So it's more grand-standing from Senator Feingold; after the attacks on 9/11/01, the charge was that the various agencies didn't "connect the dots", now the Dems want them wearing blindfolds! It's funny how they keep saying wire-tap, like there's an agent in the basement putting alligator clips and a recorder on your phone line, when it is just signal interception of radio waves, that are in the public domain anyway!

Good for Finegold. Let's have an investigation, debate and a vote.

Surely the Administration has nothing to hide.

Arthur,

There is nothing to investigate. You don't waste time and money investigating something that is on its face not illegal.

Unless you are a Democrat with no agenda except trying to tear Bush down at the expense of our national security.

Excellent breakdown of what really amounts to the Dem's talking points attacking the President's/NSA program. Now that the cat's out of the bag (thanks to lefties like Senator Feingold,) should be required reading for all.

Semper Fi,
M

Dems don't need to 'tear Bush down' at the 'expense of our nat'l security'. He's doinng it himself.

For example, nearly five years after 9/11 there still is no program in place to track & secure shipping containers entering this country from foreign ports.

One of the unintended consequences of spending hundreds of billions of dollars invading Iraq?

And I for one am not completely confident the administration has limited the intelligence gathering under discussion here to 'foreign terrorists contacting persons in this country'.

I don't buy it. Of course as I've read here on occasion, 'if you have nothing to hide what's the problem?'

A reasonable question in my view.

Rather than debate the legality of this issue, take it to court. The supreme court, as directly as possible.

Bring it on Russ you stupid little cheesehead

Does the good Senator also censure the so-called 'Gang of 8' who were briefed in detail about this program numerous times? Sen. Frist, Sen Reid and the House leaders were briefed.
Does this motion also censure the FISA court for its failure to stop this program? The FISA court was/is briefed every 45 days.

If not, then the Republicans should amend the motion before voting it down.

Please explain to me, what does the rightwing wackos have against the Constitution? George Bush, ADMITTED that he did in fact break the law with the NSA spying, and that he would keep doing it. Every single day, Bushie and company break the law and violate HIS Oath of Office.

Since there are all the facts that Feingold has no case, can we have him censured for attacking the Commander and Chief in time of war?

"And I for one am not completely confident the administration has limited the intelligence gathering under discussion here to 'foreign terrorists contacting peersons in this country'."

Based on what FACTS? This is a pretty serious charge to be based on a feeling or theory. Mr. common man Arthur knows more about this than the experts in congress that have been frequently briefed about the specific details of the program?

The Bush administration has not been hiding this from congress!! There IS very good reason to not make this program transparent to the whole world!! Are you that stupid?!

The constitution, article II, gives him the authority he needs. If FISA,which is statutory law tries to limit that authority, FISA is unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand?

Senator Feingold's political posturing is what we have come to expect from the unhinged left - it is transparent to the point of absurdity. If this were simply a case of one more bloviating liberal gasbag we could ignore it, but the Senator's comments lend aid and comfort to our enemies. To put it simply, if Senator Feingold's ilk gains control of either chamber of the Congress or the White House, we may expect many more Americans to die at the hands of terrorists than would otherwise be the case. No other way to slice it.

I just don't get it. Bush is vulnerable on so many issues: immigration, spending, Department of Education, Mineta, border security. And the Democrats attack him on how he's conducting a war? The Democrat party is soooo out of touch it's scary.

The democratic party IS irresponsible! Just take a look at this, folks:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

In the opinion of most of the world, no doubt the defining moment of the Presidency of George W. Bush was his response to the events of September 11th, 2001.

I respectfully disagree. The defining moment of his presidency, marked by a major news conference on August 9, 2001, was his decision to ban additional stem cell harvesting while letting research on those cultures already in existence continue...

George Bush, The Indian Nuclear Agreement and International Law

Please do not think that Feingold represents everyone in Wisconsin. Just because we have not been able to vote him out does not mean we agree with him. It would be interesting to know what his ex wives think about him.

It is amazing how the Democrats continue to complain about this administration on almost every topic and there is a lot to complain about. But, they never give any solutions. Why is that? Maybe it is because they have none.

You're doggone right that Feingold is doing this for political reasons. That is the game in Washinton and he knows how to play it. He knows how to take advantage of the failures of his opponents.

You need to review his opponents in the last election try to defend the Patriot Act and use his vote as a weapon against him. Feingold dispatched them easily.

Feingold is a true leader in the mold of Fighting Bob Lafollette.

What a blithering idiot Sen Feingold is. Does anyone expect anything else from a Democrat? I continue to shudder when I think of what would have happened to our Country if that raging lunatic Gore had won the 2000 election. We'd all be under Sharia and women would be in Burkas by now.

bellebrook,

mind pointing out where exactly Bush ADMITTED he broke the law? He admitted the existence of the program, but he never said he broke the law.

Oh...the STONED one is back with more rhetoric. Great!

I'll tell you a few opinions. Besides trying to set himself up as a candidate, the only other reason Feingold has is because the dems have been shut down on every other front on this issue. There will be no court case in it because it is too strongly a political issue. A clear majority of Americans think the NSA program was a good idea - even in the biased polls put together by AP/IPSOS, FOX, ABC, WaPo, CBS, etc....in every single case people think it was and is a good idea. If the dems keep pushing it they are going to feel the bite at the polls in the Fall.

So go for it Feingold. It's kind of like Murtha calling for immediate withdrawal and then the Republicans put up a measure which was soundly defeated. I guess Howlin' Howie has been talking to Russ - you know - masterminding the election strategy. "Hey Russ - let's make yet another complaint about the NSA program. How much lower can the public's views about COngress sink anyways?"

I address this to Arthur Stone. It is raining here. It's Bush's fault. Cold and snow are predicted for tomorrow. It is Bush's fault. This morning on my way to work I was delayed by a fallen tree across the road. It is Bush's fault. I didn't get that raise I wanted. It is Bush's fault. Get the picture. You and the rest of the liberal lemmings have allowed your Bush hatred to consume whatever judgement you once possessed. You've no constructive ideas to add to the mix, no suggestions with any merit, no proposals of any value. You remind me of those bearded guys in the long robes who used to walk around with the signs saying "The End Is Near".

The Shame of Wisconsin! Osama is Smiling. Can't we here in Wisconsin Impeach this Idiot? I've had enough of his Hate-Mongering! Please Vote him out like they did with Daschle!

Yes Andy,

Arthur is that STUUU PID, I call them "Village Idiots! If you'll notice, accusations with NO logic, proof, or documentation!!

Commonly known as a "Circle Jirk!"

This is why the DIMS will continue to Destroy the Democratic party, which is not a good thing, this country needs two strong parties! I cannot imagine the people of this country trusting the security of this nation to the Wacked out Extreme Left!

Can you?

Bellebrooke,

Since you are so sure that what Bush did broke the law I give you a very easy task. Please indicate the court case that concluded that a President needs a warrant to gather foreign intelligence. Given that you seem to think it is illegal you should be able to find the case(s) that have ruled this way....

p.s. (good luck, there is no court that have ruled this way)

Everything in the method and timing of this says it has absolutely no chance for consideration. Exactly as Feingold wants. Now he has his next straw man to defeat: "Evil Republicans blackaed his attempt at justice."
Those of us in Wisconsin are all too familiar with Fiengold's ability to manipulate issues to his advantage. Its actually part of his popularity. We love our underdogs and mavericks - as per Fighing Bob LaFollette.
This is more likely part of a strategy move to gain support from the hard left who still remember and are still angry about his positions and statements concerning the Clinton impeachment. I highly doubt Hillary would even consider him for a position as the guy who picks up after the WH canines after that.

As stated above, a deep thanks are due him for the appalingly bad image he is helping create for the Dems.

What happens to the trolls when confronted with facts and questions about their facts....They go back under their bridges until something else tap, tap, taps across.....

Bellebrooke and Artie Stonewalled [AKA, Richard Thurston] are about as clueless as any two Donks I have ever witnessed. They make ridiculous statements they cannot support with documented fact. When challenged they run the other way for a while - until they can Google some other talking points without substance.

Does anyone take these two seriously? Idiocy that only a mother could love and respect ....

By the way, CY ... It's the National Security Agency - not Administration

Add this to the list for Feingold. I still cannot believe that this idiot thinks these asinine political stunts endure himself to the American people. I only wish Scott Walker (Milwaukee County Executive) would run against this idiot (Feingold) instead of our idiot governor (Jim Doyle).

Why is the President is more worthy of attack from this Wisconsin Democrat than is radical Islamic terrorism?

First, this is completely absurd logic. If someone yells "Duke sucks" while they're watching the ACC tournament, do you ask "Why is JJ Redick more worthy of attack from this Carolina fan than is radical Islamic terrorism?"

Second, why you might want to look at what constitutional law experts, rather than former NSA officers, think about what is constitutional. After all, the NSA didn't even officially exist until recently - not exactly the folks you want to trust went it comes to secrecy in the executive branch.

Con Law Profs - "On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress."

Specter-

Rep. Murtha never called for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He called for them withdrawn as soon as is prudent. There's a huge difference

Retired Spy-

Ask your blogmaster why I don't post here for periods of time. And not everyone is as sanguine as you that this administration is doing its job in securing our borders and protecting us from terrorist threats.

Actually, come to think of it, to use your logic, "Why is Senator Feingold more worthy of attack from Confederate Yankee than is radical Islamic terrorism?"

Unless you're arguing that every single one of us has to spend every second of every day "attacking radical Islamic terrorism" (which I wish President Bush would have stuck to, instead of getting into a war against a secular dictator in Iraq) - you can't really talk.

...the NSA didn't even officially exist until recently...

May 20, 1949 is "recent?"

Stoned One,

We know why you were cut off. So what. His site.

BTW - the Republicans tried to oblige Feingold today by having a vote on the censure issue. They backed down - again. Why do you suppose that is? Is it really because Harry "I got $68K But Didn't Take Any Money and I'm Not Giving it Back!" Reid really needed to be involved in the timing? Gee....Or might it be that the dems look like idiots again if they go forward? Why don't you answer the substance of questions rather than just respoinding with rhetoric? Like we are going to take your "word" on anything.

I'm glad there's someone like Feingold in the Senate to question this type of program. It's not that the program is necessarily wrong in itself, it's the fact that Bush didn't have the legal ability to authorize it. Why do you think Sens. Specter and DeWine have proposed legislation that would retroactively make this program legal?

There's nothing wrong with wiretapping suspected members of Al Qaeda to protect Americans... but even the President needs to follow the law.

Thanks, Russ.

mike,

What do you base this on:

...it's the fact that Bush didn't have the legal ability to authorize it.

Please show us the court rulings etc. that backs up your statement. Not news articles or opinions - actual cases and facts. Hmmmmm? Where's the proof? Could it be that maybe, just maybe you don't have any? Could it be that they proposed the legislation was simply to defuse the situation?

Interesting news over at Michele Malkin:

...Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution that would censor the President of the United States for "eavesdropping" in the wake of 9/11. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moments ago, made a unanimous consent motion that the Senate vote on the resolution tonight. Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes rose to object to the motion. Frist then motioned to vote on the resolution again tomorrow. Sarbanes objected, saying no vote should take place on the resolution until Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had cleared the timing.

In other words, Democrats know this is a political stunt, without a chance of passage, but want to time it politically for maximum impact.

Later, Harry Reid took the floor to say he was offended that Frist would go to the floor and motion for unanimous consent on such an "important issue" without talking to him first.

Reid's two-facedness knows no bounds. Does he not remember last year taking the Senate floor and invoking Senate Rule XXI, thereby shutting down the Senate? When he made that parliamentary move to score political points over pre-war intelligence, he broke all Senate precedent by invoking the draconian measure without first seeking the compliance of the Senate Majority Leader as has always been done in the past.

Outrageous? Yes...Surprising? No...

Imagine that...the Society of Subversion with yet another Scandal du Jour. Just how long until this bogus censure motion actually comes to a vote? I suspect that after a big splash in MSM it will quickly disappear - like Quailgate...Another one bites the dust.....

The international surveillance is just as legal as it was when we spied on the Germans and the Japanese in WWII.

By the way, for you real trolls, here's the legal ruling.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

"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. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."

Does anyone know if the President can SUE for slander if someone accuses him of something that is a proven lie..Or maybe the American People can initiate a Class Action against the Accuser for Willfully demeaning with proven Lies ,the Leader of our Country..Which results in degrading America and causing disrespect and irreversable harm to America in the Eyes of the World...
Remember,I said PROVEN LIES...
Just a Thought....

Specter-

Not quite the same as walking away is it? Believe me I know who's blog this is.

I liked this exchange between Sens. Specter and Durbin on the wiretaps/intelligence gathering where Specter clearly states he doesn't know the extent of these efforts.

'Trust us'.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Specter-Durbin-censure.mov

I can't wait for November!! The democrats will be running on "I won't wiretap Osama!"

I can state definitively that NSA were recruiting openly in 979, because they flew me down to MD for an interview my senior year in college.

FISA is the law of the land, having been ratified by congress, thus it's constitutional. If W didn't like the law he could have EASILY gotten it changed or modified to suit him. After 9/11 he had all the cooperation he ever needed from BOTH sides of the isle. Complaining now that FISA was too restrictive is a poor alibi and its use AFTER the fact is HILARIOUS! So despite playing down the motion to censure, the bush-bots are shorting-out, their arms flailing like wet spaghetti. They know WHERE they want to pin the blame but not HOW to make it stick: Feingold? No way, Jose! Feingold voted FOR the articles of impeachment against Slick Willie. No partisan hack he! Try again, beady-eyes! I could rub it in but suffice it to say: Feingold-Buchanan in '08!

FISA is the law of the land, having been ratified by congress, thus it's constitutional.

Um, NO. Just becuase a law is ratified by Congress it does not mean it is Constitutional. Laws passed by Congress are struck down constantly as being unconstitutional by the courts. Bad liberal. No donut.

As Bush has inherent Article II powers, he did not need to obtain any additional powers to conduct foreign surveillance. His powers to do so are a recognized part of the CIC's war-fighting powers going back 200+ years to the first "George" in the White House. The President's powers far outstrip that stipulated in FISA, and if challenged, FISA will be struck down. The President, by the way, has a legal duty to ignore laws that he and the White House Consel feel are unconstitutional.

Bush simply didn't ask for an expansion of FISA becuase it is useful for some purposes (the Bush Adminstration has filed more FISA requests than any previous adminstration), but it is not useful for all purposes, and the 1978 law could not envision the technology of 30 years later. FISA doesn't cover Bush's program because it doesn't have the technological scope to do so.

The "Bush-bots" actually called twice for the motion to come to a vote last night, and Democrats blocked it.

Feingold pushed for censure against Clinton to try to keep the more serious articles of impeachment from going forward. Then, like now, he is partisan failure playing to people like you who are completely ignorant of history and of law.

bryanD, thanks for wasting the taxpayer's education dollar. You got exactly nothing right.

Garnett-

I somehow don't think the president is going to sue anyone for slander.

The defendants would be allowed to ask way too many questions of the plaintiff.

But it would be entertaining.

CY wrote-

As Bush has inherent Article II powers, he did not need to obtain any additional powers to conduct foreign surveillance. His powers to do so are a recognized part of the CIC's war-fighting powers going back 200+ years to the first "George" in the White House. The President's powers far outstrip that stipulated in FISA, and if challenged, FISA will be struck down. The President, by the way, has a legal duty to ignore laws that he and the White House Consel feel are unconstitutional.

The question remains "is the surveillance program we're discussing strictly 'foreign' or, is there a domestic component the administration doesn't want made public?"

Senator Spector doesn't even know.

And I'm unaware of the President's 'duty' to ignore laws he and the White House Counsel feel are 'unconstitutional'.

Nixon said it can't be illegal if the president did it.

He was wrong.

No one, who posted a comment, knows anything about the program because no information has been provided. Maybe the NSA has limited the surveillance to Al Queda communications, but nobody outside the administration knows. Nobody knows if the program is effective. If the program were only directed to Al Queda, then surely the FISA court would issue a warrant. The FISA court cannot hold the administration accountable, because it does not have a case before it.
Article II of the constitution does not grant the president this authority. Frankly, it is the height of intellectual hypocrisy when a strict constructionist administration relies on that argument.
This program and its secrecy diminish the Constitution and rule of law. Its defenders are wimps who are afraid to defend the constitution.

Richard Thurston/Arthur Stone wrote:

The question remains "is the surveillance program we're discussing strictly 'foreign' or, is there a domestic component the administration doesn't want made public?"

No that question does not remain. There has never even been a domestic component alleged, except by conspiracy theorists.

General Hayden said specifically this was a foreign program, and stated that in the rare instance domestic conversations are compromised, the infomation is destroyed. Period.

Unless you have evidence you can cite to the contrary, you are simply engaging in conspiracy theories and paranoia.

Ben said:

No one, who posted a comment, knows anything about the program because no information has been provided. Maybe the NSA has limited the surveillance to Al Queda communications, but nobody outside the administration knows. Nobody knows if the program is effective. If the program were only directed to Al Queda, then surely the FISA court would issue a warrant. The FISA court cannot hold the administration accountable, because it does not have a case before it.

The White House Counsel knows. The NSA knows. Two Attorney's General and a bevy of Justice Department Lawyers know, as do the leading members of both parties in both the House and Senate. I think that is enough.

Or are you arguing that our intelligence capabilities and programs should all be public knowledge, perhaps circulated in detail in the press? No wonder we cannot trust teh future of this nation to people such as yourself.

Article II of the constitution does not grant the president this authority. Frankly, it is the height of intellectual hypocrisy when a strict constructionist administration relies on that argument.

Actually, sir, it is your ignorance of the Constitution that is on display here.

Under Article II, the President is named as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. A primary concern of war-fighting is intelligence gathering, and it has been for thousands of years. The National Security Agency is part of the Department of Defense, and is another component the President commands.

If "This program and its secrecy diminish the Constitution and rule of law" as you state, prove your charge. You cannot, becuase it is a false charge. You will not, because there is not one bit of evidence to support your wild accusations.

I defend the Constitution as it is written, and the President's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance is not even questioned, as the FISA Court of Review itself stated in In re: Sealed Case (2002), when they stated:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. 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.

It is real simple, Ben. Show your evidence.

Put up, or shut up.

CY-

Sen. Specter says in this tape that he doesn't know what our surveillance program does. He cannot say that there is not a domestic component to the program because they don't have the information to say one way or the other.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Specter-Durbin-censure.mov

The question is not simply being raised by 'conspiracy theorists'.

So a senator on the judiciary commitee doesn't know about classified intelligence operations that happen outside of his perview. Those who need to know, do. Those who do not need to know, don't. RINO Specter, not being on the Intelligence committee (take that any way you wish) doesn't know and shouldn't know the details of this program. It appears the system is working as it should. What exactly is your point?

Of course, I've yet to see any liberal or would-be libertarian do anything but dodge the Sealed Case decision. What part of "FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power" from the FISA Court of Review itself do you not understand?

I do want you to keep arguing over this though, loudly, and longly... at least until November.

I agree completely with "Confederate Yankee" re this issue...It is really scary that so many people are simply willing to believe anything that they want to hear---regardless of the FACTS... I'm sure they all believe the Oliver Stone theory in "JFK" also...When people lose the abaility to do analysis and fact-finding, we are truly at risk...

I have never been more proud of Russ Feingold. Deep down, you know he's right. It truly will be an interesting year. Good luck Republicans, you're going to need it !

My question is "Who in Congress could you trust to keep any Secret program, Secret"? Every time there is a "leak" of information we have months and months of conspiracy theories and accusations of lying and grandstanding. You cannot brief the DEMS we have years of evidence that they hate this administration and will go to extremes to try to embarrass and deride Bush at every turn. Mostly to there own embarrassment. So why does the left wonder why they are not included in all briefings. Do you think that mainstream America trusts loud mouth politicians like Pelosi, Durbin,Reid,Clinton and Feingold. This crap has got to end. When does politics outweigh the security of this nation. Outweigh the need to intercept and deter an attack on our homeland. All I see is a bunch of POLITICIANS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS at any cost to you and I. I challenge anyone to give a name and an instance in which the Govt intruded on your privacy and surveiled your phone and radio communications illegally. If you can.... If you can't then SHUTUP about the WIRE TAPPING. Everyone assumes they are spying on us. AS CY said "PUT UP OR SHUT UP"!!!! You liberal suck asses need to stop whining and get over it. Come up with some original ideas, solve some problems instead of creating illusions. No one on the left has an original idea on problem solving. A.S. you need to come up with all the facts, your run and gun tactics will not hold up here.. WE NEED THE PROOF!!!!

Faithful Patriot-

Since no one outside the administration and the people doing the surveilling know the extent of the spying it's impossible to know just who is being watched/observed/listened to. So your suggesting folks outside the intelligence community and the administration offer proof that the program is doing only what the admninistration claims its doing is disingenuous.

It's the administration which needs to put up or shut up.

Stoned,

As far as CY and HIS site - get your own if you don't like his rules. Gawd....

Prove this. You said:

Since no one outside the administration and the people doing the surveilling know the extent of the spying it's impossible to know just who is being watched/observed/listened to.

You said it. Now prove it. Gee - I guess the Gang of 8 wasn't informed. I guess the reason the Senate backed down on having an investigation in Specter's (not me) committee is because they were afraid that Bush would be proved wrong. Isn't it more likely that they finally had their eyes opened and realized how dumb they were all being. It probably didn't have anything to do with the polls that state that the majority of Americans think that the NSA program is a good idea. Unfortunately - your side lost this battle a long time ago. We continue to hear from the likes of Feingold that it is "illegal" - but no proof whatsoever. Who cares what someone THINKS?

ben,

Oh learned one - since you obviously follow this issue so closely - perhaps you could give us some idea of how much paperwork is involved in applying for a FISA warrant and how long it takes to get one approved. Do you know? There has been quite a bit published on it - try googling it and see what you come up with. The publish some facts here rather than just your words.

More:

From the Drudge Report:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to push Democrats for a vote of censure against President Bush!

After facing down Senator Russ Feingold's censure bill on Monday and seeing Democrats of all ranks fold, Frist thinks it's time to call Democrats on their antics, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"He pushed them to the mat today, and they blinked," said one Frist associate. "He dared them to vote, and Democrat Leader Harry Reid looked like he was going to be sick as he said 'No.'''

Frist is going to continue to dare Democrats to vote on censuring the President.

"When it comes to intercepting phone calls from Tora Bora to Topeka, Frist thinks Senate Democrats have made a huge blunder, and he will lead the charge to make Democrats put up or shut up on censure," the top insider claimed.

Don't like that Stoned? Try this from the WaPo no less:

Some party strategists, however, worried that voters will see the move as overreaching partisanship, and Republicans pounced, practically daring Democrats to vote for the measure. "The big question now," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), "is how many of his Democrat colleagues will follow him over the cliff?"

LOL - actually in the pages of one of the propaganda arms of the Scandal du Jour crowd. How funny is that?

Since when does Feingold care about the Constitution? His DNA is all over the McCain, Feingold campaign finance law.

Specter-

What are the rules you're suggesting I refer to?

But enough of that.

The fact remains that neither the "Gang of 8", the Senate Judiciary Committee or Senator Frist knows how the spying program we're discussing works.

A majority approves if the surveillance is between US citizens and suspected terrorists living in other countries. The poll results would be quite different if the spying was strictly domestic.

And since no one knows how the program actually works and what it actually does we don't know if the administration is really doing what it says it is.

The reason that investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't proceed is that there are more republicans than democrats (10-8) on the committee.

Which likewise explains the difficulty in getting the entire senate to do its job.

Thanks for the quote from Cornyn. There's a statesman.

The put up or shut up argument is baffling. The program is classified, only administration officials know the details. The congressional members have received only limited briefings. They do not know the full scope of the program. Finally, the FISA court does not know the details, because the administration never applied for a warrant. So the people claiming the program is legal and constitutional all have a self serving interest in that argument. Maybe they were right, but nobody outside of the administration knows the whole facts, including you CY. The founding fathers did not trust an executive's word, hence the 4th amendment.

CY, no one questions the president's authority to conduct foriegn surveillance, unfortunately you are confusing the issue. That is not the same as domestic surveillance. Additionally, Troung was pre FISA law. The FISA statute changed the rules. The president need only get a warrant to listen to Americans. It is not a huge burden. Just demonstrate reasonable suspicion, which is a lighter burden than probable cause.

Article II as argued by you is in direct contradiction to the 4th amendment. Article II does not enable the president to order agencies to break the law. Article II authorizes the president to direct the military while he faithfully executes the law. Hell, who cares about the text of the constitution? Certainly not the president's supporters.

Ben,

So according to you, the President and his staff, the Vice President and his staff, two Attorney's General, the staff of the White House Counsel's office, the Justice Department legal teams, the NSA's legal staff, and the NSA staff, technical staff and operational employees are all willing criminals.

I'm glad I'm not stewing in the vat of paranoia you live in.

As far as teh rest of your muddled thoughts go, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the gathering of foreign intelligence in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't even apply to American citizens entering or leaving the country, nor their effects. It is called the border search exemption. Look it up.

Better yet, try to tell Customs Agents that they don't have a right to search your bags on your next trip to Cancun becuase you are an American and you are claiming your Forth Amendment rights. I trust you'll enjoy the resulting cavity search.

You are purposefully trying to conflate domestic and foreign intelligence, Ben, and failing miserably.

FISA cannot override the power afforded the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and does not "change the rules" even if you really, really don't like the President. I'm sorry if that comes as a shock.

The President does not need a warrant for communications intercepted outside of America's borders, even if Americans are one of the parties intercepted in these foreign communications.

Read again what the FISA court said in 2002:

FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

The constitutional power being spoekn about are the Article II powers that enables the President to conduct normal war-fighting, including the gathering of foreign intelligence, exactly the kind he ordered the NSA, as a branch of the military, to conduct.

I'm sorry you do not understand that, but I'm not surprised. You are, if anything, consistant.

OK. This is where the rubber meets the road. No one here knows my true identity. Artie (Richard Thurston)knows me only by one of my numerous official and unofficial pseudonyms. That being said, I just returned from a trip to the East Coast, and that is why I have not been posting here recently.

Artie and others from the Left know absolutely nothing about the true nature of the NSA foreign surveillance program. That is the good news because I would not trust the lefties with anything pertaining to the security of the United States.

I don't give a crap if Artie or other lefties believe me or not, but I was at NSA and at the CIA as a consultant. The NSA surveillance program is exactly as our President has described it. The primary objective is to gather Intelligence on terrorist adversaries - not on innocent American citizens.

Those who understand the workings of the Intelligence Community and the U.S. military may appreciate this. Others? You are not worth the effort.

You see Stoned One and Ben,

You came back with words again. No proof offered. Not one shred of evidence. Not one court case you can point to that would suggest that the law was broken. Strictly innuendo on your part. Don't you think that if Feingold truly believed that Bush had broken the law he would be going for impeachment? Why only censure? That has no official standing in any way shape of form anyways. The fact is that the court cases that have reviewed this have ALL COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. Sorry. Game's Over. Stop whining and try to support.

Retired Spy-

I don't know you by any of your 'official' or 'unofficial' pseudonyms. You're right about that. But you say that you 'consulted' for the CIA and the NSA and that you 'know' that the NSA surveillance program is 'exactly as the president described it'.

How do you know? The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't even know how the program works. Yet you 'know' this and post that to usenet?

Thanks for the laugh.

CY-

No one is against spying on terrorists. But if the president's program is only about monitoring the communications of terrorists, it could be conducted legally, under the oversight of a secret court. The fact that Bush refuses to submit the program to court review suggests it goes beyond what's legal.

I think the actual criminal enterprise resides in the White House and the Justice Dept. Attorney General? Does what he's told, as he did what he was told when he was White House Counsel. NSA? Does what its ordered to do.

Can't happen? Dick Nixon. John Mitchell. Bob Halderman. John Ehrlichman et. al.

It did happen and it may be happening now.

Specter-

Criticizing administration policy is not whining. And criticizing senators who vote strictly on party lines not to follow a legitimate field of inquiry into a dubious intelligence gathering program is required. Hey I can't help it if Republican senators are slightly more cowardly than Democrats.

It's my right.

You are so ignorant, Artie/Richard. There is no need for the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be read into the NSA foreign intelligence surveillance program. The more non-professionals read into the program, the more likely it is that there will be leaks.

I worked directly with a similar program prior to my retirement. It required some of the highest clearances that exist in the Intelligence Community. No brag. Just fact. I am read in to these and other sensitive programs whenever I do consulting work for the Intelligence agencies. When the work is finished I am debriefed, and the my clearance status is voided.

And what classified information have I devulged? None. And what do you know about U.S. Intelligence? Nothing. You are a gadfly blowhard who runs an art gallery. Stick to what you really know, Richard.

BTW, had you paid any attention to the return address on the email response I once sent you - after you had whined to me about being kicked off this forum - you would have seen one of those identities. It was an unofficial one. You know, like ArthurStone. Your moniker is far more telling. Like a box of stones ....

Stoned One,

Still no facts? Where's the proof a law was broken? You've been on here stating that for months. Show some evidence.....What's that? You can't? Oh...now I understand why you can only use rhetoric. I'll put the same challenge to you as to benjy - how much paperwork is associated in getting a FISA warrant? How much probable cause must be shown? How do we get that probable cause so that judges can issue a warrant? How much time does it take to properly file a FISA warrant and get it approved? Answers? I suspect that none will be forthcoming from you and your troll-friends. But- hey - that is what we expect.

Specter-

The answer to your question is that the requirements for obtaining an FISA warrent aren't so onerous they need to be avoided.

RS-

Again.

No one is against spying on terrorists. But if the president's program is only about monitoring the communications of terrorists, it could be conducted legally, under the oversight of a secret court. The fact that Bush refuses to submit the program to court review suggests it goes beyond what's legal.

Far from allowing bad guys to get away, revealing details of the NSA intelligence gathering operations are likely to be a huge political embarassment to the administration and congress.

Given the endless screwups and over reactions the administration has made in the 'war on terror' it's our obligation to ask a question or two.

Now if you want to sit quietly and not make a peep about any of this that's your business. Others have had more than enough of the administration saying 'trust us'.

And what about all those shipping containers flowing through our ports 24/7?

Still unsecured aren't they?

AS:

Have you ever actually seen or transported all those required documents to the FISA Court? Do you even know anyone who has? Do you know someone who knows someone? I didn't think so ....

You're urinating into a head wind, Sir.

As for letting the bad guys get away, we are all thankfull that you will never be in charge of protecting national security. We value America much more than that.

So far as protecting our national security RS, I probably wouldn't do worse than this bunch.

I would deal the shipping containers I assure you.

Here's a suggestion:

'Someday, every container might be equipped with a high-tech sensor that can tell officers whether it's been opened since it left the company that stuffed it full of clothing, food or electronics. Every container could be run through a gamma ray machine before it leaves Rotterdam or Singapore.'

And this doesn't make me sleep easier:

FBI watch on peace group revealed

Agency documents on Pittsburgh activities prompt information request from three WNY organizations

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
3/15/2006
WASHINGTON - An FBI counterterrorism unit monitored - and apparently infiltrated - a peace group in Pittsburgh that opposed invading Iraq, according to agency documents released Tuesday.

The disclosure raised new questions about the extent to which federal authorities have been conducting surveillance operations against Americans since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Previous revelations include FBI monitoring of environmental and animal rights organizations, scrutiny of anti-war organizations by a top-secret Pentagon program and eavesdropping by the National Security Agency on domestic communications without court authorization.

What a surprise.

Specter,
You may be in over your head. Your "facts" are that administration officials claim the program is constitutional. Saying so don't make it fact.

The supreme court has held that a warrant is needed to wiretap a phone call, that is a fact. Therefore, the burden is on the administration to provide evidence justifying a warrantless wiretap. That has not happened. The burden is theirs, and they have not provided facts to meet it. Thus, wiretapping laws appear to have been broken.

What is the relevance of the FISA paperwork? Completing the paperwork is part of following the law. If the president says he can wiretap without following the procedure, because a warrant would take too long to acquire then what is the point of having laws. However, warrants are issued quickly all the time by regular state and federal courts.

Probable cause is the burden of proof, you either have it or you don't. If you cannot obtain a warrant from a court, then you don't have probable cause. The fact that you ask how much probable cause is needed demonstrates that you do not know the law. However, the FISA court will issue a warrant for reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause.

FISA process is the following:

(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.
(b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets
Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the application need not contain the information required by paragraphs (6), (7)(E), (8), and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance techniques and communications or other information concerning United States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the proposed minimization procedures.
(c) Additional affidavits or certifications
The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.

That is not particularly onerous. If one thinks it is, then one does not understand criminal procedure.

Furthermore, the NSA can eavesdrop up to 72 hours before going to FISA for a warrant. So if they did not have probable cause before the warrant, then that evidence can be obtained and used to procure a warrant. That did not happen.

CY,
Do not repackage my words. Foriegn surveillance and bag checking by customs is not the same as wiretapping your phone conversations. You relinquish 4th amendment rights when you travel internationally and through public commercial transportation. The case law is clear. Domestic Wiretapping is different. The communications are with one person inside the US borders, therefore the 4th amendment does apply.

Furthermore, I have not said anything about the president. All I am saying is court review is the constitutional safeguard that is required. That is far more important than political players knowing.

Stoned One,

Interesting that you did not post the whole article. Why not? Just to fuel the new conspiracy? Do you know why the FBI was investigating the group? The article does not say why - in fact all of the information about the investigation itself was redacted. Now the group itself claims that it was simply because of:

"The documents say they were conducting some kind of investigation," Jim Kleissler, the Thomas Merton Center director, said in a telephone interview. "That implies we were under surveillance simply because we were against the war. Our freedoms are being undermined."

But what were the things the paper did tell us:

William J. Crowley, a spokesman for the FBI's Pittsburgh office, said that the monitoring of the center was legal and related to an ongoing investigation. He didn't provide any details of the probe. He said that when the FBI found no link between its investigation and the center, it ended the surveillance.

The ACLU contended that the documents are the first to "show conclusively" that an anti-war group was targeted for "its anti-war views."

"These documents show that Americans are not safe from secret government surveillance, even when they are handing out fliers in the town square, an activity clearly protected by the Constitution," said Marty Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney.

So let's see. The innuendo is that since these folks were handing out leaflets they were targeted. No proof of that of course. Just innuendo. The FBI did not say that, and from the documents obtained obviously the ACLU didn't either - speculated yes - but actual statement of fact - no. But there's more:

An FBI agent photographed center members handing out leaflets, said the report, which added that "one female leaflet distributor, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, inquired" if the picture-taker worked for the FBI.

Wow - someone got their picture taken. That is so revealing. It is obviously a gross violation of civil rights...imagine that.

A Feb. 26, 2003, FBI report titled "International Terrorism Matters" detailed a schedule that the center posted on its Web site of anti-war rallies in Pittsburgh, New York and elsewhere.

Oh man - clear evidence of spying. The FBI determined they were holding rallies from STUFF POSTED ON THEIR OWN PUBLICLY ACCESSED WEB SITE. Wow. Big stuff here. Probably another Scandal du Jour.

Now - could, just could, the investigation have been due to other reasons? None of US know - and neither did the reporter. What if the group they were trying to hold meetings with - to promote muslim tolerance - was somehow, in some obscure way, tied to OBL? Just speculation on my part. But it is as reasonable as the info from Knight Ridder.

Specter-

'Trust us'.

Right?

ben,

good. You actually found the "requirements". Now go bact to google and find the numerous statements from officials saying that getting a warrant approved in 72 hours is impossible. Try it. You won't like it.

BTW - you are still trying to argue that FISA is the overriding law here. Tell me this os constitutional scholar - what trumps? A law that may impinge on the President's constitutional powers or the constitution?

Well Stoned One,

The press also reported that there is a full blown civil war in Iraq, which subsequently was proved untrue. They also reported that Bush was warned about levees "breaching" in NO before the fact - a story that they had to print retractions for because it was untrue. You want me to give 40 or 50 more examples? Why should I trust them?

ben,

Let me give you a starting point since it is obvious you are in way over your head. The Attorney General of the US said:

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

Do you understand. Before the AG can even allow the NSA to begin a 72 hour "emergency authorization", the paperwork has to be signed off. Now picture this - terrorist A is captured and he has a cell phone in his possession. That cell phone has quite a few numbers of contacts around the world in it's speed dial. Terrorist B knows that A has been compromised. He begins calling the same numbers to tell them to get new phones. To operate under FISA (assuming you ignore certain provisions within FISA itself - which I will be glad to get to later), before we can even begin tracking calls to the numbers on A's speed dial, we need several days to even get the "emergency authorization" into place. By then all the contacts have gone down to Wal-Mart and purchased new pre-paid cell phones.

Now - on the other hand - if the cell numbers from A's phone are put into the system for surveillance immediately we get information. Why are you against protecting Americans?

ben,

better yet - make it a computer that has Terrorist B's and Terrorist C's numbers in it....

What part about secret doesn't the left understand? How can people be so dense? What part of they cannot go public with the way they are surveiling the enemy don't they understand. How are you going to catch these people and there organizers and supporters by telling them how they do it. For over 229+ years we have lived in a free society, are they so insecure that the end of our freedom hinges on the fact that our government is trying to protect us. The framers intended for the govt to protect the people. They had no idea that we would face HIGHJACKERS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS. It boils down to this, if you are not doing anything illegal why are you worried about it? I personally feel safer because of the surveilance measures GW is taking. Do you think they are listening in on my conversations with my wife or children they are specifically targeting certain groups that are known or suspected to have ties to terror. Get a Life!!!

ben,

Tell me how you would define a person who lives in the US and is in contact with a known terrorist overseas. Explain your definition.

Specter-

I was refering to the White House.

Faithful Patriot-

"If you're not doing anything illegal why are you worried about it?"

What a trusting soul you are.

The President is operating outside the law and frankly I'm a little worried about that.

You should be too.

Stoned One,

There you go again:

The President is operating outside the law...

Where is your proof? Any? Any at all? Care to post your source? I know...it's only conspiracy theory and speculation on your part.

AS:

The President is operating outside the law...

The Stoned One is obviously operating outside his sphere of expertise by making such a ludicrous statement without supporting evidence. It reminds me a bit of the idiotic accusations made by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's.

Don't tell us, Thurston. We already know that, and it is immaterial.

Wiretaps require warrants.

If current law is too restrictive, change the law.

Shouldn't be difficult with a republican congress.

Stoned One,

Prove it. Show how the President it bound by FISA. That is not even his claim - although he could make an argument that way. Don't just say it - PROVE IT. Give us the law and case law that has been used to show this. You can't. There have been 4 appellate level decisions about warrantless surveillance and one FISA case. All ruled in favor of the President's inherent Constitutional power. Can you name one that doesn't? If you can't stop saying it. You've obviously been programmed to say this. Maybe you should visit one of the deprogrammers that help people who are part of cults.....

They are not wiretaps, Stoned One. They are intercepts of foreign international communications that are intercepted in much the same way - in principle - as listening to a &^$% radio. Wiretaps are performed on physical devices inside the United States. They require warrants, and the wiretaps are most often perfomed by the FBI. They are NEVER performed by the NSA.

You just can't seem to get it through that thick skull of yours that warrantless surveillance of foreign international communications is permitted in accordance with FISA Section 1802, and Americans or foreign persons living inside the U.S. who are involved in that communication are defined in Section 1801.

These warrantless communications can be authorized by the United States Attorney General - and they have been.

This does not even address the inherent powers of the President under the United States Constitution.

And what evidence do you have that the NSA has spied on U.S. Citizens? The New York Times? Now there is a credible outfit! California Democrat Jane Harmon, who was briefed into the NSA program, tells us that the Times got the story completely wrong.

I know, I know .... You will continue to believe all those fools out there who also cannot support their claims.

How pathetic is that?

what happened to ben and Stoned? Ahhhh....I know..."cut and run..."

No, Specter, I am more apt to believe they are googling up a storm somewhere, pitting hope against hope that they may find some points to lay out on the table - without substantiation or proof, of course.

bernardminetfreemp3 http://7.mp3libre.org/cleusb512momp3fm/ lecteurmp3h10 cleusb256mp3fm http://6.mp3libre.org/humormp3/ reproductormp3cnmemory lecteurmp3riocarbon5go http://8.libremp3.org/spmp3363/ mp3dulceveneno musiqueserietvdeadwoodmp3 http://7.mp3libre.org/oggvorbislecteurmp3multimedia/ clipmp3nancyajram aigodvylecteurmp3 http://9.chansonmp3.org/teamtronicmp3/ thomsonlecteurmp3fmsd nspiredriverreproductormp3256gratis http://15.mp3chanson.org/autoradiomp3usblecteurcartesd/ mladitalentifreemp3 combertirmp3 http://2.chansonmp3.org/mp3streamloadmusik/ roiliongeneriquemp3 microchainestereomp3 http://16.mp3libre.org/unserfahneflattertunsvoranmp3download/ galaxyexpress999mp3 5064a72d6d1acabba6a21f655481a5b5