Walter Murphy, that self-important blowhard who believed he was put on a terrorist watch list for criticizing Bush, now thinks he may have been taken off because he complained about it in phone calls to friends. This, he speculates, may have caused the NSA — which may well have been monitoring his phone calls — to take his name off the list.
It’s nice how one form of oppression cures another, isn’t it?
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Powered by WordPress.
What scares me isn’t that he believes what he’s saying…
It’s that so many other people (I can think of a couple posters here that probably do) will believe it too…
It really is kinda scary…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/10/2007 @ 8:52 pmLike I said…. Was he also, by any chance, warned not to attend a session of the Senate on the Ides of March?
nk (306f5a) — 4/10/2007 @ 8:56 pmReally, if he was put on the no-fly list for attending a rally or something, the odds are it was the NSA who’s covert actions get him put on it in the first place…
‘The NSA giveth (a hard time) and the NSA taketh away (the evidence)’, I suppose…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/10/2007 @ 8:59 pmWhy do I get the feeling that right next to the definition of “paranoid” in the Oxford English Dictionary, there’s a picture of Walter Murphy?
Bill M (94ef88) — 4/10/2007 @ 9:21 pmAt this rate, he will be channeling and interpreting the “real meaning” of “government installed” traffic signs by next week.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 4/10/2007 @ 9:32 pmSuddenly, I find myself wondering if our dear Mr. Murphy has any fillings? If so, perhaps he could do me a favor and tune in sports radio instead of the CIA transmissions he’s been getting up to this point?
Rick Wilcox (71646f) — 4/10/2007 @ 9:33 pmI would pay serious money if someone were willing to hand deliver a tinfoil hat to this guy, and take a picture of it when he opens the package…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/10/2007 @ 9:46 pmLet’s see:
1. Pat says bad things about the Bush administration.
2. Pat gets bad service at NSA-monitored restaurant.
3. Pat makes fun of Walter Murphy.
I predict:
4. NSA runs weather software providing temperate, dry days for Pat in return for his mocking Professor Murphy.
Good job, NSA lackey. Go ahead, make fun. We know why you do it. You’re part of the system that destroys truth-seekers like 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Kevin Trudeau.
–JRM
JRM (355c21) — 4/10/2007 @ 11:17 pmFrom Ryan Singel at ThreatLevelBlog/Wired (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/04/professor_bashi.html):
“Murphy says he’s heard from others put on the list and that it’s similar to the outing of CIA operation Valerie Plame as political payback for her husband’s criticisms of the Administration.”
Uh, oh. I wonder if the “others” was Ray McGovern from VIPS?
stevesh (a77c51) — 4/10/2007 @ 11:43 pmYeah AF, why would the FBI be interested in protesters wearing all black.
It’s not like they ever caused any trouble before…
This professor is truly paranoid. As someone noted, it’s most scary that he believes what he says.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/11/2007 @ 5:45 amCall me a nut, but I’m rather glad that the FBI watches large groups of strange people wandering around the capital.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/11/2007 @ 8:14 amThe only thing wrong with the No-Fly list is how badly run it is. It’s not THE Walter Murphy that’s on the list, it’s everyone named Walter Murphy, or at least everyone so named in his general area.
Some idiot with my name got himself on the list, so I spend a lot of time jumping through hoops in airports. There has got to be a better way.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/11/2007 @ 8:36 amOK, the “selectee” list. One useful outcome of Walter’s gripe is that useful info is coming out about this.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/11/2007 @ 8:41 amThe only thing wrong with the No-Fly list is how badly run it is. It’s not THE Walter Murphy that’s on the list, it’s everyone named Walter Murphy, or at least everyone so named in his general area.
How praytell would you solve the problem. Without some manner of biometric scanning (which tends to bring out the lefties screaming fascist and orwellian) all they really have to go on are name and perhaps race.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/11/2007 @ 9:39 amCOINTELPRO
ACLU Announces Collaboration With Rep. Bob Barr; Says Conservative Congressman Will Consult on Privacy Issues.
I grew up with a tapped phone
AF (c319c8) — 4/11/2007 @ 12:35 pmYeah, and you are obviously scared to death of speaking truth to power here, at a website run by an agent of the man himself. Aren’t you afraid that Carnivore is logging your IP for future harassment?
I grew up with a rented, rotary-dial phone.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/11/2007 @ 12:58 pmCongratulations, AF, you just won a one way ticket to Iran, NK, or China, to find out what dictatorship really means. Hope you survive the lesson.
“Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn at no other.” Poor Richard
SDN (0e4377) — 4/11/2007 @ 4:05 pmThis is getting tto heavy. We need a little humor around here.
Oops!
AF (c319c8) — 4/11/2007 @ 4:10 pmNothing kills a thread like a cut-and-paste troll.
nk (62fa94) — 4/11/2007 @ 4:47 pmActually, there is a perfectly sensible. The clerk just read it too quickly. The list actually contains Wmu Rphy, a well-known space alien who specializes in kidnapping the reputations of pompous fools with Irish last names. Who’s covering up?
Bleepless (c4e100) — 4/11/2007 @ 6:03 pmIs there really a person who is:
1. an emeritus professor from Princeton
2. who has recently published a book on Constitutional Democracy from Hopkins press
3. that believes he was put on a no fly list because of one lecture critical of President Bush
4. And believes he is now off of the list because the NSA was intimidated while monitoring him?
If that is really true it is scarier than Orson Wells broadcasting War of the Worlds.
Pick a or b:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/11/2007 @ 8:13 pma. If the CIA and NSA functions as well as the Professor claims, why is the left worried?
b. If the NSA is the NSA its reported to be, and was truly concerned about the professor, I don’t think we’d hear about it.
It’s nice how one form of oppression cures another, isn’t it?
I call that a civil society; but I cannot imagine it to be true. Those civilised checks and balances do not currently exist in civil discourse.
Who are we to speculate why the professor cannot fly? If it were untrue, there may be a press release denying the allegations of the rabid prof; but there is not.
Imagine that, a constitutional scholar being called a crackpot, solely because he suspects the government is culpable for his inconvenience.
No one can deny the government spies on its own citizens. I don’t understand why y’all think it’s okay, despite the nutty professor’s delusions.
Petit Bourgeois (375601) — 4/11/2007 @ 11:29 pmBarring unreasonable search and seizure, why do you think observation is a problem?
I know, I know, it sounds more nefarious when you say spying. But police “spy” on suspected criminals all the time, which is how they build probable cause for warrants.
Do you have a problem with that? Shall we outlaw undercover work?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/12/2007 @ 4:17 amProbably because when you say “spies on its own citizens”, what you curiously omit includes, “who are making frequent calls to dubious contacts in Islamabad.”
Funny how the end of that sentence always seems to drop off when people are talking about “spying on Americans”.
Lehosh (2fc6bc) — 4/12/2007 @ 6:44 am…or spying on Quakers or spying on Catholics
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:18 amThe fact that AF is citing blatantly biased sources (if you say the ACLU isn’t bias i’m gonna slap you, hand to God) as the most trustable of sources remains really damn funny to me…
AF, seriously… Go away and troll some other blog. Or at least, you know, give us your own words now and again.. This cut and paste crap is pretty sophmoric…
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:22 am“This cut and paste crap” is called linking, Scott. Try it out sometime. It helps convince people you aren’t making shit up.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:28 amciting information is fine. It’s great, even…
But when links are all you post, it’s moronic, you retard.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:29 amAlso, occationally not using sources from deep in the heart of “bushitler” land would be, you know, useful…
though I doubt you’ll find such links as you’d like to use, since rational people are that god damn stupid.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:30 am“though I doubt you’ll find such links as you’d like to use, since rational people are that god damn stupid.”
-Scott Jacobs
I would respond if I could understand what you were saying.
Take a deep breath, buddy. The keyboard isn’t going anywhere.
Leviticus (35fbde) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:36 amSo the “Quaker” organization has been under watch since 1951 and that relates to Bush… how?
And random people get put on a “No Fly” list, some of them happen to be Catholic, and some of them were “critical of the war” (a nice blanket statement that could mean “unhappy” but perpetually leans toward “hang Cheney”). How does this constitute “spying on Catholics” exactly?
I also think it’s kinda funny that in the ACLU link most of the people are pretty nondescript about themselves or the incidents. Most of the “cases” were completely generic personal testimonies taken at face value that “I am a patriot but I was put on the No Fly list!” or “I’ve never done anything except perhaps protest military aid, why am I on the list??” Generally, people who are patriotic aren’t prone to identifying themselves as patriots. A bit like women on reality shows saying “I’m not a bitch”.
Lehosh (2fc6bc) — 4/12/2007 @ 7:44 amLeviticus,
Compare AF and blubonnet to LA, biwah or David E.. The last three present their own views and arguments (even if they are sometimes snarky or sarcastic). The first two just try to get us to read what they have read at some Bush-hating site.
nk (a3cd81) — 4/12/2007 @ 8:05 amnk,
AF links a lot, yes. That’s his style. You don’t have to read everything he posts/links. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he only links to “Bush-hating site[s]”: half of his articles come from the Associated Press.
You and I may have a different style than AF, but that doesn’t make his illegitimate.
in re: blubonnet,
I’m not really familiar with blubonnet (not before the “America’s Broken-Down Army?” thread, at least).
in re: LA, biwah, David E.,
I see the difference (especially with biwah – he’s a smart guy [or gal… stupid internet anonymity]), but like I said, I don’t think that makes AF’s style illegitimate.
Leviticus (43095b) — 4/12/2007 @ 8:36 amthe AP… Ah yes… So unbiased they are…
*snicker*
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 8:42 amMost of the newspapers in America seem to think so…
Can you say “paranoia”?
Leviticus (43095b) — 4/12/2007 @ 8:51 amOr spying on Mormons by Quakers 🙂
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:13 amI link to news or data, or the opinions of experts in their fields. I don’t just spew my own opinion. NK called me a “statist” because I said I wouldn’t defend a friend’s stupidity just because of friendship. “Opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one.”
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:18 amTrue enough, but you have to earn the right to have your opinions taken seriously. LA and David E. will never convince anyone of anything. They don’t even try. I’m more interested in policy than people, and this administration, and the republican party these days, seems run on personal loyalty and not much else. That’s a danger to our rule of law and a danger to the security of our country. I don’t like politicians. I don’t give a shit about Bush one way or the other, but he’s the president, and he has responsibilities. Now he’s trying to find a War ‘Czar’ to handle his mess. But I thought we already had one: he’s called the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Bush is a failure because his policies and their aftereffects have shown him to be one.
Give me data and an argument that shows otherwise. Opinions as such don’t mean squat.
And I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think some people had an open mind.
Or spying on Catholics by Catholics… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:19 amSo you completely disagree with every single attempt by congress to impose withdrawl dates, yes?
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:21 amThe President is Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, not Commander and Chief of the American People.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:27 amCongress has a role and a duty.
Excellent answer.
Sadly, it doesn’t answer the question that was asked.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:30 amOr spying on the government by Scientologists 🙂
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:46 amMost of the newspapers in America seem to think so…
And most communists think capitalism is a fad. Your point?
Taltos (c99804) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:56 amThe question was silly, but I answered it, though you pretend otherwise.
Congress has every right to use its Constitutionallly mandated authority to make demands of the president.
“So you completely disagree with every single attempt by congress to impose withdrawl dates, yes?”
No I do not.
And neither does a majority of the American people
I want the troops out now, but this is the best on offer at the moment.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 9:59 amSo while you claim to hold Bush completely resposible for the actions of the military, you support congress telling him what to do with the military.
Brilliant, but mutually exclusive…
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 10:25 am“So while you claim to hold Bush completely resposible for the actions of the military, you support congress telling him what to do with the military.”
Scott, try that again.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 10:30 amOk dimbulb, I will.
Ok, with you so far. The President runs the military…
But you’re ok with congress deciding how to run the military…
I’d ask if you see where the logical disconnect is, but I’m fairly sure I know your answer already…
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 10:37 amScott, read the Constitution; read the laws.
We are not a monarchy. The president is not free to do whatever he wants whenever he wants.
“Advice and consent” assumes the right, and the power to refuse to do so.
Again: the President is not the commander and chief of the American people.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 10:47 amAnd consent was given. Now they can “advice” all they want, but at the end of the day their job is to make sure the military has the money it needs for the job it’s doing.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 10:56 am“Now they can “advice” all they want, but at the end of the day their job is to make sure the military has the money it needs for the job it’s doing.”
Nope.
Or rather: that’s your opinion. Now give me an argument to defend it, against the will of what seems now to be the majority of the American people.
More importantly read the Constitution
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 11:18 amOr Evangelicals spying on Venezuelans 🙂
Sorry, this is probably getting old. We are still discussing the delusional Professor Murphy, yes?
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/12/2007 @ 11:24 amNo C. you’re doing fine.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 11:31 amThe will of the people put Bush in charge of the military. Congress approved the motion to go to Iraq. Now it’s congress’s job to prove the funding, and leave running the war they authorized to the President.
How do you not follow that?
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 11:45 amWho wrote this?
Nino Scalia
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 11:46 amThat’s a good idea, legal eagle, but here’s a better one: how about you read the damned Constitution, or at least skim it carefully enough to know better than to throw around a phrase like “advice and consent” in a context where it has no relevance, let alone to back up that argument by linking to a part of the document that doesn’t contain the phrase at all.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 4/12/2007 @ 12:20 pm“The power of the purse”
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 12:33 pm“The power of the purse”
Exactly, congress has the power to defund the war if they so choose. When, if, and how to withdraw forces are all decidedly command decisions vested in the president as commander in chief.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/12/2007 @ 12:37 pmRead the quote from Scalia above. Read Article One of the Constitution. I linked to it.
Nino: “Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President’s military authority would be “much inferior” to that of the British King”
The bit from Nino comes courtesy of G. Greenwald. I know you hate him, and he’s evil and a commie and hates America or whatever, but he actually knows something about the law and precedent. Read the post. Since he’s arguing with someone at the Standard who thinks the president has “near dictatorial power,” you might even come back with a stronger argument.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 1:11 pmCONGRESS ALREADY AUTHORIZED THEIR PRESENCE!!!!
Jesus, it’s like I’m talking to a wall, only the wall’s got some sort of learning disability.
Yes Congress has the authority and ability to not fund the military, but since it’s there with prior authorization, they can’t force the president to withdraw them. In fact, he’s technically have to get Congress’s ok TO withdraw… Until such a request is made, it’s a moot point.
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 4/12/2007 @ 1:19 pmCongress’ has the authority to regulate the armed forces by means defined in the constitution. It gave authorization but has the right and the power to change its mind. The method may be a bit passive-aggressive for your tastes but that doesn’t change the facts.
You don’t want congress interfering; but it has the right to interfere, and the majority right now want it to do so.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 2:13 pmAnd as I said, I don’t think it’s interfering nearly enough.
Neither of us are happy, but there’s not much we can do about that is there?
Nice try, but the constitution doesn’t say congress can “regulate” the armed forces.
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
In other words, they get to write the playbook. It doesn’t say they get to throw in the towel because they don’t like like the coach.
Yes it does have the power to change it’s mind, by cutting off funding, everyone has agreed on this for centuries. Now that congress doesn’t like Bush new powers seem to be springing out the woodwork.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/12/2007 @ 4:00 pm“It doesn’t say they get to throw in the towel because they don’t like like the coach.”
That’s not how our government works. If you don’t like it, move to Saudi Arabia. They have a monarchy, you should be happy there.
“Now that congress doesn’t like Bush new powers seem to be springing out the woodwork.”
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 4:25 pm“new powers…”
Ignorance is bliss
That’s not how our government works. If you don’t like it, move to Saudi Arabia. They have a monarchy, you should be happy there.
Says who? Your opinion of the issue means just as much as mine, nothing. The difference is that I have precedence on my side. The only one mentioning monarchy is you.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/12/2007 @ 5:14 pm“The difference is that I have precedence on my side.”
I’m sorry but that’s not true. And I’ve linked and quoted from arguments and you and others here have responded with your own opinions. So how about I make it easy for you just so this can end:
Is that good enough? I get to have precedent on my side, and you get to think we’re repeating the same mistake. Let’s end it there.
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 5:48 pmCongress can use its Constitutionally mandated power to force the issue, and most of the people in the US want it to do just that.
I’m done.
It’s been a long day:
AF (c319c8) — 4/12/2007 @ 6:04 pmYou’ll say that a timetable for withdrawal is not the same as simply cutting off funding, and you’ll be right. But I don’t really want to continue this. We do not live in a monarchy. The president can not maintain a posture of unilateral action and stay within the bounds of the Constitution as it has been interpreted up to this point.
I’m done now.
AF, what about Methodists spying on Communists…
Sorry, it’s been a while.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/13/2007 @ 2:07 pm