously broad “state secrets” privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they “willfully disclose” to the public what they have learned.

In contrast, Andrew Sullivan is silent.  Funny, when Greenwald cut the administrations some slack today, Sully was all over it.

–Karl

257 Responses to “Hope, Change and More Secret Wiretapping”

  1. But Karl, don’t you realize that it’s different this time? When Bush does it, it’s illegal/torture/Gitmo/Haditha/Rovian – but when Obama does it, it’s only Lightworker/Makeworldloveus/Michellesbuffarms.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  2. Paraphrasing a recent commenter here, government eavesdropping is OK, as long as we have the right people doing the eavesdropping. Wink, wink. Maybe, just maybe,those national security briefings had some effect.

    carlitos (ff752f)

  3. carlitos – those national security briefings had no impact. It is just that they hold the power now, and they are comrfortable with being raging frothing-at-the-mouth hypocrites.

    JD (b8d7fe)

  4. Now, if he’d just prosecute the NY Times for divulging top secret information, the irony would be complete.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  5. Another difference between the Bush and Obama administrations is during Bush, that power was used to fight those who would destroy the United States. Obama will use it against those who would preserve our freedom. The elected leader of the free American people bowed to a Saudi King. Impeach him now.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (798593)

  6. Comment by Kevin Murphy — 4/6/2009 @ 3:41 pm

    Well, they’ll have plenty of room @ GITMO for those endless layers of Times Editors and Reporters once they start releasing the goat-herders onto the streets of Amerikkka!

    AD - RtR/OS (37be1b)

  7. ACLU director Romero doesn’t get out much if he thinks the US is such a horrible human rights abuser. Or, it’s just easier to criticize the US because if he pulled this in say, Sudan or North Korea or any of a dozen other nations, he’d be subjected to real, lasting torture. Save us the hyperbole, please. It distracts from the core issue of whether the state secrets doctrine applies as a matter of law.

    kyle (9d9e73)

  8. Great post. I’m glad the Obama DOJ made this decision, but watching liberals’ heads spin as they try to mesh this with their view of Obama as a champion of modern liberal values is the icing on the cake.

    Anon (4025f2)

  9. There will be some assplosions resulting from this.

    JD (fc72cc)

  10. I am just devastated!!11!!!

    How do you get the stains of unicorn tears out of clothes? Anyone?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  11. Or, it’s just easier to criticize the US because if he pulled this in say, Sudan or North Korea or any of a dozen other nations, he’d be subjected to real, lasting torture.

    Bingo – and you could add Amnesty International to that list. While at times they stand up for dissidents in totalitarian regimes, too often they go for the cheap shot at the US, conveniently forgetting the dissidents in Iran, Cuba, etc.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  12. too often they go for the cheap shot at the US

    Remember who their donor base is…but I have to admit the growing silence from these purported bastions of civil rights has been easy on the ears now that it’s their very own comrades who are the ones doing the blind eye bolero with the bad ‘uns.

    allan (ca61cc)

  13. Glenn Greenwald isn’t happy:

    This is the Obama DOJ’s work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.

    Responses from Patterico’s resident liberals?

    Anon (4025f2)

  14. The only way to keep the government from spying on your conversations is to only speak Austrian.

    Huey (9d9aed)

  15. It is pretty difficult to be outraged about warrantless wiretaps of international calls if you put up with warrantless searches at customs.

    Michael Ejercito (7c44bf)

  16. “The only way to keep the government from spying on your conversations is to only speak Austrian.”*

    * offer no longer valid in California

    p.s. I’m as personally opposed to this policy under Obama as I was when it was implemented under Bush

    Bob Loblaw (6d485c)

  17. Glenn Greenwald isn’t happy:


    This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ’s, and the ample time that elapsed — almost three full months — makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have.

    I imagine most libertarian leftists won’t be happy with this, most libertarian rightists won’t be happy with it too. So at least they’ll be consistent.

    As for those on the left who are a bit closer to the center, and those on the right (like me) who have a hard time believing the guy now in the White House is the guy now in the White House, will there be some philosophical contortionist routines and back-breaking rationalizations pertaining to this small slice of the Obama administration?

    Ultimately, I’m quite sure that far more liberals are going to give Obama a pass on this issue than the number of conservatives who are going to mock him for not being as naive and foolish as he normally is.

    The saying of the day — and keeping in mind that the guy now in the Oval Office is pretty much one big, messed-up, haywire set of gears and springs — even a broken clock will tell the correct time twice a day.

    However, just as those on the left have a knack for easily corrupting something that’s otherwise good and valuable (eg, fiddling with the home-mortgage industry and trashing it with both feel-good and also greedy policymaking, etc), the people in the current White House could easily do the same thing to a wiretapping program that has been switched from fighting terrorism to making mischief against, say, Rush Limbaugh or variations of Hillary’s “vast rightwing conspiracy.”

    Mark (411533)

  18. DMac, Amnesty International is such a sad case. They were on the street looking for money the other day. I told the hippie that I used to give them money, back when they focused on their stated mission. He didn’t get it. There is still an AI sticker on my sax case. I can’t bring myself to peel it off.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  19. “p.s. I’m as personally opposed to this policy under Obama as I was when it was implemented under Bush”

    SHOCKA!!!!!111!!!eleventy!!!!11!!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  20. I am glad that they got this one right, and note the silence from TOTUS about how he campaigned against the illegal actions of the Bush admin and then continues them when he takes office.

    JD (241e9b)

  21. […] like there is more. Same as the old boss? In February Obama lawyers used the same “state secrets” tactic to block a […]

    Obama Administration Defends Wiretaps : Stop The ACLU (665541)

  22. Mark,

    I agree libertarians would be upset with this decision but my point concerned Obama-supporting liberals. I’m interested in how they view this.

    Anon (4025f2)

  23. Dmac at 11 – The best thing about shipping terrorists to Gitmo was that finally leftists were concerned about political prisoners in Cuba.

    /sarc

    Have Blue (c7f745)

  24. Yup- why give up power when all the heavy lifting to get it has been done for you, and by the other party to boot?

    This wasn’t a big surprise except to people who actually thought that Obama was going to usher in the Age of Aquarius.

    I don’t like warrantless wiretaps either, even though I am sure they are necessary sometimes.

    EdWood (2bea43)

  25. Blue!!

    allan (ca61cc)

  26. “I’m shocked, SHOCKED, to find that wiretapping is going on here!”

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  27. What kills me about the whole deal is that the subject of scrutiny is calls that originate in a foreign country, and the ones that are of interest to our government are those that originate (generally speaking) in what are de facto police states.

    Hello?

    Do ya’ raelly thinks that ourz is the only gubmint listnin’ to yer callz?

    Sheesh.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  28. Somebody at the CIA must have given our boy President a good b*tch slapping to induce temporary reality in him. Now if only someone at the DOD would do the same on our CIC’s Superman 4 dream….

    Roy Mustang (9deca0)

  29. The demonization of a perfectly good anti-terrorism tool such as this just shows how successful the left and the media, sorry I repeat myself, is at framing issues. Now that there is no longer a Repub in the White House this is not an issue for anyone, since most rational people support it. What a freakin joke. Are all those editorial boards that railed against this going to print retractions now or just ignore this? I’m betting that they will ignore it.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  30. Bush must be smiling from time to time as he hears about all this.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  31. Prior to the election I made some remarks to a friend who supported Obama that in many areas, particularly this one, that an Obama administration would behave the same way the Bush admin did. He considered my remarks “offensive” – in fact anything I said about Obama was considered “offensive”.

    Given that I have been friends with this person for over 30 years and value that friendship, I’m not going to go down the proverbial “I told you so” road.

    But…I am enjoying his discomfort…

    Horatio (55069c)

  32. Why would he smile, Mike, because he took tough steps in the aftermath of 9/11; Gitmo, based on the long precedent of militaty tribunals from Exparte Milligan to Eisentrager, NSA surveilance based on In re Sealed case among many cases. a terrorist financing monitoring system, which the Times themselves recommended,(SWIFT) given up to the terrorist a facility for sequestration of the likes of KSM and Zubeydah, who once freed would make the fiction of ’24 all too real. The comingbetrayal of Karzai, surrender of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Taliban and the Iranians respectively, selling out those hard fought victories. While demonized as something akin to the AntiChrist, our soldier and marines
    slandered at Haditha, veteran contractors at Al Mansour square, civiil servants like Libby, scorned and nearly driven to bankruptcy.

    I’d be hard pressed to keep a civil tongue, which Cheney did for the most part, Bush is still doing
    and even the Governor of Alaska, who warned
    plaintively of this, but was ignored because
    “Tina Fey was shure funny” No it’s remarkable that he doesn’t speak again 8 years of unremitting
    slander, by people who don’t know ‘or can’t even handle the truth’. I hope they can still laugh among the coming brownouts, and terrorist attacks

    And no the hypocrisy is not in the least amusing to me, words just words, are tactics for this crew, who learned hate from someone who cursed this country fro twenty years, who was in partnership with some one who waged his own Guevara/Marighela effort for at least 5 years if not longer. How can someone like that, or his associates ever be considered a ‘good man’. He was given an unwarranted benefit of the doubt.

    narciso (996c34)

  33. Patterico commenters are all over the place on this one. It’s like they don’t know whether to agree or disagree with Obama’s decision. They want to bash both Obama and the liberals who criticized this move, but doing so is very difficult as you can see.

    Andrew (3d4832)

  34. I imagine most libertarian leftists won’t be happy with this, most libertarian rightists won’t be happy with it too. So at least they’ll be consistent.

    Correct. And I’m not surprised. Obama and his ilk just looooooove government power, as long as they are in charge of the government.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  35. Congrats, Andrew. It is not the least bit difficult to acknowledge that Barcky did well on this one, and at the same time point out his hypocrisy, and those on the Left, that wailed and gnashed teeth over Bush doing the exact same thing.

    JD (1653ac)

  36. Patterico commenters are all over the place on this one. It’s like they don’t know whether to agree or disagree with Obama’s decision.

    Translation: “Why can’t I find a way to pigeonhole conservative opinion on this in a way that is fundamentally dishonest?”

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  37. #

    Patterico commenters are all over the place on this one. It’s like they don’t know whether to agree or disagree with Obama’s decision. They want to bash both Obama and the liberals who criticized this move, but doing so is very difficult as you can see.

    Comment by Andrew — 4/7/2009 @ 6:45 am

    Are we allowed to criticize the hypocrisy, Andrew? He campaigned against this program for a full year.

    January 8, 2008 1:16 PM PST
    Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me
    by Anne Broache

    Sen. Barack Obama slams President Bush’s warrantless wiretap program at Dartmouth College in his last public appearance before the polls close here in New Hampshire.
    (Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com )

    HANOVER, N.H.–Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn’t dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

    Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

    For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and “wiretaps without warrants,” he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans’ phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

    It’s hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

    In our own Technology Voters’ Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: “No.

    He’s big on those clear, one-word answers. How’s that working out so far?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  38. The best thing about shipping terrorists to Gitmo was that finally leftists were concerned about political prisoners in Cuba

    I don’t think the irony is lost on most people these days, Have Blue. They also expressed continuous outrage over one Koran being flushed down a toilet (since proven false), but don’t seem to notice when avant’ guarde artistes construct dioramas like “Piss Christ,” and so many other like – minded works that denigrate anything and everything related to Christianity.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  39. Carlitos, Andy never sources any of his inanity, preferring instead to flail away at imagined memes and fairy tales.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  40. Really, after so many years of “BushCheneyHalliburton’s Illegal Wiretapping Program,” someone somewhere is going to have to start calling this “The Obama Administration’s Warrantless Wiretap Program.” Right?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  41. (crickets chirping)

    Dmac (49b16c)

  42. This is everything I was afraid of when I voted for this guy. Not that anything regarding rule of law or due process matters to conservatives, but his administration is asserting all kinds of power it plainly doesn’t have. It’s hard to decide what’s worse; that he’s already taken to smashing the promises he made to progressives during the campaign or that we’re all stuck with another President that sees people as being above the law.

    All the more frustrating is that this doesn’t make even a little bit of sense, neither in terms of politics or policy. Keeping Bush’s memos secret and preventing Bush administration officials from having to answer for crimes they plainly committed only makes Obama complicit in those crimes, and the entire torture/wiretapping apparatus we’ve set up is an enormous waste of government resources.

    I’m left to assume that he’s only helping to cover up the Bush administration’s criminality because there were a whole lot of Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who knew about this stuff and signed off on it. This country is so f***ed.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  43. The Piss Christ guy does great work for the New York Times. And he manages to live an open life in New York, despite insulting the religion whose adherents are theocratic fascists. Hmm.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  44. Oh. It’s about hypocrisy now. But when Romney flip flops left and right, it simply means he gave the issues much thought and changed his mind via an epiphany.

    Andrew (71f6da)

  45. Anon: I don’t know the details of what President Obama is doing – I’m working full time and in school, so my news following time is limited – but if he’s trying to prevent judicial review of warrantless wiretapping, then he’s doing something he shouldn’t: he’s abusing the power of the executive and undermining the balance of powers set out in the Constitution.

    One of the reasons the existence of this program pissed me off originally is that there’s an inherent tendency for the executive, once it has arrogated a power to itself, to not let it go; this seems to me to be an example of that principle in action.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  46. Oh. It’s about hypocrisy now.

    Given the huffing and puffing Obama did over this, only to do a complete 180 and use the same arguments the Bush administration did, yeah it is about the hypocrisy. So either Obama doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, or he found out that having power is fun and he isn’t going to give it up any time soon.

    But when Romney flip flops left and right, it simply means he gave the issues much thought and changed his mind via an epiphany.

    I realize it’s hard for you to accept that Obama is just as bad on this as you considered Bush to be. Deal with it.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  47. One of the reasons the existence of this program pissed me off originally is that there’s an inherent tendency for the executive, once it has arrogated a power to itself, to not let it go; this seems to me to be an example of that principle in action.

    Talk about a slippery slope. You can see it on the warrantless wiretapping issue, on the torture issue, and in the financial bailout. The Obama administration is picking up right where the Bush administration left off. Obviously there’s instances where the state requires secrecy, but at this point it’s pretty apparent that they’re just covering up each other’s lawbreaking.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  48. Andrew, in my post above, I applauded his decision to maintain the FISA rules as-is. Despite having campaigned against “Bush’s” wiretapping program for 12 months, Obama seems to be headed in the right direction here.

    But you are intimating that Obama had an epiphany? Was there a speech I missed? Did he make an announcement about the effectiveness of this program? Did Mr. Transparency post it on the White House website so that we can comment on it for 5 days before they made a decision? Please, find and quote for me where he even tells the American people about this.

    And spare me your take on Mitt Romney. He’s not the President.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  49. I’m left to assume that he’s only helping to cover up the Bush administration’s criminality

    Yeah, that must be it. Whatever you have a problem with regarding this administration, remember: it’s all Boooosh’s fault.

    But when Romney flip flops left and right

    I forget, who won the GOP primary?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  50. “Whenever.”

    Dmac (49b16c)

  51. Teh Narrative – We are still waiting for that honest discussion about how Boooooosh had double super secret plans to cancel the 1st Amendment. The rest of your rant was typical of when you argue with the charicatures in your head.

    JD (1653ac)

  52. But when Romney flip flops left and right, it simply means he gave the issues much thought and changed his mind via an epiphany.

    If you’re going to use a tu quoque, you need to use a less obscure tu. Few of us here supported Romney…and he wasn’t nominated.

    Let me ask you, Andrew: are you going to claim that Obama gave this issue much thought and changed his mind via an epiphany? Good luck with that.

    Steverino (69d941)

  53. I love how the only conceivable explanation Teh Narrative can come up with is coering up for criminality.

    Andrew – Not that it matters to you, but Mitt did not even win the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency. Why not just throw out Palin and Rush while you are at it?

    JD (1653ac)

  54. Barcky threw Campaign Barcky under the back of the bus, again.

    JD (1653ac)

  55. We are still waiting for that honest discussion about how Boooooosh had double super secret plans to cancel the 1st Amendment. The rest of your rant was typical of when you argue with the charicatures in your head.


    Sorry that you missed it:

    “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later:
    “The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

    You can just google ‘OLC memos’ and you’ll get lots of hits.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  56. TEH NARRATIVE, that does not support your original claim. ( Shocking, I know. )

    SPQR (72771e)

  57. I love how the only conceivable explanation Teh Narrative can come up with is coering up for criminality.

    Call me crazy, but I don’t implicitly trust everything my government tells me, especially when things are going as poorly as they are in the country at the moment. (I think that makes me more of a conservative than you, doesn’t it?)

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  58. TEH NARRATIVE, that does not support your original claim. ( Shocking, I know. )

    This ought to be good. Why don’t you tell me what my original claim was, since I’m sure you’re much more of an expert on what I think and say than I am.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  59. I do like how you continue to take my advice about your name change Narrative. It is good that all your comments look like parodies now instead of just plain crazy.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  60. I have a sneaky hunch that I would disagree with the “mydd.com” take on this.

    Hey, can anyone else think of a reason why we wouldn’t want to publically release the entire list of interrogation techniques that we employ? Anybody?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  61. Mr. Pink – I remember that. Remind me, what was TEH original nickname?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  62. You can just google ‘OLC memos’ and you’ll get lots of hits.

    Well, then what you said about Bush’s secret plans to cancel the First Amendment must be true. After all, there are a lot of Google hits.

    Results 1 – 10 of about 6,090,000 for obama hitler.

    (ducks and runs)

    carlitos (c834bc)

  63. I have a sneaky hunch that I would disagree with the “mydd.com” take on this.

    Well all you have to do is Google the phrase, it’s all over the internet.

    Hey, can anyone else think of a reason why we wouldn’t want to publically release the entire list of interrogation techniques that we employ? Anybody?

    I know the reason: it’s because those interrogation techniques are illegal in about fifteen different ways both domestically and internationally, and the people who authorized them and continue to conceal their implementation don’t want to end up in jail.

    What, were you looking for something along the lines of ‘So the terrorists won’t be ready for it!’ ?

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  64. I do not remember carlitos but this name fits him much better that is for sure. I swear I had to read like 3 of his comments on here before I remembered who it was and that it was not a parody.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  65. It was Old Gary before. And it claimed that Bush had secret plans to cancel the 1st Amendment.

    JD (1653ac)

  66. #

    Barcky threw Campaign Barcky under the back of the bus, again.

    Comment by JD — 4/7/2009 @ 7:47 am

    The Obama Administration person that I saw yesterday was not the person that campaigned for President I met 20 years ago…”

    carlitos (c834bc)

  67. And covering for criminality is the only possible reason why. GOOGLE IT!!!!

    JD (1653ac)

  68. Fire never melted steel. Google it !!!!eleventy

    JD (1653ac)

  69. With every new job I have ever had, you only got to blame the previous guy for a couple of months. Then, you have to man up and it’s YOUR problem. This is OBAMA trampling on our freedom with his wiretapping. Those are OBAMA’s plans to cancel the first Amendment. Legacy Bush memos about what may or may not have been said in some planning mean about as much as Bupkis mit Kuduchas.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  70. DSCRAP had multiple aliases as well, if I recall correctly. Why is this so predictable?

    JD (1653ac)

  71. Well, then what you said about Bush’s secret plans to cancel the First Amendment must be true. After all, there are a lot of Google hits.

    Sorry, but this isn’t disputable. Those are the precise words in the memo. You want to pour through all 37 pages because you don’t believe me?

    You go right ahead.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  72. [Pssst, JD, throw the h under the bus. An h may be good for one’s character, but is not necessary in creating a caricature of that character–amateur ed.]

    speling wizhard (e5cecb)

  73. are illegal in about fifteen different ways both domestically and internationally,

    Which I’m sure you’re more than happy to document for us, unless you’re going to come back with your snappy “just Google the phrase and about 12 billion responses come back to you.”

    Dmac (49b16c)

  74. This ought to be good. Why don’t you tell me what my original claim was, since I’m sure you’re much more of an expert on what I think and say than I am.

    Your original claim was that Bush had drawn up plans to cancel the First Amendment. Your exact words were:

    Obama’s the authoritarian? Bush had plans drawn up for cancelling the 1st amendment!!

    What you posted was the opinion of one man — which was negated by later Bush admin OLC — that something could be done. In order to prove your claim, you need to show that Bush actually made plans based on that opinion.

    You can’t do that, can you? You can’t point to any plans made by Bush to cancel the 1st Amendment.

    Further, the quote you posted was taken wholly out of context. It referred to state secrets during war, not a general cancellation of the 1st Amendment.

    Steverino (69d941)

  75. What, were you looking for something along the lines of ‘So the terrorists won’t be ready for it!’ ?

    Comment by TEH NARRATIVE — 4/7/2009 @ 8:07 am

    That did cross my mind. I mean, those terrorist training camps have to offer seminars in this sort of thing, non? I kind of like to think that some CIA / DOD badasses should have a surprise or two up their sleeves. Call me a fascist or crazy or whatever.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  76. The precise words were that Bush had secret plans to cancel the 1st Amendment? Not much of a secret if they published a memo about it.

    JD (1653ac)

  77. “Old Gary” was pretty good, too. Every time I saw that name, I was reminded of Honest Al’s Used Cars and “I’m a big boy, now.”

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  78. That link is hilarious – it proves nothing, unless you’re caught in the fever swamps of your own imagination.

    Funny, it looks a lot like that problematic memo that Dan Rather had so much trouble with after he publicized it.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  79. With every new job I have ever had, you only got to blame the previous guy for a couple of months. Then, you have to man up and it’s YOUR problem. This is OBAMA trampling on our freedom with his wiretapping. Those are OBAMA’s plans to cancel the first Amendment. Legacy Bush memos about what may or may not have been said in some planning mean about as much as Bupkis mit Kuduchas.

    Somebody asked, I answered. I didn’t bring it up again.

    I’m all over Obama for this, by the way. And guess what? It didn’t take me six years!

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  80. this isn’t disputable

    Someone’s the authoritarian, and it ain’t the ex-President.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  81. carlitos – It is like the whole “settled science” meme. Personally, when a moonbat tells me something is indisputable, I say to myself “I dispute it”, making their asspull wrong on its face.

    JD (1653ac)

  82. Hey, I am on hold for my conference call, so I did some Googling. There is a lot of information out there! For starters, I am going to have to change my regular order at Starbucks.

    Thanks TEH!

    carlitos (c834bc)

  83. There is no way to argue with someone whose starting point is Bush is a diabolical madman/idiot. I mean seriously even if you were the greatest debater in the world and showed him 50 references, getting him halfway back to sanity would be a battle. Regardless Karl’s piece here isn’t about Bush, it is about the current President throwing his own campaign promises under the bus in order to continue Bush administration policies. The same ones Obama himself, and idiots like this, decried once they were leaked into the news. Teh Narrative knows full well that his side of the political divide will remain absolutely silent now that it is their guy in charge even if he continues the same exact policies to the letter. Obama could waterboard someone personally on live TV and people like Narrative would say something about how much they hate Bush. It is a crazy world we live in where these people who spent the last 8 years hating Bush now use him in arguments to defend Obama’s policies.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  84. What you posted was the opinion of one man — which was negated by later Bush admin OLC — that something could be done. In order to prove your claim, you need to show that Bush actually made plans based on that opinion.

    You can’t do that, can you? You can’t point to any plans made by Bush to cancel the 1st Amendment.

    Further, the quote you posted was taken wholly out of context. It referred to state secrets during war, not a general cancellation of the 1st Amendment.

    I’d say that a lawyer whose job it is to give you advice crafting memos talking about how parts of the Constitution can be rendered invalid on a whim because the President says so constitutes planning. But you go ahead and play your word games.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  85. Someone’s the authoritarian, and it ain’t the ex-President.

    What in the world are you talking about? People were doubting the existence or the authenticity of the memo, that’s what is indisputable. It does exist, and it was written by a Bush administration official.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  86. TEH NARRATIVE, yes you would say that. But it is false. It was not a policy document but a discussion of the legality of various options.

    It is not a word game. It is an example of your making up stuff. Like so many trolls here.

    SPQR (72771e)

  87. This really is insightful into what constitutes thought for this kind of fevered Leftist.

    JD (1653ac)

  88. That did cross my mind. I mean, those terrorist training camps have to offer seminars in this sort of thing, non? I kind of like to think that some CIA / DOD badasses should have a surprise or two up their sleeves. Call me a fascist or crazy or whatever.

    You think we can throw something at a terrorist that he hasn’t contemplated? You think the guys that chop off peoples’ heads and videotape it are going to lose their minds because they get waterboarded?

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  89. Mr. Pink, I checked on Google, and I think TEH NARRATIVE is right. Bush is a genius / idiot / chimpanzee nazi who participated in pagan rituals with the modern day descendents of Babylonian mystery cults. Why wouldn’t he have super-secret plans to cancel the First Amendment, penned along with his pagan cronies like Kissinger.

    The truth is out there!

    carlitos (c834bc)

  90. I’d say that a lawyer whose job it is to give you advice crafting memos talking about how parts of the Constitution can be rendered invalid on a whim because the President says so constitutes planning. But you go ahead and play your word games.

    You’re the one playing word games. One man giving one opinion — an opinion which was later countered — is NOT making plans. Your claim was that Bush had drawn up plans…show us what those plans were. Show us that Bush approved of those plans. (My guess is that he didn’t, because he later appointed OLC that disagreed with Yoo.)

    You’re losing this one badly, TEH NARRATIVE.

    Steverino (69d941)

  91. Too funny, The Narrative. This one holds that the terrorists are so smart that there is no way we could come up with anything that they have not considered. Others hold forth that they are so stupid as to be unable to understand the concept of freedom.

    JD (1653ac)

  92. The basic fact is that the OLC is not a policy-making office. Period.

    So we see once again TEH NARRATIVE making up stuff.

    This has been the consistent policy of Democrats for years now. Simply make up stuff. And this is the contrast between Conservatives and Liberals. We don’t have to make stuff up.

    SPQR (72771e)

  93. BHussienO is a muslim manchurian candidate bent on global domination. He is warrentlessly wiretapping christian groups in concert with Islamic groups in order to facilitate their eventual targeting by Al Aqsa Mayrter’s Brigade. Google it people it is true!!!!

    TEH NARRATIVE (eae12c)

  94. ACLU director Romero doesn’t get out much if he thinks the US is such a horrible human rights abuser…It distracts from the core issue of whether the state secrets doctrine applies as a matter of law.

    Or Mr. Romero reads the front page of the Washington Post about how the US was a horrible human rights abuser.

    Meanwhile, this is a disgusting decision by the Obama administration. It is a betrayal of what we who voted for him were promised, explicitly promised.

    The retroactive law (or as the Constitution likes to call it: ex post facto) is bullshit and should be struck down. Whatever the decision of Judge Vaughn, the law will have to go to the Supreme Court for review. This is the opening salvo on a case that will be going on for a decade and give the President a few more chances to distinguish himself from the raving lunatics and pariahs who ran the country before he was elected.

    I always expect politicians to lie, but, damn, it always pisses me off when they do. “I’ll regulate carbon.” “I’ll restore civil liberties.” “I’ll provide a middle class tax cut”* Stupid politicians.

    Still, it’s entertaining to see the conservative who favor “limited government” support warrantless wiretapping. Silly liberals, we only mean small government when we mean dumping chemicals in the water or ruining a wetland with development.**

    *The last one only hacked me off, ’cause it was a lie. I could less about tax cuts, except to acknowledge, as every Patterico follower does, that they solve any problem. Budget surplus = tax cut. budget deficit = tax cut. Income disparity greater than any point since 1928 = tax cut. Stock market collapses by 50% in eight months = tax cuts on capital gains (despite the fact that there aren’t any). Cancer= tax cut North Korea missile launch = tax cut. teenage daughter not listening to advice about not sleeping with Levi = tax cut. Obama breaks campaign pledge and advocates ridiculous interpretation of the State Secrets doctrine = tax cut. Is there nothing they can’t do?

    Those last two rants were to metaphorically cleanse myself after agreeing with people here. It just didn’t feel right. Nonetheless, Karl did a fine job agreeing with Greenwald and calling Obama on hypocritically supporting a policy Karl supports with his whole lawyerly heart.

    timb (a83d56)

  95. You think the guys that chop off peoples’ heads and videotape it are going to lose their minds because they get waterboarded?

    Here you go.

    U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured KSM on March 1, 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. KSM stayed mum for months, often answering questions with Koranic chants. Interrogators eventually waterboarded him — for just 90 seconds.

    KSM “didn’t resist,” one CIA veteran said in the August 13 issue of The New Yorker. “He sang right away. He cracked real quick.” Another CIA official told ABC News: “KSM lasted the longest under water-boarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again.”

    KSM’s revelations helped authorities identify and incarcerate at least six major terrorists….

    “The most important source of intelligence we had after 9/11 came from the interrogation of high-value detainees,” Robert Grenier, former chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer. He called KSM “the most valuable of the high-value detainees, because he had operational knowledge.”

    As Patterico once asked, tell me: how did it go over when you told your family and neighbors and friends that you’d rather them die than have the likes of KSM waterboarded?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  96. There is no way to argue with someone whose starting point is Bush is a diabolical madman/idiot. I mean seriously even if you were the greatest debater in the world and showed him 50 references, getting him halfway back to sanity would be a battle. Regardless Karl’s piece here isn’t about Bush, it is about the current President throwing his own campaign promises under the bus in order to continue Bush administration policies. The same ones Obama himself, and idiots like this, decried once they were leaked into the news. Teh Narrative knows full well that his side of the political divide will remain absolutely silent now that it is their guy in charge even if he continues the same exact policies to the letter. Obama could waterboard someone personally on live TV and people like Narrative would say something about how much they hate Bush. It is a crazy world we live in where these people who spent the last 8 years hating Bush now use him in arguments to defend Obama’s policies.

    I’m sorry, but I’ve been criticizing both Bush and Obama in this thread. And if you look to the original post, you’ll find that Karl is linking to a liberal blog – Glenn Greenwald’s – so your little assertion that we’re going to stand around and make excuses for Obama doesn’t really jive.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  97. Steverino – Teh Narrative is destroying those voices in its head.

    JD (1653ac)

  98. So are you going to post those Bush plans to cancel the First Amendment now? Maybe he was going to resurrect the Alien and Sedition Acts?

    carlitos (c834bc)

  99. 95

    I saw that you “criticised” this only as a backhanded way to say Bush was the real criminal and not Obama. Also I am contending that when this was leaked to the press in the first place, mainstream Democrat politicians were all over TV implying it was illegal even though some of them knew about it and approved of it. It was used simply as a cynical campaign issue and there never was any real conviction in the mainstream proggressive movement to get rid of this program, they only wanted to use to to bash Bush. Hence why you bring up Bush’s name to defend Obama doing the same thing. Hence how the anniversary of the Iraq war passes, with our troops still commited for the forseeable future, but yet this time there are no marches in DC. You people are hypocrites and will exploit any issue to “win” an election. Just admit it.

    TEH NARRATIVE (eae12c)

  100. Damn I outed my own parody version of Narrative.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  101. Um, yeah, don’t change your moniker to someone else’s.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  102. You’re the one playing word games. One man giving one opinion — an opinion which was later countered — is NOT making plans. Your claim was that Bush had drawn up plans…show us what those plans were. Show us that Bush approved of those plans. (My guess is that he didn’t, because he later appointed OLC that disagreed with Yoo.)

    You’re losing this one badly, TEH NARRATIVE.

    If you want to box me in with the language that I used, that’s fine. I know what the OLC is and what it does, and that their opinions aren’t necessarily indicative of any further action, but in shorthand – say, on an internet message board – that’s just how I would say it. I can be more precise when I have the time, but the fundamental point remains the same — for all the hemming and hawing about Obama’s authoritarianism that goes on in conservative circles, Bush was always much, much worse, and that this memo existed proves it.

    As for your claim that this opinion was later countered, would you mind going over when that happened?

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  103. I was simply trying to point out his craziness to him by showing him what a right wing lunatic crazy would look like. I need to lay off the coffee for a bit I think.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  104. TEH NARRATIVE, its just “shorthand”.

    “Bush was always much, much worse, and that this memo existed proves it.

    I did not know that “shorthand” was a synonym for “lie”.

    SPQR (72771e)

  105. As Patterico once asked, tell me: how did it go over when you told your family and neighbors and friends that you’d rather them die than have the likes of KSM waterboarded?

    I’m sure that makes you guys feel all warm and bubbly inside, but the fact that someone screams something under duress that leads to the imprisonment of a couple of other people doesn’t really impress me. I’d like there to be, oh, I don’t know, proof. Once again, it’s that nutso idea I have about not automatically trusting everything the government says, especially one as incompetent and image-obsessed as the Bush administration.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  106. I’ll be back soon ladies.

    TEH NARRATIVE (863676)

  107. I guess “incompetent” is not a synonym for “makes stuff up” in TEH NARRATIVE’s odd dictionary …

    SPQR (72771e)

  108. TEH, I recommend that you read The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright. Then, you can come back and tell me what isn’t true about KSM and the six high-value terrorists and operational info he gave up after being waterboarded. I have a sneaking suspicion that you were much more concerned with Bush than our nation’s enemies, but I would love to be proven wrong.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  109. I love how the Bush admin was so image-obsessed that everyone on the right was pleading with Bush to try using the ‘bully pulpit.’ And the Obama admin is so unconcerned about image that Obama can’t find the “exit, stage left.”

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  110. If you want to box me in with the language that I used, that’s fine.

    You’re the one boxing yourself in. YOU said that Bush had drawn up plans to cancel the 1st Amendment. When we called you on your bullshit, you couldn’t prove your claim

    I know what the OLC is and what it does, and that their opinions aren’t necessarily indicative of any further action, but in shorthand – say, on an internet message board – that’s just how I would say it.

    I’ve asked you repeated for evidence of any further action, and you keep pointing to the same statement. That’s not evidence of anything.

    Further, it has been pointed out several times that the opinion Yoo gave had to do with military secrets during war. It did not have to do with a general cancellation of the 1st Amendment. You have yet to even respond to this point.

    I can be more precise when I have the time,

    You’ve had three days to be more precise, and you have yet to do so. How much more time do you need?

    but the fundamental point remains the same — for all the hemming and hawing about Obama’s authoritarianism that goes on in conservative circles, Bush was always much, much worse, and that this memo existed proves it.

    No, it doesn’t. The fact that Yoo issued an opinion but Bush did nothing about it doesn’t prove jack shit.

    As for your claim that this opinion was later countered, would you mind going over when that happened?

    Go back to the article you cited from HuffPo. Do you even read the links you provide?

    The Bush administration eventually abandoned many of the legal conclusions

    If you want chapter and verse from me, then I will provide it only after you either provide a link showing the Bush had drawn up plans to cancel the 1st Amendment, or admit that you were full of shit all along.

    Steverino (69d941)

  111. Shorthand = asspull = lie

    JD (1653ac)

  112. automatically trusting everything the government says

    I am trying to find a better example of “straw man argument” and I can’t. Maybe the Rush Limbaugh stuff.

    carlitos (c834bc)

  113. On that note, Hitch, I think the Bush admin was really sensitive over all the accusations of Executive Branch power grabbing, yet, how many EOs did Bush sign? And how many of those came very soon after 9/11?

    Hasn’t Obama already outscored Bush here?

    Bad Outlaw (55dc4a)

  114. carlitos – I think the disregard for the rule of law one was a particularly good one.

    JD (1653ac)

  115. Comment by TEH NARRATIVE — 4/7/2009 @ 7:54 am

    Like most history-challenged Liberals, you need to review the press and 1st-amendment policies instituted during WW-2 by the FDR Administration before going off half-cocked in your full BDS rant mode.
    And as has been noted before, what Yoo wrote was a paper denoting the various possibilities available to the government under existing law, and left it to the President to decide what policies to implement, or not.

    AD - RtR/OS (8d1dbc)

  116. So, if Dawn Johnson is confirmed and writes a memo stating all guns should be confiscated if another Stormfront guy goes McVeigh on police officers, you’d be fine with that AD? It’s just a paper and it can be left to the President to abrogate the Constitution and laws.

    timb (376835)

  117. I am proud of Barcky for abrogating the laws of our country.

    JD (1653ac)

  118. So, if Dawn Johnson is confirmed and writes a memo stating all guns should be confiscated if another Stormfront guy goes McVeigh on police officers, you’d be fine with that AD?

    Speaking for myself, there is a difference between being okay with something and claiming the President has drawn up plans to do something.

    I wouldn’t be happy with Dawn Johnson, but if Obama never took action on her memo, I wouldn’t accuse him of drawing up plans that he clearly didn’t.

    Steverino (69d941)

  119. Nice strawman there timmie, but I think we were talking about 1st-A issues, not the 2nd.
    Also, in case you haven’t noticed it, not all police deaths are the result of RW gun nuts – very few in fact, most are the result of convicted felons using weapons they are already prohibited from possessing.

    AD - RtR/OS (8d1dbc)

  120. Just for the record, that Pittsburgh trash could not legally own or possess fire-arms.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  121. “President Barack Obama invoked “state secrets” to prevent a court from reviewing the legality of the National Security Agency’s warantless wiretapping program, moving late Friday to have a lawsuit that challenged the program dismissed.”

    Big shock. The Dems have been snooping on people for decades, no warrants required. For example, in WWII, ALL overseas communications were monitored by the Roosevelt administration, and censored if necessary. The only times actions like that become an issue is when the Dems aren’t in power.

    Obama is a lying, backstabbing piece of crap…like pretty much all liberals. He wasn’t opposed to snooping, he’s just opposed to having Republicans in charge of the country. His squeals of outrage when Bush was in office were pure partisan politicking, and to hell with whether or not trying to sabotage Bush hurts the country or helps terrorists.

    “Liberal” Democrats are scum. Always have been, always will be.

    Dave Surls (b4aee7)

  122. Nice strawman there timmie, but I think we were talking about 1st-A issues, not the 2nd.
    Also, in case you haven’t noticed it, not all police deaths are the result of RW gun nuts – very few in fact, most are the result of convicted felons using weapons they are already prohibited from possessing.

    You know between the times you don’t understand what you’re reading and the times you choose not to read, I find you hard to talk to. Writing a memo, claiming the Executive Branch can abrogate an Amendment to the Constitution is the focus of my hypothetical.

    You are un-troubled by the fact that the Bush administration prepared for to abrogate the First and Fourth Amendments; I proposed a counter-argument of a different Amendment and you become focused on who kills policemen in America. Focus, AD.

    Is it okay for a President to focus on abrogating Amendments in the face of a terrorist attack or some other act of violence? I would argue it is not, except, as noted in the Constitution (insurrection or rebellion). I would argue, based upon my judgment that most people on this site are partisan hacks, that you would not care only if the President in question had an “R” after his name.

    PS Olbermann spent the first half of his show excoriating the Obama administration. Wonder if you guys noticed consistency on the left? I’m guessing not.

    timb (a83d56)

  123. Dave, you need to re-join your militia. Your seething anger and fact-free vilification is entertaining, but I’m afraid you need an outlet for it before you hurt yourself.

    timb (a83d56)

  124. PS Olbermann spent the first half of his show excoriating the Obama administration. Wonder if you guys noticed consistency on the left? I’m guessing not.

    One time does not consistency make, timmy.

    BJTexs (56337a)

  125. “You are un-troubled by the fact that the Bush administration prepared for to abrogate the First and Fourth Amendments;

    One should be untroubled by “facts” that are not facts.

    And of course, timb whining about “partisan hacks” is just yet another of his extraordinary projection.

    SPQR (72771e)

  126. Oh, and John, being dishonorably discharged is not a felony or a misdemeanor.

    You don’t have to attack a nut just because a bunch of Kos-ites are trying to tie him to the American right wing. He was a white supremacist paranoid kook. That doesn’t describe many of the Right wingers I know.

    Check here for a quick primer on Pa gun laws

    timb (a83d56)

  127. BTW timmah, shredded constitution is best served with a warm pesto sauce, fresh grated parma cheese and a lovely Ruffino Chianti.

    Salut!

    BJTexs (56337a)

  128. He was a white supremacist paranoid kook.

    Sounds like Robert Byrd.

    Steverino (69d941)

  129. Ah, logic guy. Somehow, I’m betting you neither read the documents nor read a story by someone who did. Guess what, Johnny Yoo wrote a memo on how the US govt should respond to a terrorist attack and it said the Fourth Amendment need not apply. Go and debunk it if you like, partisan who cannot read.

    In fact, a debunker who does not know the basic facts of an argument is at least as ironic as me commenting on how most readers of Patterico are Republican partisans.

    PS Brian, we do not speak any longer in case you have forgotten. Do not address me.

    timb (a83d56)

  130. timb, you are ignorant of the Federal prohibitions on firearms possession. Dishonorable discharge is indeed equivalent to a felony for that law.

    SPQR (72771e)

  131. timb, Yoo’s memo was a discussion of the law. It was not a “preparation” for policy. Misrepresentation is your only tool it appears.

    SPQR (72771e)

  132. PS Brian, we do not speak any longer in case you have forgotten. Do not address me.

    You’re right, I forgot. I’m sorry, weasel boy.

    Ooops! I forgot again! I denounce myself!

    BJTexs (56337a)

  133. Writing a memo discussing the law and choosing an alternative view is equivalent to making plans to cancel the 1st Amendment. Why don’t you reich-wingers just admit that Bush was Hitler and Obama is going to solve the world’s problems by reading from a teleprompter?!

    JD (8e9826)

  134. JD. Please. I need one of your RITUAL denouncements for addressing the classless turdlette …

    Crap! I did it a again. DENOUNCE ME NOW, I BEG YOUUUUUUU!!!!!

    BJTexs (56337a)

  135. Denounced. Denounced and condemned, you capitalist running dog zionist imperialistic racist xenophobic jingoistic homophobic progeny of oppressors of brown people.

    JD (8e9826)

  136. Aaaahhhhhhhh! thank you, JD. I feel so much better.

    That should put an end to me addressing the scabrous loonwafffle ….

    DARN IT!

    BJTexs (56337a)

  137. #

    timb, you are ignorant of the Federal prohibitions on firearms possession. Dishonorable discharge is indeed equivalent to a felony for that law.

    Comment by SPQR — 4/8/2009 @ 9:06 am

    Ah, you finally debunked something. I couldn’t find the details. Thanks for the correction. I wonder how he obtained his weapon?

    Unfortunately, you follow up a success with a fail. Writing a legal memo asserting an abrogation of an Amendment is troubling. Whether it is a plan or not is a semantic argument.

    But, since this is a question for AD and how he would feel about Dawn Johnson’s memo allowing the govt to confiscate guns, it didn’t concern you. With your answer, we can assume, her memo would cause no outcry from thee, because to be worth a complaint a legal opinion must go through whatever semantic hurdle you set to turn it into a plan. Good to know.

    At any rate, thanks for the correction in the first instance.

    timb (084990)

  138. timb, it is not a semantic argument. Troubling or not, it did not constitute the administration preparing to abrogate the first and fourth amendments as you claim. It is not “semantics” to point out gross distortions such as yours.

    SPQR (72771e)

  139. “Dave, you need to re-join your militia. Your seething anger and fact-free vilification is entertaining…”

    LOL.

    “From December 19, 1941, until August 15, 1945, the Office of Censorship had the power to censor international communications at its “absolute discretion.” With a staff of more than 10,000 censors, the office routinely examined mail, cables, newspapers, magazines, films, and radio broadcasts. Its operations constituted the most extensive government censorship of the media in U. S. history and one of the most vivid examples of the use of executive emergency powers.”

    http://academic.lexisnexis.com/upa/upa-product.aspx?pid=1576&type=AS&parentid=1570

    It’s a fact that the liberals have snooped on people without obtaining warrants whenever they think the situation calls for it…and, it’s also a fact that the the liberal scum’s, howls of outrage about the government’s monitoring of telecommunications were totally phony, since the liberals, now that they’re in power, obviously intend to continue to do it.

    Like I said, the liberal Democrats have never had any problem with snooping on people without securing warrants first. Hell, they pioneered the practice. All they object to is having a Republican in the White House.

    Sorry, if the facts are disconcerting to lefty dolts, but facts are still facts.

    Dave Surls (6e81c6)

  140. I wrote a memo to my boss that he should double my pay.

    There is no plan to do so.

    Semantics.

    carlitos (eb5259)

  141. Ah, Dave, Democrats never acknowledge the wholesale censorship of WWI and WWII by Democrat Presidents – nor even the imprisonment of people for daring to dissent against Woodrow Wilson’s policies. But a memo by a attorney in the Dept of Justice of the Bush administration is the equivalent of martial law.

    Clowns.

    SPQR (72771e)

  142. Writing a legal memo asserting an abrogation of an Amendment is troubling. Whether it is a plan or not is a semantic argument.

    But that’s the heart of the matter. One commenter here said that Bush had drawn up plans to cancel the 1st Amendment, when clearly that didn’t happen.

    What did happen was that John Yoo issued an opinion. Bush didn’t act upon that opinion.

    It’s fair to say that Yoo’s opinion was troubling. But it is NOT fair to say that Bush had drawn up plans to act upon that opinion.

    Do you see the difference?

    Steverino (69d941)

  143. I wrote a memo suggesting that Barcky be named the Grand Imperial Czar of the Universe, All that Is, and All that May Be. Therefore, Barcky is planning on anointing himself Grand Imperial Czar of the Universe, All that Is, and All that May Be.

    I seconded that memo to get carlitos a raise. That sounds like a good idea.

    JD (a58789)

  144. I just wrote a memo stating the opinion that JD should be named Big Cheese Denunciator of all Things Phobic and Ist (BCDTPI.) Clearly my goal is to abrogate the 1st Amendment and shred the constitution to be sprinkled over a lovely Cobb Salad … with lots of Arugula.

    I third carlito’s pay raise but I want an earmark.

    BJTexs (56337a)

  145. More information on the liberal Democrats and their long history of spying on people…without bothering to secure warrants first.

    “At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI between 1940-1966 in eight U.S. cities.”

    Opening people’s mail began under the Roosevelt administration, and continued, war or no war.

    “Nearly a quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed in the United States by the CIA between 1953-1973, producing a CIA computerized index of nearly one and one-half million names.”

    The CIA (an agency created by liberal Democrats, needless to say) then expanded the operation begun by the Roosevelt administration.

    “Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency from 1947 to 1975 under a secret arrangement with three United States telegraph companies.”

    Sound familiar? This is exactly what the liberal swine were objecting to when George Bush was president (monitoring telecommuniocations with the cooperation of the telecom companies). Of course, in 1947 we weren’t actually fighting anyone, and thousands of Americans hadn’t been killed by terrorists, so I’d say we have a lot better reason to do it now, then the liberals had to do it from the 1940s through the 1970s.

    http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm

    The liberals obviously had/have no qualms about engaging in warrantless snooping…unless Dick Nixon or George Bush are in the White House…then it becomes a big moral issue.

    Dave Surls (6e81c6)

  146. Opening people’s mail began under the Roosevelt administration, and continued, war or no war.

    And was wrong then.

    “Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency from 1947 to 1975 under a secret arrangement with three United States telegraph companies.”

    And shouldn’t have been.

    The liberals obviously had/have no qualms about engaging in warrantless snooping…unless Dick Nixon or George Bush are in the White House…then it becomes a big moral issue.

    Since a large number of liberals who complained about this kind of activity during the Bush administration were not old enough to be politically active in 1975 (true of anyone under the age of 50), I think this comment is unfair.

    It’s one thing to say of liberals today that they’re hypocrites if they don’t oppose under President Obama what they opposed under President Bush; that’s a fair assertion. But it’s something else entirely to say that today’s liberals are hypocrites because they opposed under President Obama something which previous generations of liberals did not oppose under Presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson.

    I’m not responsible for the political positions of my ancestors.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  147. More…

    “On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr…”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200207/garrow

    Except, of course, it’s not notorious, because Bobby Kennedy is a hero of the left, so this little incident almost never gets talked about. Watergate? Yeah, you’ve heard about that millions of times, because the leftist media, the leftist schools and the leftists in the government short-stroked Watergate for all it was worth. You’ve heard about that millions of times.

    If the Democrats drop wiretaps on an airhead civil rights leader, no big deal. If the Republicans drop wiretaps on people who are actually engaging in espionage and treason in time of war (namely Daniel Ellsberg and the Democrats who were flat out colluding with Ellsberg in an attempt to hamstring the Nixon administration)…all of a sudden the warrantless snooping becomes the crime of the century.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so sickening.

    Dave Surls (6e81c6)

  148. Dave Surls: I think you’ll find that most liberals who are live today think that the action you just described, of a man who was the attorney general of the United States forty-six years ago, was wrong.

    Granted, they’ll also think the man in question was a political hero, worthy of some degree of worship as the standard-bearer of a lost political movement; but that just shows their internal cognitive dissonance. It does not mean that they approve of the action in question.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  149. That’s all fair, aphrael. However, some of the trolls I’m addressing deny any of that history altogether to claim that the recent actions by the Bush administration are somehow unprecendented. Then coupled with the breathless nonsense about the Bush administration being the greatest threat to liberty since the invention of the chastity belt, it gets pretty ridiculous.

    SPQR (72771e)

  150. (Note – The following item is sarcasm, as it utilizes the same logical standards employed above in this thread)


    President Obama has plans
    to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. They actually plan to build an “artificial volcano.” It’s like Dr. Evil is running our country.

    carlitos (eb5259)

  151. Well, carlito, as long as there are no frickin’ laser beams.

    in case anybody was wondering why I think scientists need to be reviewed on a regular for ethics and common sense: This would be a prime example. Yup, let’s mess with the food chain, atmospheric balance and solar radiative energy.

    In the meantime, temperatures have stabilized over the last ten years and Solar radiation is currently at a low ebb. What could go wrong?

    BJTexs (56337a)

  152. aphrael – I concur.

    Having said that, I think it is quite fair and proper to point out that Barcky ran against this stuff for a couple of years, and then when he took office, continued as if he had never held the opposite position.

    JD (2f33d2)

  153. JD: yes, that’s perfectly fair.

    I’ve said before that I’m disappointed with President Obama in this regard. I think it’s possible that his people are just preserving options so as not to foreclose later decisions, but the longer it goes on, the less likely that seems as an expectation.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  154. I want sharks, with lazer-beams on their heads !

    JD (2f33d2)

  155. Looking for a silver lining, huh, aphrael?

    In fact, didn’t Barcky actually go much further than the Bush lawyers in their arguments on this issue?

    JD (2f33d2)

  156. Aphreal: Don’t hold your breath. Democrats in both houses have been consulted as to the particulars of the program and, despite some very public concerns, end up passing it over and over in a bi-partisan fashion.

    That tells me that there are some very compelling National Security reasons to continue the program. The crass actions of speaking out against the Fascist Bush Regime while knowing this to be true is infuriating.

    BJTexs (56337a)

  157. I think it’s possible that his people are just preserving options so as not to foreclose later decisions

    They’d best be careful. The minute you write an option down in a memo, it becomes a plan for abrogation.

    Or so I hear.

    Mars vs Hollywood (788077)

  158. This memo thing: I find it confusing.

    Someone should draw me a Memo-Graph.

    I denounce myself.

    BJTexs (56337a)

  159. Oh, BTW timmah, just as in Senate confirmation hearings, I don’t deal in hypotheticals.
    If you can present something tangible, we can discuss that.
    I think it is safe to say, though, that any plan to abrogate the rights of Americans under the 2nd-Amendment would present the body politic with a confrontation that would be most troubling, and could lead to a situation not seen in 150-years.

    AD - RtR/OS (4f0edf)

  160. JD: of course I’m looking for a silver lining.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  161. “I’ve said before that I’m disappointed with President Obama…”

    LOL! Disappointed because the liberals are doing the things that they’ve been doing since before any of us were born (namely spying on people without bothering to get a warrant first)???

    That’s liked being disappointed because you caught a lion eating an antelope (shocking!).

    No wonder the Dems win elections.

    Dave Surls (47f193)

  162. They win because they lie and cheat!

    AD - RtR/OS (4f0edf)

  163. PS Brian, we do not speak any longer in case you have forgotten. Do not address me.

    So by my count, this commenter’s cut off any dialogue with three of the regulars here – why does he bother to post at all?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  164. President Obama has plans to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.

    It’s actually a plausible and far less expensive/intrusive idea to combat global warming than carbon emission caps, etc. The estimated cost is $1 billion a year, compared to the trillions of dollars the Kyoto agreement and other costly government mandates would require.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  165. #162 Brother Bradley J. Fike, C.O.R.:

    It’s actually a plausible

    Plausible it’s not, but

    far less expensive

    is true.

    Weather, and by extension climate, is a complex chaotic system that we currently cannot (and may never be able) to model, so there is reason to believe that efforts to

    change

    the climate would, at best, be fruitless…and at worst, actually work!

    I don’t think it a particularly bright idea to irreversibly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth when we are due (geologically speaking) for another ice age any day now.

    EW1(SG) (c84417)

  166. This has as much chance of succeeding as the seeding of the oceans with iron particles.
    It might be easier to get a volcano to blow by seeding it with a tactical nuclear device.
    When Pinatubo blew, it lowered temperatures world wide for a year.
    Then, there was the Indonesian volcano that blew during the Napoleonic era that caused the Year Without Summer (1816).
    Of course, since Global Temps have stabilized, if not decreased, in the last ten years, and Solar surface activity is at a historical minimum, this could easily (possibly) send us into another Little Ice Age.
    What a great time to shut down coal-fired electrical generation….anyone got a handle on what Soros has been investing in lately?

    AD - RtR/OS (4f0edf)

  167. From what I understand, Soros bets different currencies are going to fall.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  168. I’ll wager that one of his shorts is the US$.
    He took down the Pound-Sterling back in 94-95, I guess it’s our turn now?

    AD - RtR/OS (4f0edf)

  169. “They win because they lie and cheat!”

    Obviously.

    Also, because America is full of people that will vote for anyone who promises them a free handout from the government. That’s the number one reason Dems win elections.

    Dave Surls (0bb5b9)

  170. Dave Surls: I’m not quite sure what emotion you think I should be feeling. Happiness, that Sen. Obama said something I agreed with and is not living up to it now that he is President? Despair and cynicism because all politicians lie? Betrayal and anger causing me to adopt nihilism as an alternative to a broken political system?

    What do you think the appropriate response is for someone who disliked President Bush’s policies, upon discovering that President Obama is continuing them?

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  171. I don’t care what any lefty feels about anything. I’m just telling you that liberal Democrats have been spying on people for decades without getting warrants, and they only complain about it when the Republicans do it.

    How you feel about that is your problem.

    However if you vote for liberal Democrats because uou think they WON’T employ warrantless snooping, then you’re simply a deluded fool.

    Dave Surls (0bb5b9)

  172. I don’t care what any lefty feels about anything

    That’s every bit as sad as the liberals who don’t care what any conservative feels about anything.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  173. aphrael, that Surls dude is nuts, in case you haven’t noticed. He’s all seething rage and spitting venom.

    Speaking of which:

    #
    PS Brian, we do not speak any longer in case you have forgotten. Do not address me.
    So by my count, this commenter’s cut off any dialogue with three of the regulars here – why does he bother to post at all?
    Comment by Dmac — 4/8/2009 @ 6:06 pm

    “This commenter” has plenty of things to say to people who he can talk to him. For God’s sake, “this commenter” was warned by the owner of this site to not address one person (via email with Pat, I agreed to his conditions).

    As for Brian, I was reminding him of the last email he sent me, wherein he asked me, angrily, but politely, not to speak to him again. It was Brian who made that request.

    But, not you, dmac. Normally, your droppings on any thread add so much to the conversation. Of course, you do suffer from excessive tim-hating, but it’s a malady that affects a lot of the refugees from the “Quarterly fundraising site” (over and under on an extended “I quit” pout/vacation? Three weeks, although he might make Memorial Day if he can find a good blog war).

    Still, dmac, I post so I can see your witty responses and wonderful insight into….well, I’m at a loss for what you add besides “I worked at a public radio station for years and I still hates me some liberals.” But, I remembered being fascinated by your observation on….

    At any rate, dmac, keep posting. Your stuff is riveting.

    timb (a83d56)

  174. No, Timmy boy, despising the liberal Democrats for their ceaseless lies and neverending hypocrisy, especially when American lives are at stake, isn’t one bit nuts.

    Believing that liberal Democrats won’t employ warrantless snooping when they’ve been doing it for generations, OTOH, is completely insane.

    Dave Surls (893845)

  175. Dave, care to give us a brief legal history? You know, like when the courts first noted the govt needed wiretaps, when the first laws were passed, when FISA was passed, and when it was updated….

    I mean, what do you believe? That Abe Lincoln and Garfield (you know he was a Democrat) were forbidden to listen to telegraph messages without a warrant, right? Where is the necessity for wiretaps in the Constitution or when did a Court first mention it or when did Congress pass a law, Mr. “Liberals are all mean and nasty and me and my understanding and moral equivalence answers don’t know one thing about what is and what is not illegal.”

    It’s a long name, but, since your level of knowledge can’t meet your level of hatred for “the others,” it’s about time one of us pointed out what you don’t know about wiretapping (hint: a lot)

    Oh, and failing to differentiate between WW2 and the period after 9/11 is why “you people” are in the wilderness, dave. Although, you prefer it that way, since that’s where the militia trains to shoot the black helicopters and all.

    timb (8f04c0)

  176. What finally dragged us unwillingly into WWII? Japan bombed a military base before declaring war. Later, Japan started using kamikazes.

    What finally dragged us unwillingly into the war on terror? Radical islamic terrorists used kamikazes to kill innocent civilians.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  177. John, the United States was dragged “unwillingly” into WWII because FDR conned the nation into WWII.

    FDR was secretly conspiring with the British to get us into the war even as he lied to American voters in the fall of 1940 to get reelected. FDR spent 1941 trying to provoke Germany into attacking us, and was surprised when his provocations actually spurred Japan into the act.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  178. “Dave, care to give us a brief legal history?”

    Sure, Timmy.

    It’s perfectly o.k. if a Roosevelt or Truman or Obama does it, perfectly not o.k. if a Nixon or Bush does it.

    That’s the real brief version.

    Dave Surls (893845)

  179. “Oh, and failing to differentiate between WW2 and the period after 9/11 is why “you people” are in the wilderness, dave.”–Timmy

    “At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI between 1940-1966 in eight U.S. cities.”–excerpt from Church Report

    In Timmyworld, WWII started in 1940 and lasted until at least 1966.

    Whatever.

    Dave Surls (893845)

  180. It’s perfectly o.k. if a Roosevelt or Truman or Obama does it, perfectly not o.k. if a Nixon or Bush does it.

    Again, I don’t know anyone with a liberal mindset who thought it was perfectly ok for Roosevelt and Truman to do it.

    I don’t know who these liberals are you are castigating; they’re not the liberals I know and associate with.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  181. As for Brian, I was reminding him of the last email he sent me, wherein he asked me, angrily, but politely, not to speak to him again. It was Brian who made that request.

    It’s good to see timmah consistent in his parsing of the truth.

    Not that anyone is interested but what timmah mentioned happened post banning from PW back in 2007 for being a serial asswipe jerk. After he was banned I wrote this comment on the blog:

    “Don’t debase yourself to the bottom of the pond that is Burnsthebridges. He may need to see Adken’s therapist.”

    He had already been E-Mailing me complaining about his banning so, sure enough, I received this (on 10/23/07):

    “Man, that is a clever formulation. Ever since you think I departed, I see you going more and more down the rat hole. You are so close to being Pablo that it frightens me.

    Hope this finds you well. On any blog I can comment on I would welcome your witty reposes. “Taking me task” in your own little world, where, seemingly, I am not allowed a rebuttal seems petty and juvenile. In other words, par for Jeff and Dan, but below you.

    Yours in Christ,
    Tim”

    The last sign off was particularly galling as he had referred to another commentator for having the audacity to disagree with him as “better than Christ.” That and another comment where he demonstrated his transcendent contempt for religion was what set me off. I had had enough. So I wrote back the following:

    “Don’t write me anymore.”

    As in E-Mails. Timmah took this hard.

    “okay…don’t comment on me when I can’t respond (as me).

    A wonderful deal for all concerned.”

    So actually I just didn’t want him to E-Mail me anymore and he didn’t want me to comment on him when he couldn’t respond. As usual, timmah twists the facts to suit his own, fevered interpretation of his all encompassing victimization on Teh Intertubes. By his own E-Mail, I’m perfectly within our “agreement” to address him here, although I don’t have an overwhelming urge to do so.

    Sorry for the long explanation.

    BJTexs (c231f1)

  182. “I don’t know who these liberals are you are castigating…”

    You never heard of Barack Obama??? Man, you need to get out more.

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  183. Then, listen, Dave, and try to keep up.

    In the 1928 Olmstead v US decision, the Supreme Court found that neither the 4th Amendment nor the 5th Amendment rights of a defendant were implicated by telephone tapping. This remained the position of the Court until 1967 when it reversed itself in Katz v US and ruled telephone tapping (since extended to all electronic forms of personal communication) required a warrant.

    Now, Dave, you can help me out? Were Wilson, FDR, and Truman presidents before 1967 or after?

    The 1970’s era Church Committee report detailed the ways ALL administrations had violated our liberties (from a Katz view) since Lincoln first listened to intercepted telegraph messages. As a result, the FISA statute was enacted in 1978 and amended several times since then. It is, and this is important, Dave, the FISA statute that Bush and the telecoms violated. This is the subject of the lawsuit in question.

    On one hand, I have no problem with saying Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Lincoln, McKinley, Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, RFK/JFK,”Silent” Cal, and Warren Harding should have gotten warrants before listening to phone conversations. They certainly violated my idea of privacy and limited government. On the other hand, there was no law in place to limit them. You can’t break the law when nothing to break, dave.

    This is why your stupid moral equivalence argument fails. Bush [allegedly] broke the law. And, if Obama does it, he should be impeached and placed in the same brig as Georgie.

    We’re a nation of laws, surs-ly, not of political movements of angry Southern Republicans versus “libruls” and, like it or not, librul leftists can’t break laws which don’t exist.

    For God’s sake, all you have to do is read something of the facts to know this history. Go to EFF’s site to get the Court documents.

    Now, go get your shine box.(ht Goodfellas)

    timb (a83d56)

  184. Well, bj, then we’re on again!

    I hadn’t gone back and read the email exchange, I acted on my memory and my re-reading for [commenter’s name redacted] of the Pub thread where you literally capitalized your desire for me to not post there(by the way, I thought our emails were polite).

    So color me unaware that we could civilly banter and disagree like old times, but color me pleasantly surprised. I always like our discussions. So, on that note let me just respond to #126:

    I don’t really like Pesto*

    *Not really true, I was just going for the joke that we couldn’t agree on anything. I’ve only had pesto once and didn’t mind it. If I can find a Good Eats episode where Alton mixes some up, I’ll try it again, sans Constitution, of course. I prefer my roughage take the form of worthless 401(k) statements.

    timb (a83d56)

  185. Dave Surls: can you point me to somewhere where President Obama has said that warrantless wiretapping, or other forms of extralegal snooping, was fine when Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson did it?

    You seem to be arguing against a phantom liberal who exists only in your own head.

    aphrael (9e8ccd)

  186. aphrael,

    Dave will not be returning. He’s busy beating up cartoon libruls on another thread. Living in an echo chamber deprives one the challenge of defending one’s opinions. Dave’s cartoons can’t be defended, but he is NOT leaving that bubble

    timb (a83d56)

  187. “…the FISA statute that Bush and the telecoms violated…”

    Except, that the FISA Court itself, in a decision released since the election in Nov-08, has stated that the Administration (GWB) does not need FISA to surveil communications that have at least one-party outside the confines of the United States, regardless of the routing of that communication, that such surveillance is within the purview of the powers delegated to the President under Art-2 in his capacity as CIC.

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  188. “On the other hand, there was no law in place to limit them.”

    Of course, there wasn’t, you simpleton. You think that Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Bobby Kennedy and the rest of the Democrats are going to pass statutory laws preventing THEM from using warrantless wiretaps etc. when they’re constantly using warrantless wiretaps?

    The Democrats passed the FISA law to stop Nixon from doing what they’d been doing for decades, you moron.

    Now, that Barack Obama is president, they’re going to keep on keeping on with warrantless wiretaps, etc., just like they’ve been doing forever and a day.

    “Congress expanded the wiretapping program in 2008 with passage of amendments to the Act, which gave telecom companies immunity for past and future participation in the program and expanded the legal use of warrantless wiretaps from 48 hours to seven days.”

    Something about that you clueless lefties don’t get? Now that the Dems are back in power, warrantless wiretaps are all the rage again. Not only are they continuing the Bush policy, they’ve given the government even more power to conduct warrantless wiretaps.

    Same as it ever was.

    When the Democrats want to spy on people without getting warrants…no problemo. When the Republicans do it…crime of the century.

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  189. “The Democrats passed the FISA law to stop Nixon from doing what they’d been doing for decades, you moron”

    President Richard M. Nixon: 1969-1974
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: 1978

    Just who is the moron?

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  190. Your heart’s in the right place, Dave;
    and timmie is a moron;
    but I think you stepped on your own message there.

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  191. “It is, and this is important, Dave, the FISA statute that Bush and the telecoms violated.”

    Is that a fact, Clarence Darrow?

    Prove it.

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  192. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution…”–wiki

    Better?

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  193. Except, that the FISA Court itself, in a decision released since the election in Nov-08, has stated that the Administration (GWB) does not need FISA to surveil communications that have at least one-party outside the confines of the United States, regardless of the routing of that communication, that such surveillance is within the purview of the powers delegated to the President under Art-2 in his capacity as CIC.

    Yes, AD, this was part of the amended FISA act. It is a sweet red herring to both the civil suit currently in court and the one retroactively squished by the last year immunity legislation. In fact, all parties to the FISA amendments admitted that change need to be made. Thanks for playing.

    I would urge you to visit the EFF site. I mean, I don’t understand the fear of research around here.

    timb (592bbe)

  194. Careful when using wiki as a reference.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  195. stop moving the goal post, surls-ly. Your hatred Church Committee criticized Dems and Repus and passed the FISA legislation when a Democrat was President.

    Face it, your partisan hackery, notwithstanding, the wiretapping hatred by folks like me, blinds you to the fact that this is not a partisan issue. Greenwald’s second column is up and Olbermann continued excoriating Obama for a second show.

    Must trouble Karl to know Obama and Holder agree with him.

    I know it annoys the piss out of me. I want my $10 back.

    timb (592bbe)

  196. wiki G.W. = sans coca

    Cisco (983921)

  197. “Careful when using wiki as a reference.”

    In this case the wiki summary is entirely accurate.

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  198. “stop moving the goal post, surls-ly.”

    I’m not moving anything. I started out attacking the treachery, dishonesty, and hypocrisy of the liberal Democrats…and that’s what I’m still doing.

    Same message: When Dems use warrantless wiretaps, it’s o.k., when Republicans use them it’s a crime and a moral outrage.

    Dave Surls (0daadb)

  199. In this case the wiki summary is entirely accurate.
    Comment by Dave Surls — 4/10/2009 @ 10:53 am

    Umm…

    Is that a fact, Clarence Darrow?
    Prove it.
    Comment by Dave Surls — 4/10/2009 @ 10:26 am

    Nice prescription Doc, heal thyself. And take a(nother) Xanax. Nearly every comment you make has some type of insult. Chill a bit before you alienate those who mostly agree with you.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  200. Except, tool, I am a liberal Democrat and I am pissed. Greenwald is a liberal and he’s pissed. Olberman is so liberal it makes most commenters here crazy and he’s pissed. EFF is called liberal and the ACLU is called liberal and they’re pissed. Jane Hamshear is pissed. Everywhere you look on the Left blogosphere, there is anger. Hell, I just argued if the Obama administration does it, he should be impeached (ironically, in your mind, the position I held when Bush was President).

    In fact, Karl, [commenter name redacted]/comment #20, Red State, and Andrew McCarthy are the people on this thread and elsewhere who believe breaking the law and claiming “state secrets” is the correct policy.

    The only partisan divide on this is in your mind, as aphrael has been patiently explaining to you for three days.

    timb (592bbe)

  201. It’s utterly ridiculous of people making stupid claims like “people believe breaking the law and claiming ‘state secrets'” when those self-same people are breaking the law and voting while liberal.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  202. I broke the law when I voted?

    I will admit, John, that surls makes you look sane, but this non-sequitor arrived from a strange place.

    timb (592bbe)

  203. Stand up, timb. It went over your head.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  204. “Red State, and Andrew McCarthy are the people on this thread and elsewhere who believe breaking the law and claiming “state secrets” is the correct policy.”

    timb – You premise is fatally flawed. I do not recall seeing Andrew McCartyh or the bloggers at Red State admit these program amount to breaking the law. If you know of such admissions, please link them. Your continued assertions of lawbreaking, and those of others of your ilk, carry no authority in spite of endless repetition.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  205. I disagree with timb’s premise… I think the program is lawful and President Obama was correct to continue it. He has been consistent in contending he believes it to be against the law and should be prosecuted no matter whose administration is involved. Props for that.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  206. I will agree that timb has been consistent in his belief that it is against the law. But timb asserted “this side of the aisle” believe breaking the law is right. That’s where he failed. And that’s the failure I used against him that he missed.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  207. Thanks, Stash. That’s the point, daley. If the court cases were allowed to continue, the govt would, I maintain, lose. See NSA v ACLU (since overturned on standing issues) and the original EFF v NSA. Both suits were in line to succeed until DOJ lawyers refused to cooperate on the basis of “state secrets.”

    Also, daley, when the President admitted to the program in December 2005, he admitted to warrantless wiretapping. He claimed Congressional authorization. That’s called a defense, but he never denied the prima facie case of warrantless wiretapping.

    timb (592bbe)

  208. The Warrantless Wiretaps undertaken by the Bush Administration are actually, as per previous rulings of the FISA Court (and others), are outside the purview of FISA and protected by the Art-2 powers of the President as CIC – that is the dirty little secret that so upsets the LibTurds and that they cannot abide by.
    It’s entirley legal, and it’s killing them!

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  209. Agreed. Keeping in mind that he was responding to Dave Surls accusations of hypocrisy, his phrasing could have been better (unless he actually believes that we’re all in favor of breaking laws we don’t like… and I don’t think he’s that far gone… I could be wrong.) I was just glad to see the goalposts stay in place for a change.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  210. “Chill a bit before you alienate those who mostly agree with you.”

    Chill a bit yourself, sport.

    Timmy tells me to go rejoin my militia, I call him Clarence Darrow. Tim calls me a nut, I call him a simpleton. No blood has been shed, no deadly insults have been offered. I’m not one bit mad at Tim because he called me a nut, and if not alienated by being insulted, there’s no reason why you should be.

    So…relax.

    Dave Surls (3d3c5a)

  211. Dave: Some of your assertions have been a tad bit off the wall. And there actually are a handful of liberal or liberal-leaning commenters here who do indeed debate in good faith.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  212. “Both suits were in line to succeed until DOJ lawyers refused to cooperate on the basis of “state secrets.””

    timb – In your opinion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  213. “he admitted to warrantless wiretapping”

    timmah – Don’t be dolt. He doesn’t need warrants for all wiretapping and people have no idea what he was referring to. Are you claiming to be able to read his mind now?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  214. “It’s entirley legal, and it’s killing them!”

    AD – It’s completely stale ground yet they keep shouting the same crap and they don’t even understan the technical side of the programs. A bunch of babies and losers is what they are and now Obama is confirming Bush’s positions.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  215. I’m relaxed Dave. Now, where’s the proof that wiki summary is accurate?

    And don’t call me sport. There’s a reason many commenters here don’t always take timb seriously. He hurls a lot of insults and frequently doesn’t support his arguments with credible links. I think he’s getting better though… others feel differently. Taking you seriously is becoming more difficult every time you comment for the same reasons. If you’ve been here a while, you should know that my biggest peeve is dishonest comments. Insulting everyone who disagrees with you is not honest, and calling me “sport” is pretty condescending. It doesn’t upset me, but it does make me take you even less seriously. I doubt I’m the only one, so dial it down a notch or get dismissed.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  216. “But timb asserted “this side of the aisle” believe breaking the law is right. That’s where he failed.”

    John and Stashiu3 – This is just another example of timb dishonestly attributing positions to people they have not taken. I agree that he has been consistent in his own position.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  217. “It is, and this is important, Dave, the FISA statute that Bush and the telecoms violated.”

    I’m still waiting for that proof.

    Dave Surls (3d3c5a)

  218. If timb wants to be upset, here’s something from the BHO Admin he can really get upset with:

    Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which goes far beyond anything ever contemplated by the Bush administration. The most controversial provisions are Sec. 18 (2), which gives the President authority to shut down all or any portions of the internet that he may designate as “critical infrastructure information systems and networks,” and Sec. 14 (b)(1), which gives the Secretary of Commerce access to “all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.
    H/T…Power Line

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  219. “Insulting everyone who disagrees with you is not honest, and calling me “sport” is pretty condescending.”

    Excuse me? You just called me “doc” and told me to take a xanax. I thought we were just kidding around there and being a little bit condescending for the fun of it…but apparently only you’re allowed to do that.

    Like I said, buddy. You need to relax a tad. We can’t very well have a situation where you can call me “doc”, and then you start getting all huffy because I call you “sport” in return. That obviously can’t work.

    I have no problem whatsoever with Tim slinging a few insults. That doesn’t hurt me, and he’s a acting like a big boy, and he’s taking my return insults in good grace. So, don’t worry about it.

    Dave Surls (3d3c5a)

  220. Dave: I respect most of the commenters here. I respect Stashiu3 above all the commenters and posters, above even Patterico.

    I have zero respect for you. Settle down or go away.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  221. “Now, where’s the proof that wiki summary is accurate?”

    I’m surprised anyone would question that, but here you go.

    “Since 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has governed United States intelligence gathering for national security purposes. Enacted in response to the Watergate–era civil rights violations and revelations of a Senate investigation headed by Senator Frank Church that other presidential administrations had authorized similar warrantless surveillance, FISA established a statutory framework for national security surveillance. Understanding FISA contributes to the study of criminal justice policymaking because law enforcement and intelligence communities view it as an important tool for combatting espionage and terrorism. This article examines the enactment of FISA from the perspective of symbolic politics.”

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118949856/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    I can link to articles like that all day long. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you.

    Dave Surls (3d3c5a)

  222. A humble plea for the insults to be dialed back a bit. There are certain other blogs, including Voldemort’s, that thrive on vitriol. This blog differs because ideas and facts matter more than political correctness — of any persuasion.

    A good argument can stir the blood, and I’ve certainly been in my share. But when it gets to be all about the need to put the other person or view down, it’s gone too far.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (5d6451)

  223. Dave, “doc” was a pun on the old saying “Physician, heal thyself”, and the Xanax a riff on that. If you thought we were bantering, that’s more my fault than yours and I apologize. I did not intend a double-standard and will be more careful in the future. My first comment was truly meant as helpful, so I apparently failed to convey that as well.

    I’m surprised anyone would question that, but here you go.

    I didn’t doubt it actually, but right on the heels of you challenging someone else’s assertion and demanding proof, you were challenged for using wiki and thought that your assertion that the summary was accurate should be taken as fact. That’s where the “heal thyself” came in… to try and point that irony out to you in a subtle and mildly humorous way. I obviously should cut back on subtle. And maybe humor.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  224. Note to Stashiu3:

    The Internet does not do subtle, let alone funny.
    It’s a full-on frontal assault, or nothing!
    Heh!

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  225. Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 4/10/2009 @ 4:31 pm

    What about irony? Can we still do irony? I never get the darn memos. I blame JD (who was right about DCSCA not being Jeffrey Diamond.)

    [was that good enough? NO? Okay then…]

    JD was right and won our bet. I was wrong. JD is the winner. He is everything I want to be when I grow up. (too much? yeah, maybe a little) 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  226. #222 AD:

    The Internet does not do subtle, let alone funny.

    No wonder I’m hated by so many.

    Huh.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  227. You guys must be having just a terrible time living in JD’s shadow?

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  228. You guys must be having just a terrible time living in JD’s shadow?
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 4/10/2009 @ 5:32 pm

    Was that subtle or humorous? ‘Cuz I gave those up.

    *ducks*

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  229. I have to rush this response before they get the strait-jacket completely …..

    AD - RtR/OS (f5b734)

  230. “Just for the record, that Pittsburgh trash could not legally own or possess fire-arms.”–Comment by John Hitchcock

    Guess what?

    People get upset and they call people names.

    Get over it.

    Dave Surls (441844)

  231. “If you thought we were bantering”

    We were. You guys are just way too sensitive.

    Dave Surls (441844)

  232. You guys are just way too sensitive.
    Comment by Dave Surls — 4/10/2009 @ 6:32 pm

    Yeah Dave, that’s it (just speaking for myself). Having standards is just so 2008 2002 1997 1992 … when did those go out of style again? Never mind, you just keep on truckin’ down that rough&tumble internet superhighway, makin’ friends and influencin’ people.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  233. Stash, don’t invoke Dale Carnegie like that. For shame.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  234. It’s an homage, not an invocation. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  235. Let’s see, Dave quotes my statement about a certain person, ignoring the link pointing to a cop-killer. He uses that as a reference saying I call cop-killers names when I get upset so he should be able to call people names. Which of the people he’s called names is as worthy as a cop-killer of being called names?

    Or is this a case where sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and Dave’s just doing his normal tu quoque stretching?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  236. John,

    Don’t you know that calling that disadvantaged, misunderstood, wayward soul “Pittsburgh trash” is exactly like calling somebody “doc” and gives an immediate, unlimited license to call both friend and foe anything that comes to mind? It’s the internet! Toughen up! (not very subtle, mild humor at best, heavy sarcasm… hmmmm, Judges? A ruling please?)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  237. At 6’3″ and 220 pounds, I cast a large and long shadow.

    JD (1ec03c)

  238. At 6′3″ and 220 pounds, I cast a large and long shadow.
    Comment by JD — 4/10/2009 @ 7:41 pm

    Yeah? On the internet, I’m 6’4″ and 225 pounds (actually 5’10” and 185 pounds, but you don’t know that, m’kay?) I’ll kick your butt (which means that I’ll open the first beers if you ever stop by). Hey! This internet toughguy stuff is kinda fun! Now, let’s talk about how stupid I am and how effeminate your car is… that’s the next step, right? You need to send my rulebook dagnabit!

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  239. Stash, you’re not fit to polish my desert-issue boots.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  240. Stash, you’re not fit to polish my Mom’s desert-issue boots.
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 4/10/2009 @ 8:03 pm

    So glad I could fix that for you, no thanks necessary. (turn it into a flame-thread? We may end up overloading the filter. I can’t right now though, I have to get up early. Rain check? Or I can catch up tomorrow.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  241. (Yes, I know desert boots aren’t polished… just rolling with it.) 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  242. Real men drive Miata’s, or Spyder’s.

    JD (1ec03c)

  243. Does that mean I have to sell my psychedelic microbus?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  244. Standards? More like double standards, I’d say.

    “There’s a reason many commenters here don’t always take timb seriously.”

    “I have zero respect for you.”

    Sounds to me like you and your buddy can hand out the insults pretty well, when you have a mind to.

    Those two remarks are extremely condescending and insulting.

    Hell, your basically telling Tim that his opinions aren’t even worth considering (and you’re doing it third person style, talking over his head, which is hell of rude). Not exactly respectful or civil treatment.

    But, I’m not bothered by people slinging insults, so…insult away.

    And, that’s my last word on this idiotic subject.

    Dave Surls (441844)

  245. So what does that make your canary-yellow VW convertible with the “AS #1FAN” plates? (NTTIAWWT, I’m sure lots of folks admire Ashley Simpson almost as much)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  246. “Real men drive Miata’s, or Spyder’s.”

    Audi TT’s or Volkswagon Cabriolets.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  247. Damn you, Stash. I was saving that so I could trump anything else.

    JD (1ec03c)

  248. “At 6′3″ and 220 pounds, I cast a large and long shadow.”

    JD – Most of the weight is in your stomach so it’s more like you overshadow, your own feet.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  249. Those weren’t insults, mine is a fact that timb would likely agree with. He doesn’t get a lot of respect many times and those are the usual reasons given. He may not agree those reasons are valid, but he’s heard them often enough. I try to always talk respectfully with him and he has been responding in kind, even when we disagree. I wasn’t insulting him by any means.

    The other is also a fact, albeit a subjective one, which you were also given the reason for. You don’t want to be civil, that’s up to you. When you take an apology so ungraciously, don’t be surprised when you’re no longer taken seriously and mocked. I’ll take the hit for what happened prior since I could/should have been clearer. Everything since then is on you.

    Now, let the adults have their fun and you can play the wingnut part when it comes up. We’ll let you know. Honest. Just keep waiting. It’ll be soon. (Now that’s condescending… thought you should know the difference.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  250. So very true, daley. So very true.

    JD (1ec03c)

  251. Ouch, Stash. That might leave a mark.

    JD (1ec03c)

  252. Audi TT’s or Volkswagon Cabriolets.
    Comment by daleyrocks — 4/10/2009 @ 8:32 pm

    Augmented breasts or German wine? How do they handle?

    Damn you, Stash. I was saving that so I could trump anything else.
    Comment by JD — 4/10/2009 @ 8:36 pm

    I figured you’ve still got the rainbow-colored socks with the individual toes to use later. Oops! Well, you did anyway.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  253. Really gotta leave now, but it’s been fun.

    Be well.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  254. I’ll go with the natural thing, Stashiu3 and I was never a big fan of German wines. A few went well with a pate and a couple of other nice whites, but overall they were as subtle as the people themselves.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  255. Welcome back, Patterico. (No, I’m not on the wrong thread.)

    nk (4012ff)

  256. While pointedly ignoring the latest non-insult…

    My basic point was that followers or adherents of the Democrat Party are being a little naive if they think that liberal Democrats won’t spy on people without getting warrants first, because the liberal Democrats have done it over and over and over sgain.

    And, that the expressed outrage of the same liberal Democrats during the Watergate so-called scandal and during the Bush II presidency over the Republicans’ use of warrantless wiretaps, was just a smidgen on the dishonest side, given the Democrat Party’s own long history of conducting surveillence without getting warrants first.

    I’m o.k. with what the Bush administration did, I’m o.k. with what the Nixon administration did, and I’m o.k. with what the Roosevelt administration did in regard to wiretaps, etc. because I think we need to do that in order to catch spies, saboteurs, terrorists or just people talking to much, so some monitoring and censorship while combat ops are going on makes sense to me.

    What I’m not o.k. with is when the Democrats express fake outrage over wiretapping for purely partisan reasons and start causing an administration all kinds of headaches when we’re in the middle of a war, because interferring with intelligence gathering or counter-espionage activities hurts us and helps our enemies…and that really gets my goat.

    That’s pretty much all I was saying, for what it’s worth.

    Dave Surls (441844)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6881 secs.