Lies lies lies yeah, they're gonna getcha

First posted 12/20/05

UPDATE December 23rd: FISA Court Tried To Retain Gorelick Wall

More here from Stratospere, FISA was hardly an effect tool against murdering barbarians that change phones, every day or every hour.  Think back to the days, weeks months post 9/11. The country was scared shwitless, remember. No law broken here. Iimagine if Bush suspended habeus corpus like Lincoln or rounded up all muslims and held them in internment camps like FDR during WW2. THINK!

The left counts on an America that does not pay attention.

Claims by a top Senate Democrat that the Clinton administration's warrantless surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists was different from what the Bush administration has employed are being contradicted by a former Justice Department official who served under President Bill Clinton.

John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.

x___dhimmi a favorite commenter, sends this along

GORELICK 1994: "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the PRESIDENT HAS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WARRANTLESS PHYSICAL SEARCHES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would UNDULY FRUSTRATE THE PRESIDENT IN CARRYING OUT HIS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIBILITIES."

In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — IF, as she testified, IT "DOES NOT RESTRICT THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO COLLECT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE NECESSARY FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION DID NOT BACK DOWN FROM ITS CONTENTION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT WHEN NECESSARY. More here

GORELICK 2005: "The issue here is this," said Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton and as a member of the Sept. 11 commission. "If you're John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT LIMITS ANYTHING IF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN IGNORE IT BY ASSERTING ITS INHERENT AUTHORITY?"

If you saw Gorelick at the "closing ceremonies"  of the 9/11 commision you'd have no doubt that she is evil (as opposed to idiotarian).

That 9/11 commission was utter bullshit. Handling Reno like some  Blanche DuBois inspired mental patient while attempting to publicly flog Rice. Ridiculous in its narcissism and impotency. Republican bashing galore and not a word about  ABLE  DANGER?  yeah ok.

Special  hearings, that new beloved  leftard tool. Now the dhimmis  are calling for hearings into Bush on the left's latest piece of cheap theater, "eavesdropping on Bin Laden". These hearings accomplish nothing but give  otherwise impossible-to-get huge chunks of airtime for the Boxer (and her ilk) burlesque show of flailing arms, graphs, whining, preening, self congratulating delusions and base gutless stupidity (not to mention mendacity of the most irrational). I certainly won't hold my breath waiting for the left to call for hearings to investigate the leak at the NSA or CIA or FBI to determine who committed the act of treason. NO PLAME immediacy here, now that was a text book example of a manufactured distraction ploy. (I know I am repeating myself here, needs repeating)

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."-Churchill

Gorelick on 9/11,  was like Goebbels presiding over Nuremburg

 

"Use their systems, passports, citizenship, laws, traditions, books and media, create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength."

- Abul ala' - Al-Ansar chat room, September 2005.

AP: "He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have 'a clear link' to al-Qaeda or related terrorist organizations." This would overlook homegrown jihadists, or those who infiltrated the country years ago and aren't making international phone calls. Moreover, well-trained terrorists would not reveal their plans on international calls; hence, the administration will likely be criticized for not spending enough resources investigating internal networks of terror, those who will probably produce the next terrorist strikes. Obviously, the government - in a full fledged state of war with al-Qaeda and its allies - should be spending all possible resources to monitor, listen to, analyze, and act against potential threats. Despite that, the intelligence establishment has asked the president to only authorize 30 monitoring of possible cases since September 11. Most analysts believe al-Qaeda has 200 cadres operating within the U.S. Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) of the Senate Intelligence Committee cited this figure in 2002. According to the requests, some may argue that the Administration's ground troops have only tracked 30 of them, 15 percent.

That's why I was surprised as I continued reading the AP report that it did not criticize the administration for not doing enough surveillance of terror-related activities but for doing too much, or as it was framed in the media later: Spying on U.S. citizens! The argument was coined in pure theoretical - albeit erroneous- sculpture: The president was ordering spying on Americans, inside the country. Hence, he had - according to some - broken the law. Reading and listening to the surreal new debate, I thought of how al-Qaeda must be laughing. In one of his caves in middle earth, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri must be in disbelief, yelling, "By Allah, had we known we were barely monitored; we could have pulled out the big one!"

But America's political debate is happening on a different planet: it's about L.A. Law, finding scandals, and who can get a story out; regardless of reflecting on what we'll need to do to win the War on Terror. Brigitte Gabriel

Disanding the court is one option open to judges after a briefing of FISA judges expected to occur in January, see here

UPDATE: December 22nd: Clinton judge resigns? That's a good thing here 

A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.

AND I WANT AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS INTO WHO LEAKED SUCH A CRITICAL SECRET DURING WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS AT WAR. Where is the media on this TREASONOUS leak?

UPDATE: December 22nd :

"President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents . . . I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect apresident, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again." -- John Schmidt, one-time Clinton associate attorney general, writing in the Chicago Tribune.

 

"While [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi cuts a sunny public profile --always dressed to the nines and flashing a radiant smile -- Democrats say she runs a tough, even paranoid, political machine with a vengeful disposition toward current and former adversaries . . . Pelosi has no choice but to work with [moderate House Minority Whip Steny] Hoyer. But she doesn't always like it. In April, for instance, she blew up at the whip after he and 71 other moderates defected to vote for the Republican-backed bankruptcy-reform bill. Pelosi effectively accused Hoyer of selling out to his corporate donors. Moderates, noting that they'd voted for virtually the same bill several times in past years -- and would look foolish if they switched now -- were appalled. 'She seems to thrive on conflict,' says a former House Democratic leadership aide. 'When she wins a leadership race, she never stops running against that person. She beat Steny, but she has never stopped punishing him for running in the first place.'" -- The New Republic's Michael Crowley.

Hat tip: Wall Street Journal Political Journal John Fund

Comments

[Matt]

Uh, you should learn to do research. Gorelick's point was that warrantless physical searches (which weren't allowed at the time under FISA), shouldn't tie the President's hands, not that the President has the unbridled executive power to go around existing law as he sees fit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/10/06/MN183971.DTL
This is about law and whether or not the President can do as he pleases with that law.

And Just for starters, think how you would feel if this was Al Gore, Dean, or Hill-Rod giving you this information as President. You'd be pissed, I would be too.
Stop being an apologist and remember the words of Benjamin Franklin,
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It doesn't take a moonbat to see that Barr and Specter have a point, and Bush has no leg to stand on.

[Matt]

Uh, you should learn to do research. Gorelick's point was that warrantless physical searches (which weren't allowed at the time under FISA), shouldn't tie the President's hands, not that the President has the unbridled executive power to go around existing law as he sees fit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/10/06/MN183971.DTL
This is about law and whether or not the President can do as he pleases with that law.

And Just for starters, think how you would feel if this was Al Gore, Dean, or Hill-Rod giving you this information as President. You'd be pissed, I would be too.
Stop being an apologist and remember the words of Benjamin Franklin,
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It doesn't take a moonbat to see that Barr and Specter have a point, and Bush has no leg to stand on.

[lowandslow]

You call linking to an article from the Gate research?
This is just the latest of the Dems doom and gloom hysterics. You would all be screaming bloody murder if Bush didn't monitor the international calls to and from al Qaeda suspects. Grow up.

[Ron Wrght]

Signal Intercepts - The tightrope

Atlas,

Keep up the good work. There comes a time when just plain old common sense will prevail. The LL, MSM, and the other eltists can nitpick all they want but the American people will not be behind them.

You and other bloggers are providing critical alternative information to the American people that is being blocked/filtered by the LL and MSM.

Sometimes it makes you wonder where these dunderheads were during history class. Someone referred to Benjamin Franklin in the thread above re civil liberties, but see Abraham Lincoln's words in my post below:

Ron

*****

HT The Belmont Club

A very cogent discussion re the disclosure by the NYT of the NSA signal intercepts of enemy communications during time of war at The Belmont Club.

Also President Lincoln had similar difficult decisions to make in time of war as noted by the No Left Turns Blog at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University

Ron

*****

The Belmont Club

The tightrope

Pajamas Media has a roundup of blog discussions, pro and con, on the subject of whether the President had the authority to conduct wiretaps, one end of which involves a US person, without a court order. However the legal arguments play out, a slightly different question already has a definite answer: the President does not, apparently, have the reliable ability to conduct surveillance of the enemy without the fact being revealed in the New York Times. Former intelligence officer Emily Francona points out that two possible instances of lawbreaking are being discussed, but one instance is more cut-and-dried than the other.

[...]

Read More

Here

No Left Turns

[...]

Update: The estimable Herr Professor Doktor Schramm beat me to it (below). I’ll add a little to the mix, from Abraham Lincoln, who deserves even more space on this issue than I’m going to give him:

I can no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger, apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the law of evidence, trial by jury, and Habeas corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong ! an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life.

The real root of the debate is how serious the threat posed by al Qaeda and its allies is. President Bush takes the threat seriously. Do his critics?

[...]

Link

[marie antoinette]

It is the President's responsibility to keep us safe, but first and foremost he swore to uphold the law.
If these phone calls were really to Al-Quaeda suspects, the NSA could have obtained warrants via FISA, completely legally. Did you know that they could have even obtained the warrants after the fact? There was no need to break the law.

And the context of Gorelick's statements makes an 'elluva difference.

[marie antoinette]

Also, don't try to frame this as Democrats being pro-terror and Republicans being anti-terror. The Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan. We also voted to give Bush the authority to go into Iraq because we thought it would help stop terrorism. We now regret that decision because it came out that Saddam Hussein did not have ties to Al Quaeda and did not have WMDs.

[Ron Wright]

The Traditional Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice System Paradigm Is Ill Prepared to Fight this War On Terror

Marie Antoinette,

All's fair in love and war. I guess let them eat cake too!

Bottom line is this Country is at freaking war with a very cunning, embedded, dangerous and asymetrical enemy that hides in the shadows. The enemy's objective is to destroy our very way life, culture, and all that we hold dear. The GWOT is really a clash of ideologies, cultures and religions. It should be more aptly called the War Against Islamofascism.

During times of peace the normal paradigm of the criminal justice system can plod along. This paradigm is ill prepared to fight this war. During normal times FISA is appropriate, but in times of war it's too plodding and slow to respond to an enemy moves and countermoves. The legal system needs to take a backseat. The US Supreme Court has recognized the need to give the Commander and Chief broad lattitude during times of hostilities. Imagine a company commanders seeking direction from deliberative bodies while engaging the enemy on the battlefield.

The concept of "first responders" is inherently flawed as it implicitly gives the enemy first strike capability. You can't win a war by playing defense. You can't defend all the potential targets from attack. You must play offense and disrupt the enemy before it can attack. The consequences of an enemy attack are now too great to allow a strike. Besides because of the ideological beliefs of the enemy agents, they generally blow themselves up in the attack so there isn't anyone left around to prosecute anyway. In short you must go for the ball.

As a LE professional of some thirty-five years, I don't think the founding fathers intended to extend our constitutional rights to the enemy.

For further on this see this piece and the links that follow:

IACP'S NEW PUB ON HOMELAND SECURITY

Here

and

The Traditional Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice System Paradigm Is Ill Prepared to Fight this War On Terror

Here

[marie antoinette]

The Constitution doesn't have a clause that says "ignore this if there's a war on."

When isn't this country at war? Have we gone more than twenty years without being involved in a war or a "police action" or a conflict? If we throw out the rules every time there's a war on, we might as well not have rules.

Also, from what I've read, the current FISA system granted warrants in minutes. It would even grant a warrant after the fact. Why wasn't that enough?

[Ron Wrght]

Yes, in a perfect world

Marie Antoinette,

Follow the links in my comments above and you will find your answers.

Yes, in a perfect world, the judicial review of electronic surveillance would be the order of the day. And I operated within that framework. But think for a moment why the enemy was successful in its 9/11 attack. The 9/11 commissions all found key elements were lack of imagination, creativity, innovation, and sharing info/intel by and within the domestic law enforcement agencies.

The short answer is that our organizational structures became to "bureaucratic," self-perserving, and risk adverse to detect and respond to the enemy's attack. While on paper, the procedures of the FISA appear appropriate and necessary for normal times, but these are not normal times. Nor is this a perfect and rational world. Nor is the enemy and it's ideology something that can be reasoned with. Our ideologies are diametrically opposed e.g., good vs. evil.

See this comment by Snapple in a thread over at The Strat-Sphere:

“FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court “held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”

The court’s decision went on to say: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”

[...]

Here

Unfortunately the perception of most Americans as to the abilities and resources of law enforcement is inaccurate. Their perception is driven by the fiction of the media e.g. CSI and other shows. There expectations of what law enforcement can do is also base on this false perception. In reality most law enforcement agenices are understaffed, under resourced, have increasing mandates/mission creep with shrinking funding.

These are the dirtly little secrets the politicians and administrators won't talk about while they heap on more responsibilities. The ones who do the tireless work fast become "burned out" and don't want to rock the boat.

While fictional I do find that FOX's 24 Hours does seem to convey the intensity of the threat we are facing. CTU however does have high tech toys that real intel/LE agents can only dream.

Link

[MarcH]

MarieA - "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact." (paraphrase) - comment in his dissent to Terminello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).)" - Justice Robert H. Jackson.

NSA is a branch of the military tasked with the collection of intelligence. They do not have the personnel or procedures to comply with the numerous requirements inherent in the application and administration of law enforcement electronic surveillance. If the U.S. had a few years to waste we could radically overhaul NSA so that it could function as a law enforcement agency, but it would then be much less effective as an intelligence agency.

9/11/01 is recognized as the beginning of a brutal unconventional military campaign against the United States by ruthless fanatics who desire our destruction. In many case military force is the best and only way to deal with these fanatics.

I have some questions for you. Suppose, soon after 9-11, terrorists had seized several additional airliners and were en route to attack U.S. cities. If the President wanted to use the Air Force over U.S. airspace to shoot those planes down would you criticize him for lacking proper constitutional authority (after all, it is arguably a probable cause arrest of persons in U.S. territory)? Would you demand that the President ask a county police department to send up a helicopter and give them a ticket? If you would allow the President to use military force in the airline scenario, where military techniques are necessary, why won't you allow the use of military techniques in the NSA scenario, where military techniques are also necessary?

You are also way off base concerning FISA. From what I have read in the media, FISA orders often require a lengthily process of drafting and approval at many levels before leaving FBI and DOJ. When they reach the FISA court they are reviewed with a fine tooth comb. The FISA court can be a bear. There was a press account from the Clinton era of a FBI supervisor who wrote an aggressive application for a FISA order. The FISA court judges accused him of exaggerating facts and communicated their displeasure to DOJ. The man's career was then apparently wrecked. It’s a small wonder that the FBI is sometimes accused of timidity when you consider the lack of back-up they got on these matters.

[Ron Wrght]

You hit the nail on the head

MarcH,

Sounds like you're a player whose been on the "inside" with firsthand experience :--)

You hit the nail on the head of what I was trying to say above.

While most FBI, SS, ATF and other field federal agents do have their heads screwed on especially if they have the "common sense" gleened from being a prior street cop, the management tiers are so risk adverse in these agencies, I'm surprised that anything ever gets done.

[Pamela]

MarcH,
You left out one thing while addressing Queen of the Beheaded. Terrorists change their phones everyday, sometime every hour ....it takes agility, speed, and quick action to keep up with their movements.

Pamela

[marie antoinette]

W/ regard to Ron Wright,

You're saying in your articles that we failed to prevent 9/11 because of lack of innovation, communication, etc. (The President ignoring the "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US" report probably didn't help. Anyway.) We failed to use the system effectively.
Okay, let's say that unwarranted wiretaps had been legal in 2001. Having the ability to perform unwarranted wiretaps wouldn't have helped prevent 9/11 if we didn't tap the right people, didn't analyze the messages properly, etc. If you can't hit a target with a handgun, what makes you think you'll be able to hit it with an uzi?

Unfortunately the perception of most Americans as to the abilities and resources of law enforcement is inaccurate. Their perception is driven by the fiction of the media e.g. CSI and other shows. There expectations of what law enforcement can do is also base on this false perception. In reality most law enforcement agenices are understaffed, under resourced, have increasing mandates/mission creep with shrinking funding.

I am not arguing that the system is perfect. If the system needs to be changed, change it. Change the system, don't just toss it at the first mention of terrorism.

[marie antoinette]

w/ regard to Marc H.,

In the situation you described, the President would have more than enough probable cause so that doesn't really apply. Why else would a hijacker be flying a stolen airplane into Chicago? (If he were hijacking the airplane for a different reason, like for escape, he'd be flying it out of the country).

As for our differing opinions on FISA, that depends on where you like to get your news. Me, I trust Newsweek.

[Ron Wrght]

Marie Antoinette,

I agree with you. We, the American Citizens, must hold our government accountable to defend this great Country. And if it won't or can't for political reasons, we the citizens, must fill the gaps to defend this Country e.g, The Minutemen and our Southern Border.

That's the bottom line we need to force our government to collectively "fight the fight." A major paradigm shift is necessary at least for domestic preparedness in the GWOT. We need to get the most bang for our buck. Unfortunately we are paying a lot of money for "gold plated" firetrucks under the guise of homeland security. This is OT but read the piece on the necessary paradigm shift I linked to above.

I think MarcH best explained why the judicial review process is ill equiped to deal with the threat we are facing. We are entering a world of transparent privacy. I wouldn't be worrying about what the government is doing with regard to spying on the average citizen. There is not enough money or personnel to do it. Besides any inadvertant discoveries of illegal activity non war related would be inadmissible in a criminal case.

I would be more concerned about identity theft and related concerns re the financial/business sector, unsolicted/pre-approved credit card offers and data mining being done by data aggregators. For instance go to:

www.zabbasearch.com

and run your name and see how secure you feel.

BTW did you know that AQ et al are siphoning millions of dollars via ID theft to fund their activities because of the lax security of our financial industry? You and I are funding this thru higher fees and interest rates. Now that makes my blood boil.

[neverforget]

The National Security Agency is not part of the military. There are sigint/comint/elint units in all branches of our service that have and do provide personnel and support to the NSA, but it is a civilian agency, with many civilian personnel. The director may or may not be a general or admiral grade officer.

Other than that, I agree entirely with all the comments supporting what President Bush has had to do to defend our country. He is a patriot. Carter and Clinton misused our intelligence gathering laws in the service of their narcissism. They were and are not patriots.

[Ron Wrght]

For more learned debate on this issue, see this thread developing at Winds of Change:

Here

[neverforget]

I hope you were being sarcastic about that being learned debate. FISA does not approve everything. Basically, this "Armed Liberal" was blaming the Bush administration for under-cutting the war against islamofascists, but not the one who leaked the information that led to the under-cutting. Just another leftist way of avoiding any responsibility and consequences.

[elemental]

First of all, Ron, people like you are destroying this country faster than any 'Islamofacist' could ever dream of.

Next, FISA law would have allowed the NSA to move as fast as they possibly could because it does not require them to get a warrant before starting a wire tap or any other investigation, they can obtain the warrant at a later time, just so long as they do at some point.

Finally, Atlas, do you have any intention whatsoever of correcting the misleading information you have posted? Probably not. The searches that Clinton signed and that Gorelick was speaking of would not involve U.S. citizens (or anyone else in the U.S) and would also need to be signed off on by the A.G. (Not a prob with torture boy running it) and also last only for a year.

the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if—
(A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-.html

I suspect Ayn Rand would laugh in your face. I never knew of Rand being a hysterical whiner who needed to manipulate her facts to build a case or create false enemies to facilitate whining.

[nikko]

Speaking about abuse of power, I'm sure you lefties are anxious for the Barret Report to be made public.

[Ron Wrght]

Elemental

Read the thread over at Winds of Change and you might just begin to understand the problems with FISA.

First one needs to understand what this war is about, who the enemy is, and the ideology that drives it. Then put this in historical perspective re how long this war has been going on and the lengths this enemy will go to ensure the ultimate distruction of our very way of life, culture and what we hold dear.

In short for right now it's the classical dilemma of the good of the many vs. the good of the few.

[lowandslow]

marie antoinette if you're still lurking. Instead of taking Newsweeks word for it check out the word of three lawyers. I won't just give you one link, Powerline spent the whole day on it.

[MarcH]

MarieA - Regarding probable cause, the point is that if military elements do take action in the U.S. to defend the U.S. during time of war, they do so without making any probable cause determination. This is because, unlike police, military training and doctrine does not provide for making PC determinations. So, would MarieA restrict the use of force and surveillance which penetrates private areas to police forces within the U.S, even in time of war against a vicious enemy?

Ron Wright, thanks for your kind words (Me a player? No, just a schleper). I have no experience with FISA and my comments are based entirely on open sources. For me that's the main point of our blogosphere. Although the opinions of recognized experts are still respected, the fact that a person has a title and a MSM perch (think Joe Wilson IV) does not give them carte blanche to trump all other opinions. Joe Sixpack now has the tools to research and the soap box from which to advance an opinion based on facts and logic.

Neverforget - Thanks for your insight regarding NSA. My open source readings indicated to me that NSA has, at least, a close and almost symbiotic relationship with DOD. The role of CSS within NSA is an example. I thought the two sites below were informative on this matter:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/css.htm
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00018.cfm
I guess one way to further examine the question would be to review an open source discussion of what role DOD has in setting the NSA budget.

[Stephen]

You call yourself a Libertarian? How much power does the executive get in libertarian paradise?

[Ron Wrght]

MarcH

Thx. Re the Blogos and Joe sixpack that's my point see this comment in the thread on this topic over at Winds of Change. WE THE PEOPLE, must hold our government accountable and when it can't or won't defend this Country, WE THE PEOPLE must fill the gap.

*****

Great Comments Folks

Especially, Jim Rockford and Celebrim.

Scroll the comments thread I linked to at Atlas Shrugs above.

OT do you see what's evolving here? The enormus collective intellectual power of an intelligent of an evolving distributive computer network with intelligent nodes. The Blogos!

Ron

Here

[NavPers]

Pam,

You finally have accomplished something that I never thought possible. I've decided that continuing to associate in any way with this web site (other than to ridicule it from afar) is tantamount to declaring one's self a complete moron.

Your latest blatherings about FISA, Presidential authority, etc., are what finally did it.

I'm gone. I'll simply run over to Jesus' General and help them point out the complete idiocy that prevails on this site.

You and those that support you are complete nutcases.

EESEETERA

Previous Naval Person